Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
We kick the ass of the ruling class

Sign Language

Posted 2 years ago on Oct. 9, 2011, 10:38 p.m. EST by OccupyWallSt

713 Comments

713 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by markarecio (26) 2 years ago

We must grow in size peacefully like small controlled fires and later force our movement of anger and frustration like wild fires. The enforcers are afraid to lose that power of control they once had for so long and relished. These cowards who have the weapons and resources for so long. There is going to be a point in the large movement where power of the people will take them down and not be afraid to expressed their democracy voice.

[-] 2 points by aaronparr (612) 2 years ago

I am with you but with a caveat. Be careful with the word "enforcer". I don't think our beef is with the police (who are also part of the 99%) but with those that control them. Get the police on our side. The rank and file at least. Look at how well that worked in Wisconsin.

[-] 1 points by TheDude (18) 2 years ago

NOW HEAR THIS: Corporate Tall by VOLTFACE - a song about Wall Street. Wonderfully appropriate! Its the Anthem we needed!

Listen for FREE on BANDCAMP:

http://voltface.bandcamp.com/track/corporate-tall

Available on iTunes as well...

[-] 1 points by FreeMarkets (272) 2 years ago

You could force your movement of anger and frustration on an unsuspecting citizenry, who will eventually fight back against your tyrannical oppression.

Or you could do something productive, like starting a company to change the world.

Your choice

[-] 1 points by NinetyNine (24) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Remove any Politician that gives Trillions of dollars to Perpetuate Needless Foreign Wars, Banks, Wall Street, and “Money Laundering” Fake green energy companies. If the energy company is real and has potential, then good, give them money. Don't give money to a company just because the company gives big money to the Politician. The Politician will then blame the company that received the money, sound familiar? The largest criminal is the Politician. Remove the Politicians that vote for, or do nothing to stop this behavior. It is that easy. If they are corrupt, Republican or Democrat, vote them out. Not all Politicans are bad, but enough are. We need to remove the Politicians and not let them play us against each other, so it keeps our attention off their power grabs, using our money. They are trying to distract us off of who is giving our money away, “the Politicians.” Let’s focus on Protesting Washington.

[-] 1 points by NinetyNine (24) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Remove any Politician that gives Trillions of dollars to Perpetuate Needless Foreign Wars, Banks, Wall Street, and “Money Laundering” Fake green energy companies. If the energy company is real and has potential, then good, give them money. Don't give money to a company just because the company gives big money to the Politician. The Politician will then blame the company that received the money, sound familiar? The largest criminal is the Politician. Remove the Politicians that vote for, or do nothing to stop this behavior. It is that easy. If they are corrupt, Republican or Democrat, vote them out. Not all Politicans are bad, but enough are. We need to remove the Politicians and not let them play us against each other, so it keeps our attention off their power grabs, using our money. They are trying to distract us off of who is giving our money away, “the Politicians.” Let’s focus on Protesting Washington.

[-] 1 points by NinetyNine (24) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Remove any Politician that gives Trillions of dollars to Perpetuate Needless Foreign Wars, Banks, Wall Street, and “Money Laundering” Fake green energy companies. If the energy company is real and has potential, then good, give them money. Don't give money to a company just because the company gives big money to the Politician. The Politician will then blame the company that received the money, sound familiar? The largest criminal is the Politician. Remove the Politicians that vote for, or do nothing to stop this behavior. It is that easy. If they are corrupt, vote them out. We need to remove the Politicians and not let them play us against each other, so it keeps our attention off their power grabs, using our money. They are trying to distract us off of who is giving our money away, “the Politicians.” Let’s focus on Protesting Washington.

[-] 1 points by mserfas (652) from Ashland, PA 2 years ago

Occupy Wall Street has been tremendously successful as a nonviolent protest. Even so, talk to some people, and you'll soon find a deep pool of resentment to people who compare you to rioters in London or Wisconsin. Who will say you're just trying to get "something for nothing" and that you don't care about anything but yourselves. Which of course is absolutely wrong, but illustrates just how damaging any kind of violent actions would be to your cause.

Remember Gaddafi. The United States dropped bombs at him, the United Nations sanctioned him, the whole world blustered and what happened? Nothing. Then on September 30, 2005, a newspaper in Denmark decided to run a front page with twelve Muhammad cartoons. The Libyans turned out in the street to protest them, but sentiments quickly turned toward more immediate problems, and on the fifth anniversary of that protest - February 17, 2011 - Gaddafi's luck finally started running out. Be the one who draws the cartoon, not the one who drops the bomb.

[-] 1 points by wiseoldman61 (9) 2 years ago

Common Sense Solutions to our demands (posted on CNN)

Please share with everyone. http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-686666

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 2 years ago

I suggest we focus on areas where the movement has thrived the most. http://bit.ly/oefcWT Scroll down to regional interest.

[-] 1 points by Izzy66 (5) 2 years ago

Just Set up Voter Registration Booths. Do NOT promote any one candidate or party - Absolutely not. But DO promote a Democratic VOICE! The National spotlight on this will do enormous good. Please consider it!!!

[-] 1 points by Izzy66 (5) 2 years ago

the 'cowards' will see you have no real power, except the ability to sleep on the ground for long periods of time. Until you reach directly into their power, they will dismiss and laugh, and the protesters will have to hang in there for a very, very, very long time. IF you truly want to catapult this movement forward, realize that what Egypt/Libya/Syria were ALSO protesting the right to vote - have a VOTE/VOICE - in their government. This resistance to get 'political' dismisses the one avenue that made us "We THE PEOPLE". Trying to demonize all forms of power in this country will just get you guys in the Guiness Book of World Records for the longest decade of protests. Your rejection of the democratic process, despite how flawed it is, is missing a fantastic opportunity to bolster the message: We Have A VOICE too! Not just the Koch brothers buying the next President.

[-] 1 points by Izzy66 (5) 2 years ago

THAT power will remain long after the Winter Snows drive most of the protestors home.

Which is exactly what the monied elite is waiting for, betting on, actually.

[-] 1 points by NinetyNine (24) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Why dont we protest the people that gave the bankers our money. Lets go to the Whitehouse. Lets go to show Nancy Peloci that we dont appreciate her, or the Congress she was in charge of, for giving our money away to the 1% Corporate elites. Lets stop the billions of dollars from going to campaign donor's fake energy businesses.

[-] 1 points by Dborset (9) from Manchester, NJ 2 years ago

Governor Romney Called the movement "class warfare" he is so right. It is about time we started fighting back. In the immortal words of John Paul Jones, "we have just begun to fight".

[-] 1 points by aaronparr (612) 2 years ago

I wouldn't bother trying to spin Romney's mischaracterization of the movement.

Besides how is it class warfare when its between the 99% and the 1%. This doesn't feel the same at all.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

The revolution starts now, people. Keep up the good work. This is the beginning of something huge!

Solidarity & Greetings from Norway http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/

[-] 1 points by Cindy (197) 2 years ago

Peace.

[-] 0 points by Socialist (2) 2 years ago

Amen! We need a socialist dictatorship run by Obama!

[-] 1 points by tvorish (3) 2 years ago

Is this the hope and change that Obama promised?

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Keep arguing like that! That kind of garbage just helps the occupy movement.

[-] 0 points by Misguided99 (6) 2 years ago

Ok....so we have the socialists from Norway starting to weigh in. Are you all pushing for a socialist society now? Now there is a path to no where.

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Well, the word "socialism" seems to have many meanings these days. Originally it ment that workers should be in control of production http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4Tq4VE8eHQ

Norway is a social democracy, and is pretty far from what im advocating (libertarian socialism: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism> ) but Ill tell you something, misguided, Norway has decent pay for workers, 4-5 weeks payed vacation, a good pension, not for profit health insurance for all, free college, free university. Thats a start.This is also not utopia, this is is something the american people can get as well if they organize and end this madness we see today. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0A6IjrhcvE

Keep up the good work OWS yours http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/

[-] 3 points by kmoe (4) 2 years ago

Here here!

[-] 0 points by Misguided99 (6) 2 years ago

There is no such thing as free. That is why Norweigens pay close to a 60% rate of income tax. That would include YOU. Everybody pays. Would you like that?

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

"There is no such thing as free" Oh, absolutely. Our modern society is partially a result of generations of peoples work building infrastructure, inventing techology etc. We now enjoy all of this.

But of course, services cost money, but when I say "free", I mean of course free of charge when you need the service.

"That is why Norweigens pay close to a 60% rate of income tax." First of all, it`s much lower than that (about 30% for an avarage income, but remember most Norwegians have decent pay so they can afford it). In Norway we have progressive taxation (unfortunately not enough though) which means that the more you make, the more you pay in taxes. The function of taxes should be to pay for things in society that we democratically decided in common and to redistribute wealth and make it more egalitarian. Capitalist systems leads to a concentration of wealth, and taxation is a good way of limiting this.

[-] 3 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

I wish we could have a system like that of Norway.... but, oh, it's "way too socialistic"!!

I just "love it" when Americans act like they know how it is in other countries, yet they never leave the USA, and then they spout untrue opinions.

30% isn't a lot more than what a lot of us pay now in the USA, and we don't get nearly the same benefits that people in other countries get for that tax money.

[-] 0 points by FreeMarkets (272) 2 years ago

How about if Norway and the rest of Europe pay for their own defense, rather than leeching off of the US? If we stopped defending them we would have money to throw around on socialist fantasies as well.

[-] 0 points by tvorish (3) 2 years ago

I'm sure the Russians won't mind eating Norway's free lunch when America is gone. It wouldn't be the first time.

[-] 0 points by Anonymous1776 (63) 2 years ago

You can. Move there. In America, we value our freedoms, economic and otherwise. And, one needn't leave the US to identify an unfair system.

Further, if you admit 30% taxes doesn't produce the results you desire, why do you think increasing that amount will make any difference? What made this country great wasn't government or socialism, it was freedom and our free markets.

If we rely on the collective wisdom of free people to grow and sustain our country, rather than the tyranny and inefficiency of government, many of our economic problems will disappear. We are unique and uniquely successful because of our freedom, not government and wealth redistribution.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

It's so ironic. People from countries like Sweden and Norway and Finland, etc. say they really like their system and that it works just fine.... yet people like you refute it. Have you ever lived in any of those or any other countries? Are the people of Sweden, Norway, Denmark, etc. not free?

We all can see what happens when regulations that are needed disappear..... a huge financial meltdown.... because of the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. Yet, you people just don't get it. That's what happens when you strip regulations away from places that need them.... because of how the greedy take advantage and run amok.

You'll NEVER EVER convince me that free market capitalism will ever work. People in favor of that are the people who want to screw everyone else over just to make a buck. That's exactly what they are saying when they advocate for it.

I'll believe people who actually live in other countries where a mix of socialism and capitalism work over people like you any day.

[-] 1 points by Anonymous1776 (63) 2 years ago

The financial meltdown was due to the government distortion of our housing market that started in the 90s, not the repeal of Glass-Steagall. The repeal of Glass-Steagall can be credited with aiding banks to offset more of the risky debt than would have otherwise been possible, lessening the crisis.

Government influencing outcomes and markets always ends in disaster. Centrally planned economies have a strong history of failure, yet those in government ignore this history to our peril. Political opportunist blame always blame the free market for the failure of government.

So, you argue it was primarily government that's been responsible for the success of America? You would have to ignore our history of success based primarily on our free market to conclude free markets don't work. People advocating for less of people's money going to the people that earn it more favor the tyranny of government than free people and their free markets.

As America can attest, a mix of socialism and capitalism can work, but not as efficiently and not as well as a primarily free market.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

"So, you argue it was primarily government that's been responsible for the success of America." I NEVER said that.

"As America can attest, a mix of socialism and capitalism can work, but not as efficiently and not as well as a primarily free market." That's complete bullshit. A free market only works for those who want to manipulate others.

[-] 1 points by Anonymous1776 (63) 2 years ago

It was a question. I forgot the question mark, but have since added it. Can you answer the question? Or are you just going to continue with your baseless assumptions.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

The same thing happened in Iceland.... because of greed and criminal activities. The difference between the USA and Iceland is that those who are guilty in Iceland are being prosecuted or sued.

http://www.sonyclassics.com/insidejob/_pdf/insidejob_presskit.pdf

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

It's not a baseless assumption. There's plenty of evidence. Watch "Inside Job".

[-] 1 points by CaptainBacardi (106) 2 years ago

Yes. That's why, in our most prosperous periods, the upper strata of income earners in this country actually paid between 70% - 90% on every dollar over a certain amount while, in times where we've stuck close to free markets and have had no income taxes, economic disparities flourished and recessions/depressions tended to be the norm. The ignorance of those who believe that pure capitalism is what established our wealth never ceases to amaze me.

We are uniquely successful because World Wars I & II destroyed the economies of the great European empires and left us in a unique position position to flourish. We weren't particularly noteworthy prior to those wars. In the wake of World War II, part of what led to our great success was the degree to which we built up the middle class through the very same sorts of government policies you decry.

Capitalism has its uses but it is best when regulated by the hand of government to serve the interests of the people. The trick is to find the right balances as you can never establish anything that will be perfect. The success of mixed economies throughout the world bears testament to my point.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

Yep!

[-] 1 points by Anonymous1776 (63) 2 years ago

Yes, government tends to take advantage of the people when they are most prosperous. That doesn't mean the source of prosperity is government. That would be silly to argue.

It's a strawman argument to suggest those favoring limited government intervention in our free market favor pure capitalism. The government need only be involved in the free market to the degree that it keeps the market safe and free. We begin to have our problems when government distorts the market by influencing outcomes and redistributing wealth, like we have now. And, ignorant liberals demand more.

American freedom and innovation is responsible for our success, not war and government. Our forefathers had already found the 'balance' when they outlined a country consisting of limited government. And, to the degree we've followed their vision, we've seen success. Few can say the government of today is limited in any way or that it's allowing us to prosper. That's because nothing out performs the collective wisdom of free people and their free market.

[-] 1 points by CaptainBacardi (106) 2 years ago

First things first. I'm a socialist, not a liberal. The two are not synonymous. Mind you, I'm not a "let's take the system DOWN!" socialist or some college aged kid who hasn't experienced the world or a college professor living in some ivory tower of scholastica. I used to be a dyed-in-the-wool conservative and understand the ins-and-outs of conservative/libertarian economic views.

Instead, I'm someone who has come to understand that simplistic solutions based in ideological solutions don't work. When you do that, people get screwed hard. You have to set goals and you implement policies to achieve them -- oftentimes that involves the free market, other times it requires government programs. Government programs are not de facto "bad" in and of themselves -- what matters is the actual effect they have in terms of the greater good.

I take particular disagreement with your notion that free people and free markets go hand in hand. You are not going to convince me by arguing from this premise when I've come to reject it as a universal. There are times when they go well together and there are times when the free market works to the detriment of a free people. A good example is in the wage system -- while in theory, wages should be set where supply and demand meet, this is almost never the case because employers will ALWAYS be in a superior bargaining position due to disparities of knowledge and conditions. A worker HAS to work and an employer doesn't HAVE to hire anyone. This leads to exploitative relationships that allow employers to make higher profits at the expense of workers. I don't feel bad for a second advocating that workers take back part of that which they have earned through government taxation and various programs. It's not theft; the original theft was committed when employers negotiated terms of employment in the first place.

I don't want to see free markets abolished. They work well in many areas, especially where innovation is required. And yes, I believe we absolutely must take care when we regulate things -- too much regulation can be damaging or downright destructive. I'll even go so far as to say that the free market needs its advocates, as the best results come about when opposing ideologies are able to interact.

Where I disagree, however, is this notion that we ought to treat the free market as something sacred. Our prosperity has arisen as a result of our mixed economy, not due to the free market alone.

[-] 1 points by tvorish (3) 2 years ago

Hitler was a socialist too.

[-] 1 points by Anonymous1776 (63) 2 years ago

Being socialist is being liberal by modern definitions, as socialists advocate for more government and more government control. I don't care if you admit it or not.

Nearly all government programs are 'de facto bad' due to the ability of the private sector to perform the same function more efficiently. Government mostly just redistributes wealth, producing nothing but waste in the process.

Free people and their free markets do go hand in hand. For example, the amount of income one can keep after government taxation is directly related to the amount of freedom one has. All need to make money and all need to work to make money -- employer and employee alike. Since employers own their business, they should be free to pay their employees what they wish. If it's less than competitors, they will have a hard time keeping employees. The real exploitation involves people advocating the theft of wealth not earned through the force of government. And, it isn't theft for the employer and employee to negotiate and agree on pay. No one is forcing anyone to work for anyone else, like with socialism.

While we need government regulations to keep the market safe and free, our prosperity is primarily a result of the free market not government burden on the free market. It makes no sense to suggest otherwise.

[-] 1 points by CaptainBacardi (106) 2 years ago

You are arguing by assertion at this point and I've more than addressed your counterarguments to my points. Take care.

[-] -1 points by whatwas1776about (-1) 2 years ago

What about the 50% that pay no taxes whatsoever in the U.S? They might think 30% is a tad too high. Dont forget increases in sales tax, property tax, local taxes, taxes on interest income, dividend income, death taxes, VAT taxes and so forth. Better yet, all artists in the US should move to Ireland where "artists" are a privileged class and pay nothing in income taxes [see after the Norwegian VAT tax quote following]. Here is the part of the info on Norwegian VAT tax: The standard rate of VAT is 25 per cent [this is in addition to income taxes!]. The rate of VAT on the supply of foodstuff is 14 per cent and the rate of public transport is 8 per cent. From 1 September 2006 VAT shall be calculated at 8 % on the letting of rooms in hotels, motels and tourist cabins etc., and the hiring out of camping areas, cabins, holiday flats and other recreational accommodation. The same applies to the procurement of such services. [This is just a selection of a paragraph; the US has 85,000 pages of tax law...only; dont know about Norway]. One final tidbit for all the women who think Norway is a paragon of...what? freedom? You'll love this one: Shari’a law integrated into Norway’s National Judicial System. It's happening...the EuroArab caliphate around the corner...

Apparently, Norway hasn’t had enough Anders Breivik-type terrorist attacks?

Islam vs Europe The initiative of the head of the Association of Norwegian Tribunals Tur Landback has provoked controversy in the kingdom of Norway, provoking a polemic throughout Europe. Landback proposes integrating sharia tribunals into the national judicial system. Jurists from local Islamic communities reacted quickly by supporting the initiative. However, Norwegians are rather perplexed regarding the introduction of these Islamic rules into their judicial system. The director of the Centre for Political Economy Serguei Mikheev is very critical of the initiative. “We are living through Europe’s cultural suicide. In this context, why not adopt sharia? At the same time, it creates the conditions for new Breiviks”, he declares].

Source: http://www.bedin.no/php/d_emneside_eng/cf/hApp_102/hPKey_2329/hParent_18/hDKey_2

Here's info on Ireland: Income earned by writers, composers, visual artists and sculptors from the sale of their works is exempt from tax in Ireland in certain circumstances.

Section 195 of the Taxes Consolidation Act, 1997 allows the Revenue Commissioners to determine that certain artistic works are original and creative works generally recognised as having cultural or artistic merit. Earnings derived from these works are exempt from income tax from the year in which the claim is made.

Guidelines have been drawn up by for determining whether a work is an original and creative work and whether it has or is generally recognised as having cultural or artistic merit. The Revenue Commissioners may, having regard to the Guidelines, consult with a person or body of persons who may help them in reaching decisions in relation to Artists Exemption.

The Revenue Commissioners can make determinations in respect of artistic works in the following categories:

Books or other forms of writing Plays Musical compositions Paintings or other similar pictures Sculptures.

If you have read this far the point of work in a free country is if you are one of those talented folks who build a better tool; or create a battery for cellphones, ipads, laptops, etc; or create the iPad; or create Windows software; or create anything that the consumer wants to buy, you are not only creating jobs but people are voting with their dollars for your success. You should get rich. However, the call for redistribution from the successful and, in effect, the elimination of success, has been tried before and currently. You should move to these countries instead of destroying that which has given you privilege just by virtue of being born here: Cuba, North Korea, Hugo Chavez's Venezuela, Bolivia, Mexico, the Former Soviet Union, the military govt of Thailand, Vietnam, China, Saudi Arabia or any Muslim country [women of the west be careful what you wish for..] and on and on. Of course, if this is your idea of a great environment to live under, and dont mind surrendering your freedom to unchanging politicians who will be your unchanging dictators, who will take a cut of every dollar redistributed, and pay jack-booted thugs and secret police to keep you in line, then keep going in your ignorant direction. But please, don't forget you Kevlar shirts. Cuz you are gonna need them from those who wish to be left alone and happen to disagree with you and love this country. You are not entitled to anything you dont work for. Anything else you do is theft; using the govt to do your theft is evil. You are really wanting to be in control, arent you? Jealous, envious? That's what's at the heart of OWS. Listen to your brothers and sisters. What's missing in your close fisted avatar is a hammer and sickle. Dont you see that?

[-] 1 points by ARealNewYorker (227) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

This is a patently moronic comment. First of all, no one in the US pays "no taxes whatsoever." That number refers to the percentage of people who are able to deduct enough money from their income taxes that they end up not paying. But there is also property tax, sales tax, ... And, besides that, the number "50%" is misleading itself, since it doesn't say which taxpayers end up having enough deductions that they don't end up paying out - a firm with a good legal team can effectively deduct enough in the way of business expenses that they don't have to pay any serious percentage of their profits. The point is, if you're going to make up lies in a lame attempt to discredit OWS's message, at least make them plausible.

As for one of your other comments (which is the product either of a misunderstanding or of some psychosis) - we're seriously blaming Muslims for Anders Breivik? The only way you could do that is if you took Breivik at his own word, since the people whom he killed were ethnic Norwegians. I'm not saying anything about any policy to allow Sharia into Norwegian law since it's not my business, but even if I were against a nation acknowledging certain cultural laws in its legal procedures (which we do with Christians and Jews but, because of people like you, not with Muslims) I still wouldn't say that Breivik was justified. And if you're saying that a group of people should give up their own political and cultural traditions (in the Norwegian case, of democratic tolerance) for fear of being murdered by psychos, well - (sorry for the sexist comment, but it's the only one I can think of) GROW A PAIR. The great thing about OWS is that it's made up of people brave enough to continue living lives they think are moral, even in the face of danger.

I'd keep going and citing statistics on how infrequently someone gets rich by inventing a wonderful new product that everyone loves, vs. how often they do it by having grown up with all of the opportunity in the world to make money on the market. But why bother? Everyone knows how disingenuous your comment is.

[-] 1 points by Anonymous1776 (63) 2 years ago

What's even more 'moronic' is a bunch of people demanding the rich pay their fair share when the top 50% wage earners pay 95% of the taxes. When will the bottom 50% pay their fair share.That's why we need a flat tax, where the burden of government is equally shouldered by all. People ignore the fact that we have a progressive tax now, anyway. Only when we all have the same to lose will government be limited to its proper size.

[-] 2 points by CaptainBacardi (106) 2 years ago

This is starting to get absurd. Look, everyone already pays the same rates in taxes. Too many people seem not to understand how a progressive tax system works.

EVERYONE pays 10% on the first $8,500 they earn. On every dollar between $8,500 and $34,500, EVERYONE pays 15%. Every dollar between $34,500 and $83,600 is taxed at 25% for EVERYONE. You only pay higher tax rates on dollars you make over a certain amount -- it doesn't apply to your whole income. This is very fair. If we create a new tax bracket that, say, charges 50% at the $1 million a year mark, they would only be paying 50% on every dollar they make OVER $1 million. I can't see how you could possibly think that is less fair than creating one tax bracket where you effectively tax people who make less than $10,000 a year at 30%.

And yes, I would LOVE to see people currently stuck in poverty to be able to pay more taxes. It's stupid, however, to expect them to do that when they are already in poverty -- do you like to kick dogs when they are down too?

What we need to do is find ways to help people who are stuck in those lower brackets move up into higher brackets so that they can afford to pay the higher rates. This is where government programs and the collectivization of certain basic costs like education and health care come into play. Believe it or not, this is NOT about handouts -- there are very real reasons as to why these things are necessary if our economy is to remain sustainable in years to come.

[-] 1 points by ARealNewYorker (227) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Thank you. This is basically how I would have replied. One thing I might have added, though, is that working people with significantly lower incomes have already lost a lot - they've lost real opportunities.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

agreed

[-] 1 points by CaptainBacardi (106) 2 years ago

Very true too. :)

[-] 1 points by Anonymous1776 (63) 2 years ago

People need to help themselves. It is not the duty of the productive in society to provide for the unproductive.

[-] 2 points by CaptainBacardi (106) 2 years ago

I disagree with your initial premises. The unproductive are those that make money by virtue of being able to live off of their investments. The productive are those that work eight to sixteen hour days for sustainance wages day in and day out. I advocate on behalf of the latter and you the former and you have the nerve to accuse me of advocating for the nonproductive against the productive? Ridiculous.

Those that don't want to work can rot, whether they are rich or poor. Most poor people want to work and, when they do, they work their asses off. Get off your ivory tower and try living in reality for a change.

[-] 1 points by Anonymous1776 (63) 2 years ago

Investing in good ideas helps produces good ideas. This is indeed a skill in and of itself that produces. You can disagree, but you are very wrong.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I just LOVE how these people think that those who sit on their asses who have money are MORE privileged and MORE deserving than those WHO WORK THEIR ASSES OFF DOING ACTUAL LABOR!!!!!

Oh, but those who live off of their investments are "smarter", so they "deserve" more.

I wonder who it is who wipes their asses for them every day.

[-] 1 points by Anonymous1776 (63) 2 years ago

They don't just 'have money,' they earned the money through wise, informed investment -- a skill in itself. If you disagree, what's stopping you from 'having money' too.

[-] 1 points by Anonymous1776 (63) 2 years ago

I said same rate, not rates. When we all pay our share of government equally, only one rate is required. Absurd indeed.

[-] 1 points by Quincy (5) from New Braunfels, TX 2 years ago

Here is a link to give you a better idea of what people pay in taxes (total taxes for all our govt services).

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2010.pdf

Not what I would call a very progressive tax rate.

[-] 1 points by Anonymous1776 (63) 2 years ago

Your liberal website simply obscures the fact that the top 50% wage earners pay 95% of income taxes. Since our system is setup to tax more for the more you make, it is progressive by definition. If all men are created equal, all men should be taxed equally as well. That's why progressive tax systems are fundamentally unfair.

[-] 1 points by Quincy (5) from New Braunfels, TX 2 years ago

I think you missed the point and at the same time you are showing your dishonesty. You originally said the top 50% wage earners pay 95% of the "taxes", implying "all" taxes. That is wrong. Changing it in this response to now say "income taxes" is what makes it irrelevant since total taxes is what matters.

Again look at the graph. Why is the top 10% paying almost the same rate as the 30% below them... why are the majority of the people in the lower half paying only slightly less than the top 10%. Why is the top fraction of 1% paying way less than average people? You do realize their is a difference between discretionary income and necessary income for basic necessities. One of the main reasons there is a need for a progressive tax structure.

[-] 1 points by CaptainBacardi (106) 2 years ago

I know what you said, and frankly it makes you sound like you live in some fantasy world so I corrected you.

It's technically ONE rate. The rate just isn't linear as it adjusts when you reach certain thresholds, but those adjustments don't affect what you pay at the lower levels. You could graph it out with a valid mathematical function, with one and only one value "y" for every value "x." A person who makes $50 million a year pays the same taxes on the first $34,500 as a person who only makes $20,000 a year. The poor already pay the same exact rate as the rich. They just don't pay the higher percentages on the higher levels of earning because they don't earn those amounts.

As a side note, people who have been successful in this society have done so because society has set the context for that success. The more successful you are, the more your obligations to the society that made your success possible increase.

I find it difficult to take those that advocate otherwise seriously, much as I defend your right to make such arguments.

[-] 1 points by Anonymous1776 (63) 2 years ago

I'll speak for myself, thanks. Your socialism doesn't correct anything, least of which the size of our government.

One rate is one rate, which is called a flat tax. Progressively higher rates, like we have in the US, describes a progressive tax.

The successful have already given to society through their success in providing a product or service to society. They need not give more, if they choose not to. Nice try, though.

[-] 1 points by ARealNewYorker (227) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Amen to the context argument (by the way - can you believe the bullshit flack that Elizabeth Warren is getting over a comment that only a few decades ago would be so obvious no one would have bothered saying it out loud?). There is so much statistical data out there supporting claims about the power that social capital gives people to succeed financially that I can't believe people ignore it - it just seems so dishonest to do so.

And thanks also for straightening out the situation on taxes - it's pretty amazing that people ignore this (even I have a tendency to do so when I have to argue with someone on the issue). It would do a lot to reframe the basic terms of the debate over "fair shares" if the debaters just understood that, whatever we might feel about it, it's not the person that's taxed - it's the income. I know this sounds spurious, but it's related to one of the basic questions that libertarian arguments always beg: whether the current possession of a certain amount of income is proof that it was "earned." An employer's often infinitely superior bargaining position (for example, WalMart's) over anyone who would apply for a low-wage job should make any claim that there was some equality when contracts were signed immediately suspect. Just because someone could theoretically refuse to take such a job (even in the face of starvation or dispossession) doesn't mean they were in any practical position to do so - and to suggest otherwise while simultaneously claiming that employers have no choice but to pay taxes (they can always refuse) is either dishonest or just plain contradictory. Ultimately, my point is that we tax on income levels because we recognize that the possession of greater wealth has an almost exponential effect on our ability to control our lives, and the lives of others - and libertarians just don't want to get this.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

The issue is that those who are against socialism are the most selfish people out there and who want everything for themselves. They don't give a shit about anyone else, and they don't want anyone but themselves to be happy and successful. Rather, they want everyone else to be miserable and unhappy, so that they feel superior.... when they themselves are the miserable and unhappy ones.

I just don't get how a person would want another person to fail and be oppressed and to live an unhappy life. There truly is something wrong with that mindset.

Just had to rant. I'm sick and tired of hearing the bullshit and the way those people try to justify what I just said.

[-] 1 points by ARealNewYorker (227) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Ranting for a good cause is a fine thing to do. Well done, Miss.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

Thanks!! =)

[-] 1 points by CaptainBacardi (106) 2 years ago

It's interesting. When I was younger I debated with people to try to prove them wrong. I learned over the years that doing so was a mistake. Now I argue mostly to re-frame the debate for anyone paying attention. All of these issues have been framed in such a way that they've become so divorced from reality that, really, putting them back into a proper context is probably the main task we have in front of us.

[-] 1 points by ARealNewYorker (227) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

I think that's true. I'm sure that there are some people out there who honestly believe conservative arguments and have seriously grappled with them. When you read the writings of their intellectual heroes, they are pretty smart, and I've had to rethink a lot of my positions over the years in response to them. But the people who troll on our sites usually aren't those people, and they certainly don't want to be convinced of anything besides what they already believe. In the face of that, we pretty much have no choice but to argue to reframe.

On the subject of that, has anyone had a run-in with James O'Keefe yet?

[-] 1 points by CaptainBacardi (106) 2 years ago

Oh, I used to be very strongly conservative until not too long ago. The good majority of conservatives are honest and decent people who really believe in what they advocate. Sadly, the problem is that they tend to take what they have been raised with as "granted" and tend not to question it. All the right-wing propaganda machine has to do is appeal to those "givens" with emotion-laden language.

As for O'Keefe, I wouldn't put anything past him... part of me doubts that he'd try anything among a group of people that would be likely to recognize him.

[-] 1 points by ARealNewYorker (227) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

There was a report that he had tried something, but it was in violation of his parole in NJ.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

A flat tax is completely unfair.

[-] 1 points by Anonymous1776 (63) 2 years ago

Because a liberal deems it so, so be it. All paying an equal percent of our income is as fair as it gets.

[-] 1 points by stix (1) 2 years ago

Great comment although I missed the point of where and how opportunity for artists creating original works is better in the U.S. For example radio lost its edge or expression with art years ago, due to the telecommnications act of 1996 and corporate conglomerates buying media resources and turning them into ruin for self profit which has failed even them. Its actually failed time again. The payola factor is so prevalent in the entertainment (see arts/entertainment) business at this point its a cultural standard, NO LIE. So why bother with the government which devised laws to avoid this problem, especially when our elected "leaders" promote and do business with what seems like ONLY those who pay their way into media? Could you call being a heiress or having wealthy parents as working? Hardly. Just watch MTV to see whose getting in with all the executives-its children of the wealthy on reality sweet 16 shows or parents from rich suburbs buying their kidz entertainment gigs, fashion lines etc via a Bah-Mitzva or birthday surprise......you want a list of names? Plagiarism, copyright infringement, knock offs, imitators run rampant with/as these newly adorned media starz find interesting people/artists to use in order to impress. The system is corrupted. America is often the land of opporunity for those that make it for themselves, sorry to understand this however often times those that want power and fame or money are not creative types, pick up a psychology book and get a history lesson pertaining to that in specific-its proven most creative types are touched with mental and emotional disorders, money issues,etc. None the less OWS was retitled "Wal-Fest", I do not disgree that its a misguided venture, one reason being is there is nothing wrong with Wall Street, possibly circumstances that occurred within its capacity yes, the protest while I admire its import or social relavence is off the mark and has not a set agenda or resolve. People that have wealth have a different set of rules this is true, and if you ever EVER have the experience to cater to teens-young adults of the rich and at another time teens/young adults of the middle class it is like night and day. The offspring of rich are the rudest, demanding, strung out and agressive lot. Spoiled, undeserving and extremely volatile. That is a general observation but reality which their parents cover up quite well. Money is no object to them and people are expendible, its obvious their family structure is not intact and they recieved less care from parental units and more from hired help.

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 2 years ago

LOL, have you been to any nordic country? The sanity might be simply too much for you, I'll admit... Some amazing facts and figures you've piled up there to justify your irrational fears and insecurities. What a tool.

[-] 0 points by tvorish (3) 2 years ago

LOL!!!!!!!!!! Why do you think no one wants to go to a Nordic Country? It definitely is not for the "sanity". I thank my ancestors every day that they left Europe.

[-] 1 points by Anonymous1776 (63) 2 years ago

We have a progressive tax in the US also. The top 50% wage earners pay 95% of the taxes. When are the bottom 50% going to pay their fair share?

Wealth only need be distributed to those who work for it, where more is payed for jobs that are in demand and require skill. And, government only need do what it must to keep society safe and free. Redistributing wealth is just a nice way of saying 'theft.'

[-] 1 points by Quincy (5) from New Braunfels, TX 2 years ago

More accurate picture of what really is going on.

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2010.pdf

I doubt this looks fair and progressive to most people.

[-] 1 points by Anonymous1776 (63) 2 years ago

Your liberal website simply obscures the fact that the top 50% wage earners pay 95% of income taxes. Since our system is setup to tax more for the more you make, it is progressive by definition. If all men are created equal, all men should be taxed equally as well. That's why progressive tax systems are fundamentally unfair.

[-] 1 points by Quincy (5) from New Braunfels, TX 2 years ago

I think you missed the point and at the same time you are showing your dishonesty. You originally said the top 50% wage earners pay 95% of the "taxes", implying "all" taxes. That is wrong. Changing it in this response to now say "income taxes" is what makes it irrelevant since total taxes is what matters.

Again look at the graph. Why is the top 10% paying almost the same rate as the 30% below them... why are the majority of the people in the lower half paying only slightly less than the top 10%. Why is the top fraction of 1% paying way less than average people? You do realize their is a difference between discretionary income and necessary income for basic necessities. One of the main reasons there is a need for a progressive tax structure.

[-] 1 points by Anonymous1776 (63) 2 years ago

Since all who actually pay taxes pay the same and benefit the same as related to payroll taxes, there's no disparity to highlight. That isn't a reflection of any dishonesty on my part, it's a reflection of the facts.

We are talking about federal taxes and primarily income taxes, as those are the taxes that are unequal that liberals like you demand become even more unequal. Again, your liberally biased source that you cite just obscures the fact that, with other taxes being equal or similarly progressive, the top 50% wage earners still pay 95% of the federal income tax.

It is liberals, like you, who are dishonest when they say the rich aren't paying their fair share. It is the opposite and no amount of liberal obfuscation will erase this unfair fact. Liberals like you rely on this scam to recruit your unwitting followers -- all to the detriment of our economy.

We have a progressive tax system because government spends too much of the people's money. If we were all taxed equally under the current spending, those on the lowest end of the spectrum could never afford their fair and real share of government. That's why a flat tax is necessary to limit government to its proper size and remove the unfair influence of a government that pays off the less productive in exchange for votes with the earnings of the more productive. It's a counterproductive, losing system that we are seeing the poor results of as we speak.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

So what youre saying is that in todays United States of America, where the difference beween the super rich and the working class is bigger than ever, where the CEOs and the finacial elite receive record profits, where more and more americans are strugglin` to get by even though theyre working all day, youre still not satisfied; you want the rich to get even more and the working people to get less?

"Wealth only need be distributed to those who work for it" I don`t agree with that at all (so you want to end medicare/medicaid..?), but that aside, what youre advocating is exactly the opposite of whats happening; the gangsters at Wall Street make fortunes by pushing buttons on a computers and the workers have to work harder and longer for low pay.

"Redistributing wealth is just a nice way of saying 'theft" No. Its a way of taking back some of the wealth that has been prodused by the workers but taken by the rich thru exploitation. Exploitation and buying politicans so they can get more wealth and property - thats the real THEFT!

[-] 1 points by Anonymous1776 (63) 2 years ago

What I am saying is if all men are created equal, we should all pay the same share of government relative to our income -- it's called the flat tax. For those advocating for true equality, this shouldn't be a foreign concept.

Those on Wall Street aren't just pushing buttons on computers. If that were the case, the 99% should have no problem making more money by simply pressing buttons, right? Let us know how that button pushing business works out.

And, unless you think those in the health care industry would or should work for free, all must pay for their health care, just like anything else.

You can't take back wealth you never earned to begin with. If someone feels they should be paid more, they should go to a competing employer or learn a skill that warrants the additional pay. Just wanting to be paid more doesn't justify more pay.

We have laws that criminalize the exploitation you speak of. And, in a free country, like America, we are free to vote in our representatives. If you are unhappy with their performance, vote in new representation. The less influence government has, the less they can be bought. The answer to our government problem isn't more government, it's more freedom.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

"What I am saying is if all men are created equal, we should all pay the same share of government relative to our income -- it's called the flat tax."

Oh, so because were all equal than that means that flat tax is given? What a poor argument. What if I sayed that since were all equal we should get equal pay..? Or since were equal nobody should have the right to exploit others. Thats fair cause were equal! Right..?

"For those advocating for true equality, this shouldn't be a foreign concept."

It`s not a foreign concept for us who want equality. Its a horrible concept, but not foreign.

"Those on Wall Street aren't just pushing buttons on computers. If that were the case, the 99% should have no problem making more money by simply pressing buttons, right? Let us know how that button pushing business works out."

Oh, yeah, nobody sayed anything about the Wall Street Gangsters not being clever and that they`renot skilled at what they do...But knowing which buttons to push does not qualify for receiving millions of dollars, certainly not if a wallmart employee has to work 40 hrs a week for $8 an hour.

"And, unless you think those in the health care industry would or should work for free, all must pay for their health care, just like anything else." To put it this way: As long as the finacial elite has cash coming out of their ears by exploiting, buying politicians and pushing buttons, I dont feel at all guilty for advocating that people who dont work should be able to have a decent life.

"You can't take back wealth you never earned to begin with." So youre against the bailouts then? The finacial elites has stolen from workers by exploiting them and profited on other peoples hard work.

"We have laws that criminalize the exploitation you speak of." The whole system we have is based on exploitation (cf "Capital" in Capitalism)

"And, in a free country, like America, we are free to vote in our representatives."

And youre free to buy them as well. Thats not democracy, that means the rich have more power than the others.

[-] 1 points by Anonymous1776 (63) 2 years ago

Also, your suggestion that Capitalism is inherently exploitative is false. In a free country with free market capitalism, all are free to rise and fall on their own merit, free from the tyranny of government and the other unproductive members of society. That is why it is unfair and wrong to blame the productive for the failure of the unproductive. The only person keeping you down is you, no one else.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

Government is tyranny, but exploiting others isn't? You sure are living in a glass bubble full of smoke.

[-] 1 points by Anonymous1776 (63) 2 years ago

Paying people what they deserve based on their level of skill and demand for that skill in the free market isn't exploitation. Stop making excuses for perfectly able people.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

But, many people DO NOT get paid fairly for their jobs and skills, while many CEOs get astronomical incomes and bonuses (425 times the average worker's salary in the U.S.), while crooks on Wall Street were allowed to steal and haven't been punished for it, etc.

Stop making excuses for justifying why some people should be able to steal from everyone else.

[-] 1 points by Anonymous1776 (63) 2 years ago

Again, people deserve to be paid more for greater skills that are in demand. The average worker can receive the pay of the CEO when they learn the skill of the CEO.

Regarding Wall Street, if you are aware of theft, you should report it to the proper authorities. Otherwise, your accusations are baseless.

And, freely working for a predetermined wage isn't stealing.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

A CEO is entitled to make 425 times more than the average worker.... because their skills are 425 times more valuable???

[-] 1 points by Anonymous1776 (63) 2 years ago

Sure, and maybe even more depending on the complexity of the business. Your criticism, here, amounts to nothing more than envy, which is not a valid argument at all.

[-] 1 points by CaptainBacardi (106) 2 years ago

Economics teaches us that, all other things considered equal (and any economist will tell you that phrase is key when it comes to economic theories), the price of a commodity is that point where supply and demand meet. Labor is a commodity like any other and the price of labor is wages.

In the real world, all things are never "equal." The price of commodities can be overvalued and undervalued, which is where profits are to be made. There is one commodity that is systematically undervalued, and that commodity is labor. There are a multitude of reasons for this, as I've explained elsewhere. I'll list a few of them out for you again since you seem not to be getting the message:

  1. Workers need to work or else they will die, whereas Employers need not hire anyone.
  2. There are inherent disparities of knowledge in regards to the industries in questions. Employers have access to many key financial figures that are not available to workers. This improves their bargaining position.
  3. Unemployment will never reach 0% within a capitalist society and thus employers will always have a pool of multiple candidates to select from. Workers are usually quite limited in their employment choices and have an impetus to take what they can get.
  4. Once in an employment agreement, an employer can shift terms around to require an employee to do more work without a change in pay. Employees do not have the benefit of just being able to "walk away" because to do so is to risk not being able eat.
  5. Employers within an industry have a degree of unity when it comes to bargaining while workers are discouraged from collective bargaining efforts. Company X, Company Y, and Company Z within an industry come to tacit agreements to pay workers a certain amount for a particular job and workers have no recourse to go elsewhere. They can't "withhold" their labor because they will starve, nor is it necessarily realistic for them to seek employment in another field.
  6. Economic downturns and mass downsizing allow employers to keep wages artificially deflated. Workers who have been laboring for a particular company for 20 years with commensurate pay are laid off and replaced with fresh workers paid at much lower entry-level wages.
  7. Workers cannot just "start their own businesses" to compete with their employers. Starting a business takes capital, business sense, and a lot of luck. Established companies have enormous advantages not available to new start ups -- they already have strong market share, economies of scale that allow them to produce more for less, name recognition among potential customers, business reputations, company stability and culture, long term funds and business plans, etc. Companies tend to use these assets to push out new potential competitors. Starting a business in an existing industry is no small feat and most people are not capable of it no matter how hard working or brilliant they might otherwise be.

There are plenty of others. The bargaining process for the negotiation of wages for labor is stacked heavily against workers -- it's usually take what you can get or starve. All of the leverage is on the side of the employers. For any other commodity you would call the price that is invariably negotiated "undervalued." A lack of alternatives for providing for fundamental needs means that workers are systemically coerced into selling their labor for far less that its value would otherwise be given the supply and demand of the situation. Karl Marx pointed out in Das Kapital that this excess value is from whence profits are derived -- decry Marx's writings all you want, I have yet to see this point addressed or validly refuted. That you can claim this is not "exploitative" shows that you haven't researched the issue or given it much thought.

Capitalism is inherently exploitative because if workers were in a position to negotiate with employers on an equal basis they would be able to demand full market value for their labor and profit would be absolutely impossible. Don't just say it's wrong or throw out canards about freedom you read in some libertarian tract or Ayn Rand -- Ayn Rand was an idiot. Address the issue.

Most employers work hard, but the bulk of their profits don't come from their own efforts but rather from the efforts of those whose labors they are not fully compensating, however unwittingly (I've known a lot of good businesspeople so I won't question their intentions). I'm fine with this to some degree so long as we find other ways to compensate those workers -- it is a tradeoff we make for innovation and the creation of new industries. You, on the other hand, insist on calling such compensation theft and bury your head in the sand by claiming no exploitation exists. It's absurd.

[-] 1 points by Anonymous1776 (63) 2 years ago
  1. Employers without employees aren't employers and have no business. Therefore, it's false to state that employers don't need employees.

  2. Employees need only concern themselves with learning a skill that's in demand and the wages various employers are willing to pay for those skills. Just as employees are free to not work for an employer, an employer should be free to manage their business as they see fit.

  3. While unemployment is unlikely to reach 0%, there are always jobs available for those with the skill and ambition to take them.

  4. You assume an employee that fails to save for the bad times and fails to learn a skill that's in demand elsewhere. That's not the fault of the employer, but instead the employee.

  5. Employers within an industry are in competition with each other. They aren't 'in unity.' The less workers are paid relative to the work and skill, the less quality the product or service. Competitors would be quick to gain an edge by investing more in the employees. In the end, if workers are unhappy with their pay, they must transfer to a higher paying competitor or learn a new skill.

  6. If 20 years experience isn't worth the extra pay because a younger worker can do the same job, it isn't worth the extra pay. This isn't 'artificial,' it's reality. Increased pay should be based on merit not seniority. This is the problem with many unions as well.

  7. Starting a business relies on an in-demand product or service. Staying in business and staying competitive requires that product or service to be of high quality and to be brought to market efficiently. While breaking into industries that seem well established may be difficult, it is this sort of innovation that has created whole new industries. Acting as if there are no new ideas or opportunities to improve existing ones, is a lie designed to defeat perfectly capable people.

The leverage is on the side of employers because it should be because it's their business. People don't go into business to create the best job in the world for the average employee, they go into business with the goal of turning a profit. Employees are one of many factors in meeting this goal. Technically, nothing is 'undervalued' in a free market for long, as all are paid based on their skill and the availability of their skill in the market. This is where competitors gain an edge and the market corrects.

In a free country workers are never coerced to do anything and they are always free to compete with their employer through their own business if they can provide the product or service cheaper and/or more efficiently. Not buying into the falsehoods of Marx and his socialism doesn't mean I haven't done my research, it just means I disagree based on the strong history of freer markets performing much better than centrally planned socialist markets.

Your false assumption that employees deserve an equal say in the direction of the employer's business is what's inherently exploitative of free people and free enterprise. If you don't like the way a business is run or you think you can do it better, then do so. Don't try to tell someone else how to run their business -- and especially not through the force of government. Tyrannical and exploitative indeed.

[-] 1 points by CaptainBacardi (106) 2 years ago
  1. Talk about missing the point. My point was that employers need not hire anyone in particular. They will always have a pool of unemployed from which to draw. You ignored the argument that employees must work or eat.

  2. You completely missed what I was talking about. When you are negotiating for the price of a commodity it is essential that you understand its full value if you are to be in a decent bargaining position. Understanding the value of labor requires understanding the industry in question. That you dismiss this point tells me you've never negotiated for anything in your life.

  3. Nonsense. Jobs are finite and, in the real world, who receives them often depends upon a variety of factors beyond skill or ambition. Haven't you ever been in the workforce before?

  4. You can't save when you're making sustenance wages and can barely afford to eat and pay rent, not to mention put money away for a later day. Again, I'm wondering if you've been a part of the work force before -- what I mentioned is common and not something that you easily just "walk away" from.

  5. You've also never run a business before. You are in competition but, as I said, the cooperation is tacit, not overt. If Competitor Y is paying $8 an hour, you're not going to start paying $9 an hour because it cuts into your profits and gives the edge a competition. Eventually, you have a wave of layoffs, demand increased hours from those who are grateful to have kept their jobs, and start bringing in new employees at $7.50. Wages tend downwards absent collective efforts on the part of workers to move them upwards.

  6. Nice in theory, but that's not how it works in the real world. The 20 year worker isn't cut off because he wasn't worth what he was being paid. It's usually more because Jones in upper management is building a new swimming pool next year and could use the extra bonus. The mistake you make is in assuming that society and businesses tend to make logical decisions; they don't.

  7. You've obviously never tried to start a business before. Even innovative people with high motivation providing quality products fail hard, often due to factors outside their control. Failure when starting a business isn't without consequences -- it drives you into bankruptcy for years and kills your credit. It's not easy to thrive in the world when your credit rating is bad.

Again, you are not addressing my points -- you are dismissing them and falling back on asserting things you have yet to prove.

That you don't believe workers should have a hand in determining their wages is absurd and completely contrary to the free market. Every market transaction is, by its nature, a negotiation and in every negotiation you have at least two sides. You are arguing that, when it comes to the commodity of labor, the seller should have no say in the negotiation and that the buyer should be able to set the terms as he sees fit. Free market transaction indeed -- that would be completely unacceptable when it comes to any other commodity.

As for Marx, you state that you don't buy into his falsehoods yet you still fail to refute what he says, your assertions that he is wrong aside. No philosopher is entirely wrong -- even Ayn Rand has her grains of truth, after all. Something tells me, however, that your rejection of Marx's point has less to do with an independent study of the matter and more to do with an ideological commitment to believing he is wrong.

[-] 1 points by Anonymous1776 (63) 2 years ago
  1. Employers should have more control, as it's their business. There's nothing stopping employees from creating their own business.

  2. No, you missed my point. The employee already understands their full value based on the wages paid for jobs they can get with the skills they possess.

  3. To say jobs are finite is to say ideas and innovation are finite. They are not, as the American economy is vastly different than 50 years ago and 50 years before that and 50 years before that. Free markets are very dynamic -- especially as compared to centrally planned and controlled markets that are notorious for their stagnation.

  4. They must work more and work harder in order earn and save more. It's not as complicated as you would have everyone believe. Of course, that is the con that is socialism.

  5. Again, if one desires an edge on the competition through a better quality product, higher wages will need to be paid. Otherwise, the same product deserves the same wage.

  6. That's Jone's decision, as it's Jone's company. Get your own company and make your own poor decisions. Stop forcing your poor decisions on other people.

  7. That's why it makes even less sense to distort a business with people who only have interest in higher wages, not the overall success of the business. Thanks for making my case, again.

I didn't say employees should have no hand in negotiating their wages. They have a hand in it by learning skills and going elsewhere if they feel they are under-compensated, as compared to competing workers. This is all well within free market principles.

Your ignoring my counterpoints to Marx doesn't equate to my failure. Read what I said again and feel free to debate. Otherwise, move on in your defeat.

Government only need be involved in the free market to keep it safe and free. No amount of socialist obfuscation, envy, and whining will change that fact.

[-] 1 points by CaptainBacardi (106) 2 years ago

Yeah, that post didn't really address my points on the other thread either. Nice try though. :)

I suppose it's your place to post your response but I'm just saying that it didn't really make you look good the first time either.

[-] 1 points by Anonymous1776 (63) 2 years ago

They address your points just fine. You just ran out of arguments. Nice try, yourself, again. Feel free to rejoin the debate anytime. I won't hold my breath.

[-] 1 points by CaptainBacardi (106) 2 years ago

Yeah, I ran out of arguments. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with having better things to do than engage with ideologues who think they have solutions to all of life's problems.

You think you're teaching me something. Guess what? I thought exactly the way you do when I was in my late teens and early twenties. I used to make the exact same arguments you do. I thought I had all the answers, that life was clear cut, that things were black and white. Getting my college degree and getting out in the real world taught me that I was a utopian, buying into an idealistic view of things entirely divorced from reality. The fact that you are so totally convinced of the correctness of your ideology should give you pause for concern. As for me? I don't have an ideology anymore... I criticize the free market but I'll be the first to tell you that it also offers viable solutions to certain problems. Society has to take solutions where it finds them.

But hey, if you want to think that you won, that's your right. Rather than assert the contrary I'll let those who are reading decide.

[-] 1 points by Anonymous1776 (63) 2 years ago

It sounds like you gave up on yourself to me. Hard work and determination are critical to success. The reason I'm convinced of my argument is because I'm living proof of it. Early on, I was responsible enough to learn a skill that's marketable should my current place of employment fall through. If others had done the same, they would be in a much better position to weather the inevitable storms of life. Blaming the rest of society isn't the answer.

[-] 1 points by CaptainBacardi (106) 2 years ago

What I advocate has nothing to do with myself, my skills, or my abilities. I'm just fine, thank you.

I advocate for those that lack what I have. Not everyone can be successful. I believe that society as a whole does far better in the long run when it looks out for its own than when it tosses them to the way side leaving them to their own devices.

[-] 1 points by Anonymous1776 (63) 2 years ago

That's where you are wrong. Every able-bodied and minded person has the ability to be successful at something.

And, helping out your fellow man is fine, provided it is voluntary and not through the force of government. The problem with most government mandated help is that it enables the very behavior it's trying to protect from, while trampling on the rights of others in the process.

[-] 1 points by Anonymous1776 (63) 2 years ago

Liberals love their copy and paste. And, I've addressed your points -- you've just run out of arguments against mine.

I didn't say employees should have no hand in negotiating their wages. They have a hand in it by learning skills and going elsewhere if they feel they are under-compensated, as compared to competing workers. This is all well within free market principles.

Your ignoring my counterpoints to Marx doesn't equate to my failure. Read what I said again and feel free to debate. Otherwise, move on in your defeat.

[-] 1 points by CaptainBacardi (106) 2 years ago

Hmm... I copy and pasted my arguments to your copy and pasted comments from earlier. I didn't expect you to address my list twice but when I did it seemed appropriate to address them in both places for anyone reading.

The only place I've been defeated is in your head -- you made no counterpoints and instead only offered assertions I've already addressed.

[-] 1 points by Anonymous1776 (63) 2 years ago

Again, you refuse to debate. That's fine, but that's on you, not me.

[-] 1 points by CaptainBacardi (106) 2 years ago

Yeah, you got me. Your invincible principles, irrefutable logic, and ironclad grasp of the facts and reality have gotten the best of me and I just can't go on any longer. Whatever your ego needs to believe to keep itself going. ;)

[-] 1 points by Anonymous1776 (63) 2 years ago

This debate wasn't about ego -- it was about justice. It's telling that you got that wrong. Who's projecting again?

[-] 1 points by CaptainBacardi (106) 2 years ago

You advocate a system that will manifestly leave children starving in the streets and will allow the wealthy to get away with whatever they please so long as it's with their money and their property and you talk to me about "justice." Hilarious!

[-] 1 points by Anonymous1776 (63) 2 years ago

When all else fails, use the children, right?

I don't mind safety nets for children, as they are innocent and unable to control their irresponsible parents. The parents, on the other hand, should be required to work to help pay for the welfare of their children and be subject to birth control until such time they can provide for themselves and their offspring.

[-] 1 points by CaptainBacardi (106) 2 years ago

Actually, I disagree.

I think that if we just let employers hire children they can earn wages to just take care of themselves.

[-] 1 points by Anonymous1776 (63) 2 years ago

That's an odd take, but I disagree. Children need to spend time developing and learning. Once they've matured sufficiently, they should be allowed to work.

[-] 1 points by CaptainBacardi (106) 2 years ago

Who do you expect to provide for that education?

[-] 1 points by Anonymous1776 (63) 2 years ago

Their parents, of course.

[-] 1 points by CaptainBacardi (106) 2 years ago

And if their parents are dead or deadbeats?

[-] 1 points by Anonymous1776 (63) 2 years ago

Here it is again for you:

When all else fails, use the children, right?

I don't mind safety nets for children, as they are innocent and unable to control their irresponsible parents. The parents, on the other hand, should be required to work to help pay for the welfare of their children and be subject to birth control until such time they can provide for themselves and their offspring.

[-] 1 points by CaptainBacardi (106) 2 years ago

You deflected the question. Does society provide the safety net through public education or would you force private education providers to provide the education in question? If the latter, do you pay with public funds or should they provide the service pro bono?

[-] 1 points by Anonymous1776 (63) 2 years ago

Your lack of specificity does not translate to my deflecting your questions.

I would advocate for the safety net to be provided by private education, paid for by government.

I would like to add, though, that the parents should be obligated to pay their debt to society, even if it takes the rest of their life. People should not be dumping the welfare of their kids on everyone else. It's completely irresponsible and they should pay for that.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

Great post!!!!

[-] 1 points by CaptainBacardi (106) 2 years ago

Why thank you, I appreciate the encouragement. :)

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

You're welcome. I enjoy reading your posts. They're full of info, and I'm learning from them! =)

Many times, I know what I want to say, but I can't always put it into words. You and some others say a lot of what I want to say.

[-] 1 points by Anonymous1776 (63) 2 years ago

If we are all created equal, government has no right to burden one man more than another. That doesn't mean that one man can't pay another more for more work or more skilled work.

The skill of knowing which buttons to push does indeed warrant additional compensation, as it took additional work to learn and maintain the skill. For example, I think most agree a computer programmer should make more than a cash register operator. Both are button pushers, but one requires much more skill and work than the other. How's your button pushing business working out, by the way?

Regarding government corruption, if you have evidence, please submit it to the proper authorities. Otherwise, all you have are conspiracy theories and voters remorse, which can be cured at the ballot box.

[-] 1 points by Rob (881) 2 years ago

Can I move over there? I really have no desire to work, but I do feel I have the right to live as i see fit.

[-] 2 points by CaptainBacardi (106) 2 years ago

Socialist advocate for the good of the working classes.

You can't be in the working class if you refuse to work. From each according to his abilities, to each according to his work. People who work harder or perform roles that require greater degrees of talent or education deserve to make more even under socialism... That idea isn't exclusive to capitalism.

[-] 0 points by Misguided99 (6) 2 years ago

But if you get to successful, as Steve Jobs has done, than this crew would put his job up at Apple for an election, because he is too powerful. That is the socialist thing to do!

I could not wait to see what elected official would run Apple! Just think how popular it would be with the stockholders. And, of course, how it would trash all the pension plans that you all seem to be counting on for your free and guaranteed retirements!

[-] 3 points by RobertNDavis (133) 2 years ago

Misguided, your name fits. Socialism isn't the same as Communism. The Social Democracy practiced in places like Norway allows for markets to exist. The role of government, particularly in a Socialist country, but truly in all countries, is to control things that should never be for-profit, such as law enforcement, firefighting, public education, health care, transportation infrastructure, prisons, political races, etc. If you start a beer company and sell beer, it's your company. If you're a huge success, you are taxed like a huge success should be, because huge successes rely more on public institutions for their continued success than smaller successes and failures (a big company uses highways more and rely on law enforcement for protection a heck of a lot more, for two examples). If you mistreat your workers, then you are harming society and absolutely deserve to be replaced. If you harm the environment (at least in theory), you end up in prison. In this sense, this is what I believe we are aiming for with this movement. I agree with the above poster that Norway (as an example) hasn't got everything right, but they are ahead of us in so many areas that we really should be humble in trying to catch up to them by learning from what they do right and, hopefully, steering away from what they do wrong. We're all human and make mistakes, but that doesn't mean that we should stop trying our best to be our best.

[-] 1 points by Anonymous1776 (63) 2 years ago

In a free country, government should not be all things to all people. Government should only do what it must to make the country safe and free, nothing more. Nearly everything listed could and should be done by the private sector, not government.

The way to tax companies using more of the people's infrastructure is through usage fees and taxes. For example, a company that exists primarily online that doesn't use the roads as much as, let's say, a shipping company, should not pay the same in road taxes.

There shouldn't be a general corporate tax in combination with an income tax, either, as that is double taxation or taxation without representation that is just passed on to consumers anyway. The less the government, the freer the people.

[-] 1 points by RobertNDavis (133) 2 years ago

For-profit healthcare promotes sickness in the name of profit. We've seen that with the HMO corruption of the last forty years. For-profit law enforcement and prisons promote crime as a means to profit. We have seen that with the judiciary scandals where judges have been caught getting kickbacks from prison companies (in some case, incarcerating innocent juveniles). For-profit firefighting would certainly inspire more random arsons in the name of profit. Privatizing (as for-profit) municipal services that everyone relies on would be a complete disaster.

Nothing that serves the common good should ever be for-profit. That's a direct conflict of interest situation that can never benefit common people. If these municipal services were to become non-profit organizations, in order to be run more efficiently, I wouldn't oppose that - at least in theory. Meaning, if we make common-good municipal services into non-profits and it works, then why not do it? The danger there is that our communities would have to be the guinea pigs for such an experiment.

[-] 1 points by Anonymous1776 (63) 2 years ago

For profit health care promotes superior health care, not sickness. If you don't like HMOs, you should have a problem with government managed health care. Judges are vulnerable to corruption from any number of interests, including government police and prison unions. For profit fire fighting would inspire quicker responses and better coverage. Government fire fighters could start fires to generate PR to prevent funding cuts.

Since almost everything could 'serve the common good,' you are arguing for government to run everything through Socialism. The mistake liberals make is that they act as if men in government are less corruptible than men anywhere else. Human nature is human nature no matter the banner it operates under. Free market capitalism has proven to best serve the needs of free people, since those who don't are discouraged directly through the free market, less the obfuscation and influence of government.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

"For profit health care promotes superior health care".... Yeah, that's why the U.S. is "top" in health care (bullshit). We're 35th in the world in health care.

You are so completely ignorant that it makes my head want to explode!!!!

[-] 1 points by Anonymous1776 (63) 2 years ago

The WHO study is notoriously flawed in favor of socialized medicine. When you remove crime and accidents, America has the highest life expectancy of any Western nation. Our problem is higher cost caused by government distortion of the market.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

If all people were treated equally (and I'm not talking about everyone receiving the same amount of pay regardless of their job/career, either.... something you conservatives love to say), there would be less crime. Saying that we would have the highest life expectancy after removing crime and accidents doesn't make sense. It clearly states that our system is messed up. It's saying, "If we did this or had this, then we would be this way." That doesn't count, because we are not there. If I had millions of dollars, I'd be rich monetarily.... but I don't, and therefore, I'm not. So, what you are saying is that we don't have the highest life expectancy, because crime and accidents keep us from that. So, that means we are failing in many ways.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

I'd say that cancer rates, obesity, and many other factors keep us from having the highest life expectancy as well..... including a health care system that is FOR-PROFIT (the only one in the world) that is 37th in the world.

[-] 1 points by Anonymous1776 (63) 2 years ago

Our life expectancy, less crimes and accidents, beg to differ.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

OK, so we're 37th. I was being too nice.

[-] 1 points by ARealNewYorker (227) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Blah, blah, blah, hypothetical, hypothetical, hypothetical. Read the W.H.O. report comparing health care provision around the world. This is the press release:

http://www.photius.com/rankings/who_world_health_ranks.html

Among its most meaningful conclusions is that the overall performance of the US is 37th. 37TH! We are the first in responsiveness (which is mainly the product of doctors and hospitals), but the highest in cost (which is entirely attributable to a for-profit insurance system - companies are able to leverage providers to reduce their prices for them so that oftentimes an insurance company will pay half of what an individual pays out of pocket).

[-] 1 points by Anonymous1776 (63) 2 years ago

The WHO study is notoriously flawed in favor of socialized medicine. When you remove crime and accidents, America has the highest life expectancy of any Western nation. Our problem is higher cost caused by government distortion of the market.

[-] 1 points by ARealNewYorker (227) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

You mean "it is flawed because it comes to a conclusion I disagree with." Most people who weren't just repeating the same mantras might, on seeing the data, say "perhaps this study shows that socialized medicine is the way to go." But you reply with "government distortion of the market." Because that's your answer to everything - which is why I'm going to just help you out here. Every response you're going to give me to everything I'm going to post will be some form of "it's all because of government distortion of the market." And so I declare, "Anonymous1776, I understand your objection fully in advance of any reply you might make, and therefore, having acknowledged that, you need not waste any more of your time by replying to my posts." You may reply in the form of one last post where you thank me for being so considerate of your time and effort.

[-] 1 points by Anonymous1776 (63) 2 years ago

No, it's flawed for the reason I said that you conveniently ignored. When you remove crime and accidents, America has the highest life expectancy of any Western nation. Our problem is higher cost caused by government distortion of the market.

And, your failure to acknowledge the heavy, heavy hand of government in every industry, especially health care, is your failure to understand our system, not mine. Do some research. Although, research can't help your deeply ingrained and flawed bias.

Government only need be involved in the market to keep it safe and free. Anything else is unnecessary government manipulation that causes more problems than it fixes. When the cure is worse than the disease, it's time to stop treatment.

[-] 1 points by ARealNewYorker (227) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

I didn't hear "thank you!" (By the way, my job is to research exactly this topic, so spare me the usual comment "why don't you consider facts instead of blah, blah, blah..." It's irritating when the left does it, it's more irritating when the right does it. Your research seems to have been little more than a cursory reading of, I'm going to guess, Rothbard and a bit of Hayek.)

[-] 1 points by Anonymous1776 (63) 2 years ago

And, your lack of substantive response gives away the amount of research you've done, which is very little.

[-] 1 points by ARealNewYorker (227) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Alright, bud. But I’m going to remind you, you asked for this. Ordinarily, I’d let it drop, but I was convinced by your kind request and encouragement from other posters who said these threads are about putting the truth out there and not about proving to opponents that they’re wrong. Let’s look at your first “fact”: that the US has the highest life expectancy in the world. This is wrong – according to the recent UN survey, judging from data drawn over from 2005-2010, the US actually has the 20th highest life expectancy in the world, and we’re ranked at that number alongside of three countries which have some form of socialized medicine (UK, Germany, and Belgium). I’m going to ignore your claim that our life expectancy rate is highest if we ignore “crime” because it’s obvious that crime both has a direct effect on availability of health care (since the injured take up space in ER’s, etc.) and is attributable to underlying sociological factors that are the product of the same profit-motive driving insurance costs up (eliminating jobs, reducing wages, and raising prices for insurance arbitrarily).

But let’s entertain the hypothesis, since you’ll probably reply by saying that the information comes from the UN, so it’s gotta be wrong (this is going to come in a string of posts, since there's a length limit to the comments). Even if the US had the highest life expectancy in the world, it still wouldn’t prove everything, since life expectancy is only one indicator of the quality of a nation’s health care, and certainly not the main one. Other, often more relevant factors, include quality of care and allocation of resources. For example, it’s fine and good to say that you lived until 79 (this is the average life expectancy of an American man), but if you had lost a limb and couldn’t afford physical therapy or prosthesis, well… The point is, taking this one factor in isolation proves nothing, and no serious researchers would do it.

[-] 1 points by Anonymous1776 (63) 2 years ago

Who cares? You simply regurgitate the same liberal junk the rest of the liberals do. Another day, another liberal lie to debunk.

Removing crime and accidents from the life expectancy is indeed more accurate as that has nothing to do with health care. How long one lives, on the other hand, is evidence of the quality of care provided over a lifetime. And, since when crime and accidents are removed from the life expectancy statistics of all countries America still comes out on top, the comparison is accurate and fair.

The UN intentionally adds other, less relevant, factors to intentionally make the quality of care in the US look worse in order to spread their tyrannical socialism. Anybody can fudge numbers. Liberals do it best, as it's essential to their scam.

[-] 1 points by ARealNewYorker (227) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Alright, dude... Seriously, if this is the best you can come back with, you so lose...

[-] 1 points by ARealNewYorker (227) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

OK, so far so good. More than this, there’s even less reason to trust the life expectancy of the US at the present time as some sort of measure of the quality of our health care (this should remove any doubts you might draw from the fact that we have the same expectancy of a few countries with socialized medicine). There are a number of factors which could very well, if left uncurbed, reduce the numbers. Here goes:

  1. There has been a steep rise in the costs of health insurance over the past decade and a half. Between 1999 and 2007, costs nearly doubled for coverage for a family of four, from about $7000 to about $13,000 (and I’ve deliberately chosen this year as a cutoff date instead of current figures so that you wouldn’t blame this on “Obamacare” or “government intervention,” since the Bush administration sharply reduced regulations on insurers). Keep in mind that, in 2007, the median income in the US was about $45,000. Any lower income family, or any single income family, that was not insured by work, would be in real trouble if they tried to get insurance.
  2. There is an increasing disproportion between older peoples’ percentage of the US population and younger people. This matters, of course, because seniors are eligible for Medicare (which is a government program, just to remind you). This, naturally, doesn’t have an effect on life expectancy (that wouldn’t make any sense), but it does explain the fact that our current life expectancy seems high – a larger portion of our population can receive the treatment at no direct cost they need to live longer. (Of course, if the costs of private health insurance continue to rise will cause extreme problems since many people getting closer to retirement age will leave off getting treatment for serious illnesses because they know it will be paid for later on. I’ll get to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act). The question is whether the life expectancy in the US will remain as high as it is, and, for two reasons, we should expect the answer to be “no.” Theoretically, should a greater number of younger people fail to get insurance, and therefore treatment, we’ll see in the near future a drop in our average life expectancy. And, historically, during periods of massive deregulation of industry accompanied by a total lack of available insurance (like we saw from the late 1870s to the 1920s), the average life expectancy in the US dropped severely.
[-] 1 points by ARealNewYorker (227) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

So much for the “life expectancy” argument. The question is what the adverse effects of a high percentage of uninsured citizens (we’re still at 40%) are, and whether the PPACA is going to change this. Let’s start with the first one, since at the moment this is still drastic, and I think it should be covered at some length because the OWS faithful are going to hear a bunch of BS about this based on misleading numbers about “cost”, and there’s no reason they shouldn’t be informed. The insurers’ (ever-increasing) drive for profit has driven the cost of health care up (and “costs of healthcare” is a complex thing). Because of the enormous leverage their size affords them, insurers can demand that doctors charge them significantly less for services and, to compensate, doctors have passed that cost on to uninsured consumers (for example, an MRI costs about $700 for a large insurer like Aetna, and about $1300 for an uninsured individual). It’s basic economics: Aetna insures (for medical costs) over 17 million people, so if they decide they don’t want to pay for something, a doctor’s going to listen; an individual person who hasn’t joined that many other people just won’t (and no one in the US, as far as I know, has decided to form a consumer group in order to bargain better). This is worth noting (even though it has nothing like a “feedback” effect on insurers’ costs and prices) simply because you’ll get people who deliberately say that healthcare costs are rising in general, even though they’re only rising for independent uninsured individuals, and they’ll attribute hikes in insurance rates to rising costs, as well as to other factors – even though it’s a direct effect of the practices of insurance companies. Plainly and simply, it’s obfuscation.

[-] 1 points by ARealNewYorker (227) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

The question is whether the PPACA should change this. Maybe it will, maybe it won’t. The mandate does make it difficult for a lot of lower-income families. But really, if it fails, it will be because it’s a half-assed measure. Really, the only serious option is single-payer, and the arguments to the contrary are spurious. Most of the wealthy people who think they’ll lose out on treatments because we’re “rationing” are able to pay for it out of pocket, although, with certain illnesses, the costs are severe. Thank god for them that they’re income has been rising, rising, rising! (the income of the 1% has tripled since the late 70s, and still averages about $1.1 mil per annum; everyone reading this knows what’s happened to the 99%…). But ultimately, I couldn’t care less if it costs them. Anyway, it’s misleading to say that health CARE will have to be rationed, since a single-payer INSURANCE program has little to do with the allocation of actual care, and education programs would easily reduce the costs. The standard objections will be either “who’s gonna pay for this?” or “ government is inherently inefficient and so this will end up costing more and no one will get any treatment.” These are really the same objection, and they’re theoretically disprovable (I’d ordinarily just cite figures from Canada, but our friend Anonymous1776 thinks information from any source other than the USA couldn’t be right). First, the “government inefficiency” arguments derived from Robert Lucas ordinarily apply to monetary and not fiscal policy, so they’re not immediately relevant (and, at any rate, they were disproved in the 90s by Akerlof), and people tend not to know them anyway, relying in general on experiences like going to the DMV (which is a state agency, not a federal one) or the Post Office (which is, incidentally, awesome, and should have been maintainable except for cutbacks that go back our dear friend Mr. Reagan). At any rate, no one measures efficiency according to the kinds of epistemological claims Lucas made – inefficiency is measured by calculating actual costs. The simple number anyone needs to know when they’re evaluating this is 350 billion; this is the dollar amount that the insurance industry has paid on average per year over the last ten years just on screening for preexisting illnesses that will allow them to deny people policies. This goes out the window with PPACA, but it certainly would go out the window with a single-payer scheme. That’s an enormous increase in the level of efficiency. Secondly, costs are kept low by maximally spreading risk. For example, let’s say you’ve got a patient with a costly illness like leukemia, which about 8 in 100,000 people contract. Hypothetically, if you’re an insurer that covers only 1000 people and one of them comes down with it, you only have 1000 payers to draw on to fund the treatment. If you’re an insurer with 10,000, it’s more cost effective. The US government would effectively be drawing on the combined income of all taxpaying citizens (and see previous posts on how many citizens pay some form of tax – the answer is all of them). So it’s numerically far more efficient to have upwards of 250 million people paying into a single agency and spreading the risk among them than it is to have only 17 million (again, Aetna’s number).

Anyway, anonymous1776, as the scholastics used to say, QED.

[-] 1 points by Anonymous1776 (63) 2 years ago

You said a lot to say prices are going up, which I already agreed to. You can blame whoever you like, but, like anything, if you increase competition and remove the influence of government we will see costs go down. Fixing the price of anything through government never works -- it's just socialism by another name. Obfuscation indeed -- and you aren't fooling anyone important.

[-] 1 points by RobertNDavis (133) 2 years ago

A)You're wrong. They privatized municipality system you describe has been tried out in several countries and has been shown - extensively - not to work. In every case, seeking profit for public needs has led to abuse, which may or may not be fine when we're talking about pet rocks and glow in the dark underwear (I'm not writing about consumerism here), but is certainly not fine when thousands of people have health insurance (for example) in a for-profit system and are cheated out of coverage by companies seeking to minimize losses and die as a result. It's shocking to me that you fail to see this.

B) I'm not a liberal in the sense that you mean it. I'd suggest that you try to avoid jumping to conclusions without evidence. In the argument I'm making against privatized municipal services, I have evidence to support my claims. Every instance in which this has tried has failed. Miserably. You have not addressed this evidence; instead you just re-state your case and back it up with unfounded (and deeply flawed) claims.

C) I have proposed the possibility of privatizing municipal services as not-for-profit organizations. In theory, this would remove the possibility of "managing losses" which always serves to boost profits and cheat the customer. Eliminate profit (not salaries, so there is still a financial motivation for all involved) and you should eliminate the corruption inherent in privatizing public services.

D) Perhaps the world would be better off if we eliminate the for-profit corporation altogether and replace them with non-profit organizations. Then again, the Worker-Owned Cooperative model has been demonstrated to not only work, but work in an ideal fashion that's much better for the nation's economy than the old corporate model. Companies like Isthmus Engineering are showing us what can be realized. Instead of further polarizing the already ridiculous wealth disparity in this country (we're only slightly ahead of Rwanda in this regard), this model clearly demonstrates that we can, indeed build the middle class with proper planning.

[-] 1 points by Anonymous1776 (63) 2 years ago

A. The 'several countries' you refer to aren't America and don't have the advantages that freedom and free markets provide -- and the repeated and consistent failure of socialist economies through history beg to differ with your assessment. Regarding insurance, if the insurance company doesn't pay out as agreed in the policy you purchased, that is against the law.

B. You are indeed liberal with government, which is the modern definition of liberal I refer to. You still don't explain how those in government are more accountable than those in the marketplace, who's livelihood rely directly on the workmanship of their product or service.

C. If you eliminate profit, there will be no raises or room for improvement.

D. If you spend more time generating wealth than coveting the wealth of others, you will have the wealth you desire. Again, in a free country, the only person keeping you down is you, no matter how many excuses you make for yourself. It just isn't fooling anyone.

[-] 1 points by RobertNDavis (133) 2 years ago

A) Take a history class. B)You have no evidence to support that claim. C)You need to learn how non-profit organizations work. People employed with them receive salaries and raises when they do good work. D) You don't know my economic situation. Again, you are making blind claims without evidence. I'm willing to wager that you're not a billionaire. And I'd play double or nothing with that bet that you will never become a billionaire. That means that, logically, your claim is in direct contradiction with reality. Again, I'd say you need to get a better education. The evidence (your statements) reveals you to be ignorant, which isn't criminal, but could be dangerous if you present blind claims as facts, which they clearly aren't. there's nothing wrong with being ignorant, if you've got the guts to educate yourself. If you try hard enough, you might even learn something based on reality.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

Thanks for your info. I enjoy reading it.

[-] 1 points by CaptainBacardi (106) 2 years ago

Yes. This is why nations such as Somalia are beacons of freedom.

[-] 1 points by CaptainBacardi (106) 2 years ago

I would respond to Misguided99 but I think you provided an excellent response.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

so right

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

If you have no desire to work I really feel sorry for you. Your unlike 99% of all humans. Isnt there anything you want to do in your life? You wanna sit in your livingroom all day watching cheap pathetic sit-coms all day? What a sad life that must bee. I hope youll be able to move to Norway so that we can try to convince you to have a better and meaningful life

[-] 0 points by Rob (881) 2 years ago

What I meant to say was that I have no desire to work hard or move up any ladder. I figure 4 hours a day for work and every weekend off would be sufficient for me to live. I do not need much at in in the way of material things, just food, shelter and clothing..and healthcare too, plus transportation. This should allow me to take time and ponder what life is about. Its purpose, its meaning, and the part that I play in this thing we call life. There is far too much to see and do and to be tied to any sort of career or job will take away from this humans experience and existence. If others choose to toil to ease my burden, then what is the problem?

[-] 2 points by HRyan (24) 2 years ago

I've worked directly for a few CEOs and let me tell you, these members of the privileged plutocrat class do practically NO WORK AT ALL, yet they make millions of dollars. And even if they're fired for running their companies into the ground, they laugh all the way to the bank. In the meantime, the lower-level employees of the company, who actually did all the work for a fraction of the pay, get laid off, or left jobless when the company goes under due to the mismanagement by the plutocrats. So what's wrong with this picture?

[-] 1 points by Anonymous1776 (63) 2 years ago

What's wrong with this picture is that it doesn't make sense? Why would a business owner pay a CEO to 'not work at all?' They sure could pocket a lot more money, less the CEO's pay. And, if the workers do 'all the work,' what's stopping them from making their own business?

[-] 1 points by ARealNewYorker (227) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Arguments like the one just made by anonymous1776 are stupid. They ignore every basic fact about living in, well, the western world. The answer to why employees don't just start their own business is simple. Most people don't have the capital to invest, and nowadays no one has the credit. How many people, exactly? 99%.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

And some people don't have the necessary skills to run a business successfully. It's not their fault. They just don't have them. And for me, running a business and trying to live only off that income scares the hell out of me. I might try to run a business along with working for a company and being guaranteed a continual paycheck, but I sure wouldn't quit my job to run a business. I don't feel confident in my skills to do so. Should I be punished for that and told that I'm a failure or that I have no rights, because I choose not to run a business?

It's no different than someone who has natural talent and ability to play sports or to be an artist compared to someone who doesn't. Not everyone possesses every talent available to humans.

People who say that everyone should run a business just make me laugh!

[-] 1 points by Anonymous1776 (63) 2 years ago

That's just not true. Credit and capital is available. As long as people are interested in making money, there will always be investors for good ideas.

[-] 1 points by ARealNewYorker (227) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Spare me. The premise you ended with is weak anyway. Sure, "good ideas" and the right press will likely attract investors of one kind or another, but "good ideas" (in other words, ideas radical enough to attract private investors on any real level) are few and far between, and the vast majority people of any income bracket trying to start up independent companies are simply making forays into fields that are already established. This is simply in the nature of investment for production - unless you have the money to create a desire for a novel product that you've invented, the chances are your proposal is simply an adaptation of a preexisting product. In short, the Steve Jobs's of the world are incredibly rare, and the issue at stake in the whole OWS endeavor is that there are structural limits to our ability to allocate necessary goods to everyone. (And it's kind of off topic, so I won't go farther than broaching the issue of whether their creation of a novel product entitles them to an enormously disproportionate amount of the profits it reaps, or whether they're even "doing it on their own," without any assistance from peers or on the basis of an education that's unaffordable to most)

As for the vague promise that "credit and capital is available" - wrong on one count, and specious on another. Private interest in investments for projects developed by people from lower income communities is rare; there are a few microloan companies out there, but certainly not enough to cover everyone who would want to set up a small business based on skills and knowledge gained while working in a low wage job. There's more available in the way of public investment, but you said in a previous post that you're the type who wants greatly to curtail all government expenditures, so you can't fall back on programs like the B & I Loan Program to prove your case. And the whole case is specious because you have to suppose that anyone interested in starting their own company has the necessary information to do so - in other words, that they have to be educated in microeconomics and basic business practices, which are just not subjects taught in public schools, and so require that a person achieve an educational level that's unaffordable to most of people in lower income brackets.

It's not easy to do research on this directly, since most private loan companies will tell you how much they give, but not what piece of the actual pie their efforts represent (which is usually very little, not that this is their problem). A better and more obvious way of looking at the issue is to consider the actual facts of social mobility in this country. If there's any truth to the claim that capital and credit is available to anyone, and we take your baseline assumption that (I'm paraphrasing) everyone is born with the innate ability to make money regardless of circumstance or educational opportunity (and we don't make the patronizing assumption that people born to poor parents are going to turn out dumber than other people), then there should be a vastly greater amount of social mobility than there is. But look at this report (and note that it was written before the market crash, and thus before credit was greatly restricted and issued at significantly higher rates of interest):

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/Hertz_MobilityAnalysis.pdf

(although I'm sure you'll ignore it as soon as you realize that it was written under the auspices of the Center for American Progress...)

[-] 1 points by Anonymous1776 (63) 2 years ago

Absent a new idea, there are always opportunities to compete with existing businesses by providing a higher quality product at a cheaper price. Your lack of good ideas doesn't warrant greater compensation. It warrants less.

Being born in a low income area represents the worst case scenario, but doesn't preclude anyone from success. In a free country all are free to rise and fall on the merit of their work. School isn't the only or best way to education. It's defeatist attitudes like yours that discourage perfectly capable and worthy human beings from bettering themselves and their community.

[-] 1 points by ARealNewYorker (227) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

See my post to your last comment. No need for two "thank you"s; you may reply to either of my two last posts with the requested polite acknowledgment of my consideration, and I will leave off with the thought that you, sir, are a perfect gentleman.

[-] 1 points by RobertNDavis (133) 2 years ago

I've got a couple in Brooklyn I can sell you real cheap, too.

[-] 1 points by CaptainBacardi (106) 2 years ago

Do you really believe that CEOs do hundreds of times the work of rank-and-file employees?

If that's the case, I have a bridge in Arizona to sell you.

[-] 1 points by Anonymous1776 (63) 2 years ago

No one is arguing that if a CEO picks up a broom he will sweep the floor 100 times faster than the company janitor. Instead, they are arguing that CEOs have a skill that is in-demand that requires relatively harder work to gain, warranting greater compensation. Compensation of the most skilled shouldn't be based on the compensation of the least skilled. That promotes laziness and stagnation. Thus, the detriment of Socialism.

[-] 1 points by CaptainBacardi (106) 2 years ago

I have no problem with greater compensation for those higher up in an organization. I studied management; my BA is in a management-related field. There is skill involved in being able to leverage labor assets to perform a task. Managers should make more than janitors.

I would argue, however, that managers have advantages when it comes to negotiating their wages and thus are paid a salary closer to the real value of their labor than janitors and rank-and-file are. The latter aren't paid what they are because that is what supply and demand dictate but rather because that is all they are in a position to negotiate for. I laid it out in another response to you I just made. Their labor is undervalued, which is why we demand greater compensation in other ways to make up for that. Upper management is certainly more valuable than regular workers, but not 100 times so.

[-] 1 points by Anonymous1776 (63) 2 years ago

The problem is the reason the 'janitors' aren't in a position to negotiate a better wage is because there is no shortage of people capable of being a janitor. The reason for this is because it takes little skill and less work to be a janitor, therefore the supply is great.

If we rely on the free market to set wages, all will be paid what they deserve based on their skill and demand for their skill. When a janitor obtains the skill of the CEO he will deserve the pay of the CEO.

[-] 1 points by CaptainBacardi (106) 2 years ago

If it were simply that, the wage wouldn't be undervalued as the price would reflect actual supply and demand.

I am arguing that there are systemic reasons were the wages of janitors and the like are negotiated to levels below those that pure supply and demand would suggest. I enumerated them in another post and I'll repeat them again here:

  1. Workers need to work or else they will die, whereas Employers need not hire anyone.

  2. There are inherent disparities of knowledge in regards to the industries in questions. Employers have access to many key financial figures that are not available to workers. This improves their bargaining position.

  3. Unemployment will never reach 0% within a capitalist society and thus employers will always have a pool of multiple candidates to select from. Workers are usually quite limited in their employment choices and have an impetus to take what they can get.

  4. Once in an employment agreement, an employer can shift terms around to require an employee to do more work without a change in pay. Employees do not have the benefit of just being able to "walk away" because to do so is to risk not being able eat.

  5. Employers within an industry have a degree of unity when it comes to bargaining while workers are discouraged from collective bargaining efforts. Company X, Company Y, and Company Z within an industry come to tacit agreements to pay workers a certain amount for a particular job and workers have no recourse to go elsewhere. They can't "withhold" their labor because they will starve, nor is it necessarily realistic for them to seek employment in another field.

  6. Economic downturns and mass downsizing allow employers to keep wages artificially deflated. Workers who have been laboring for a particular company for 20 years with commensurate pay are laid off and replaced with fresh workers paid at much lower entry-level wages.

  7. Workers cannot just "start their own businesses" to compete with their employers. Starting a business takes capital, business sense, and a lot of luck. Established companies have enormous advantages not available to new start ups -- they already have strong market share, economies of scale that allow them to produce more for less, name recognition among potential customers, business reputations, company stability and culture, long term funds and business plans, etc. Companies tend to use these assets to push out new potential competitors. Starting a business in an existing industry is no small feat and most people are not capable of it no matter how hard working or brilliant they might otherwise be.

Each of these factors creates an uneven playing field that allows employers to pay sustenance wages for work that is worth far more. If workers were paid what their labor was really worth profits would be impossible. Again, I am fine with this arrangement to some degree -- it is a necessary part of a free market and a free market has undeniable advantages. I simply believe, however, that when the system is built on the back of taking advantage of a segment of the population is it necessary to see to it that the group in question is compensated in other ways.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

Anonymous1776 just refuses to "get it". You, RobertNDavis, and ARealNewYorker have explained it in detail.... several times. Those who do not want to see will remain blinded.

[-] 1 points by Anonymous1776 (63) 2 years ago
  1. Employers without employees aren't employers and have no business. Therefore, it's false to state that employers don't need employees.

  2. Employees need only concern themselves with learning a skill that's in demand and the wages various employers are willing to pay for those skills. Just as employees are free to not work for an employer, an employer should be free to manage their business as they see fit.

  3. While unemployment is unlikely to reach 0%, there are always jobs available for those with the skill and ambition to take them.

  4. You assume an employee that fails to save for the bad times and fails to learn a skill that's in demand elsewhere. That's not the fault of the employer, but instead the employee.

  5. Employers within an industry are in competition with each other. They aren't 'in unity.' The less workers are paid relative to the work and skill, the less quality the product or service. Competitors would be quick to gain an edge by investing more in the employees. In the end, if workers are unhappy with their pay, they must transfer to a higher paying competitor or learn a new skill.

  6. If 20 years experience isn't worth the extra pay because a younger worker can do the same job, it isn't worth the extra pay. This isn't 'artificial,' it's reality. Increased pay should be based on merit not seniority. This is the problem with many unions as well.

  7. Starting a business relies on an in-demand product or service. Staying in business and staying competitive requires that product or service to be of high quality and to be brought to market efficiently. While breaking into industries that seem well established may be difficult, it is this sort of innovation that has created whole new industries. Acting as if there are no new ideas or opportunities to improve existing ones, is a lie designed to defeat perfectly capable people.

The market determines wages, not the assumption and desires of envious liberals. Work isn't worth 'far more' just because a bunch of liberals think it should be so. The free market dictates that. In a free country, no one is 'taking advantage' of anyone else -- the only person keeping you down is you, no matter how many excuses you make.

[-] 1 points by CaptainBacardi (106) 2 years ago

Again, I'm a socialist, not a liberal. If you can't distinguish between the two you're too misinformed to be worth debating.

  1. Talk about missing the point. My point was that employers need not hire anyone in particular. They will always have a pool of unemployed from which to draw. You ignored the argument that employees must work or eat.

  2. You completely missed what I was talking about. When you are negotiating for the price of a commodity it is essential that you understand its full value if you are to be in a decent bargaining position. Understanding the value of labor requires understanding the industry in question. That you dismiss this point tells me you've never negotiated for anything in your life.

  3. Nonsense. Jobs are finite and, in the real world, who receives them often depends upon a variety of factors beyond skill or ambition. Haven't you ever been in the workforce before?

  4. You can't save when you're making sustenance wages and can barely afford to eat and pay rent, not to mention put money away for a later day. Again, I'm wondering if you've been a part of the work force before -- what I mentioned is common and not something that you easily just "walk away" from.

  5. You've also never run a business before. You are in competition but, as I said, the cooperation is tacit, not overt. If Competitor Y is paying $8 an hour, you're not going to start paying $9 an hour because it cuts into your profits and gives the edge a competition. Eventually, you have a wave of layoffs, demand increased hours from those who are grateful to have kept their jobs, and start bringing in new employees at $7.50. Wages tend downwards absent collective efforts on the part of workers to move them upwards.

  6. Nice in theory, but that's not how it works in the real world. The 20 year worker isn't cut off because he wasn't worth what he was being paid. It's usually more because Jones in upper management is building a new swimming pool next year and could use the extra bonus. The mistake you make is in assuming that society and businesses tend to make logical decisions; they don't.

  7. You've obviously never tried to start a business before. Even innovative people with high motivation providing quality products fail hard, often due to factors outside their control. Failure when starting a business isn't without consequences -- it drives you into bankruptcy for years and kills your credit. It's not easy to thrive in the world when your credit rating is bad.

If you think that the free market works in the clear-cut ways you are discussing, you have never taken classes involving serious a serious study of the subject of economics. Things are not as cut and dry as you try to make them out to be and the majority of economists will present you of ample ways in which free markets fail when they are not corrected by intervention. These are not "excuses" -- this is reality.

[-] 1 points by Anonymous1776 (63) 2 years ago

Being socialist is being liberal by modern definitions, as socialists advocate for more government and more government control. I don't care if you admit it or not.

  1. Employers should have more control, as it's their business. There's nothing stopping employees from creating their own business.

  2. No, you missed my point. The employee already understands their full value based on the wages paid for jobs they can get with the skills they possess.

  3. To say jobs are finite is to say ideas and innovation are finite. They are not, as the American economy is vastly different than 50 years ago and 50 years before that and 50 years before that. Free markets are very dynamic -- especially as compared to centrally planned and controlled markets that are notorious for their stagnation.

  4. They must work more and work harder in order earn and save more. It's not as complicated as you would have everyone believe. Of course, that is the con that is socialism.

  5. Again, if one desires an edge on the competition through a better quality product, higher wages will need to be paid. Otherwise, the same product deserves the same wage.

  6. That's Jone's decision, as it's Jone's company. Get your own company and make your own poor decisions. Stop forcing your poor decisions on other people.

  7. That's why it makes even less sense to distort a business with people who only have interest in higher wages, not the overall success of the business. Thanks for making my case, again.

Government only need be involved in the free market to keep it safe and free. No amount of socialist obfuscation, envy, and whining will change that fact.

[-] 1 points by CaptainBacardi (106) 2 years ago

As anyone who is reading along will tell you, I've pretty much already addressed your counterarguments to what I have said, and thus I wish you a good day. :)

[-] 1 points by Anonymous1776 (63) 2 years ago

And, your lack of substantive debate tells those reading along all they need to know about your flimsy position.

[-] 1 points by CaptainBacardi (106) 2 years ago

My only failure is that I can't force you to accept premises based in reality rather than the ones based solely in ideology that you insist on asserting. You're an ideologue, friend, and I try to make it a point not to get too involved in ideological debates anymore because they tend to go in circles, much as this current one has. I stand by my earlier statements that free markets work great for some things but are crappy at others and that we need diverse solutions rather than reliance on a single model.

I really do wish you well, though. :)

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

Anonymous1776 is living in a fantasy bubble full of smoke.... therefore, they aren't able to think clearly.

[-] 1 points by Anonymous1776 (63) 2 years ago

. . . which amounts to saying nothing, like most of your arguments.

[-] 1 points by humanbeing (8) from Olga, WA 2 years ago

YES!
because i believe we are all created equal albeit w/ different strengths and weaknesses. and we are all in this together. i've never minded helping fellow human beings and/or sharing.
i think any country that holds such values is a place to be respected and learned from.
there really IS enough for everyone. greed IS NOT good, and we'll be much happier when we realize that and remember how to share. turn off your t.v., open your eyes, heart and mind.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

Ditto!!

[-] 1 points by HRyan (24) 2 years ago

Yes, count me in, I'd like that just fine. Because when you add up all the taxes we Americans pay, our tax burden isn't much lower, AND we get very little in comparison. Yes, Scandinavians have to pay much more for a glass of wine than we do, but I'd rather deal with that than have to go bankrupt paying my medical bills or trying to send my kid to college. Also their standard of living is quite high. We were in Sweden this summer, and the Swedes live very well indeed. The Swedes we talked with were absolutely stunned by our stories about the US health care system - how people can lose their homes when faced with catastrophic medical costs. THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN THERE.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

And yet some Americans just don't get it or don't want to get it. And most are people being screwed by our system, and yet they still support and defend the system. It makes my head spin. They piss and moan about socialism but really have no clue about it or about why things are so messed up here.

[-] 1 points by CaptainBacardi (106) 2 years ago

Here's an idea -- let's find ways to make everyone pay their fair share so that we can keep personal taxation to a minimum.

And I'm not talking about raising taxes on the wealthy in the long run either. Instead, why don't we figure out ways to lift poor people out of the lower classes so they can afford to pay a decent amount of taxes while still being able to afford the necessities of life? That's all that's really advocated here. Once they can support themselves, they won't need government services and we can reduce spending even more.

But guess what? That's not going to happen on its own in a free market. It takes social intervention through government programs. The idea isn't handouts without working -- it's getting people on their feet so they can prosper on their own. It worked beautifully in the post-WWII world and created the middle class as we've come to know it.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

I totally agree. I don't get the conservatives at all. They bitch and bitch about people being on welfare and about socialism and all that, and yet when we talk about there not being enough jobs and jobs in the U.S. not paying livable wages, they snark back by saying no one owes us a job. So, what is it that they want? I'm trying to figure it out.

It's like the conservatives in this country (as a whole) want everyone else to fail and be miserable their whole lives, and if someone else gets any form of help, they come unglued. Maybe they should focus on why they are miserable, fearful, and selfish and then should try to fix it.

[-] 1 points by ARealNewYorker (227) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Way to miss the point. I'd be more than happy to pay a 60% income tax rate if it meant I could get a decent job, not have to pay exorbitant rates for health insurance, or for my kids' college education (or my own, for that matter - barely paid off - and let's not forget the interest rate to the loan company), and, at the end of the day, to know that my fellow citizens received the same.

And, on another better note - first our initial victories over the mainstream media, and I'm not even sure most of us know just how much appreciation we're getting in all unofficial channels (at my church this weekend, we had our own mic check and a full sermon on the moral virtue of OWS; we are Unitarian, however...). Nowhere to go but forward!

[-] 1 points by Demwit (3) 2 years ago

You are free to pay 60%. Nobody is stopping you. Wouldn't it be better to pay half, or less than half, of what you pay now and use your hard earned dollars the way you see fit?

Freedom anyone?

If you believe the government can better manage your life than you can yourself, save all of us some hassle and jump in front of a train. Those who give up their freedom for a little safety deserve neither. Dang! Look how that fancy edgeamucation is paying off!

[-] 1 points by RobertNDavis (133) 2 years ago

I feel exactly the same way! Tax me 60% if it means a high quality of life and security for my family. Please!

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

agreed

[-] 1 points by Adam20751 (58) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Yes. In fact, my almost my entire drive to participate in this movement can be understood as a yes answer to this question.

It is a commitment not to acquire, and not to be interested in acquiring, any more than one's share of things. High and well planned tax systems seem like a good way to achieve this.

[-] 1 points by jemcgloin (63) from Staten Island, NY 2 years ago

Yes I would like that

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

They pay 60% income tax but they have an amazing place to live and one of the highest standards of living in the world. I'll take that.

[-] -1 points by Misguided99 (6) 2 years ago

And how much did you pay in taxes during the last 5 years? Did you earn the right to say this, or has someone else been paying for what you are enjoying?

You are also misguided if you think that America has one of the highest standards of living in the world. There is only one sustainable way to have high standards of living...you have to export more than you import. It is that simple. When you all buy your Ipads, Ipods, iPhones, and shop at Walmart for the next cheapest deal, you are all exporting American Jobs. We are a consumption nation. We are NOT an exporting nation. And the Web has eliminated the need for at least 30% of the American people to try and get a job, because the web has made business really efficient. You are only fooling yourself if you think high standards of living are sustainable. But what publicly elected official is going to tell you that? But then again, if you can find an official who can tell you it will all be "ok" again, you could vote for them to run Wall Street! Yeah...more free stuff for the inmates!! Yeah!

[-] 1 points by Demwit (3) 2 years ago

I Would agree with excessively high tax rates as long as the monies seized just evaporate, not used for anything. Think of a corporation buying back their own stock. After all, isn't the point to just remove earnings that are not deserved? Can anyone say they deserve 100% of what they have "earned"?

I also agree with universal, single-payer healthcare as long as the provider's (insurance companies, employers, doctors, nurses, other healthcare professionals, labs, equipment manufacturers, drug manufacturers, morticians, others) income is tax free or expense 100% deductible. If I was a doctor earning 400k a year subject to income taxes, I would be happy to only make 300k that is tax free.

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

I wasn't talking about America.

[-] 1 points by Adam20751 (58) from New York, NY 2 years ago

The concepts of individualistic earning and ownership are big part of what is being critiqued by this movement. It's not clear that you understand the critique.

I think we're all in agreement about the problems of disposable consumptive lifestyles.

[-] 0 points by Misguided99 (6) 2 years ago

Actually I completely understand it. As you do not want to work hard and pay the tax rates that I do, it is better for you to find ways to work less, be part of the 47% who pay little or no taxes in the United States, and just find your way to consume YOUR "fair share" of what everyone else has to pay because they are motivated to work hard and actually PAY taxes? And for those that pay...let's just call them "faceless rich bastards" so we can feel better about getting them to pay up.

[-] 1 points by Adam20751 (58) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Your personal attack is ridiculous and unfounded.

If you wanted to know, I eat mostly edible garbage, teach for no pay, and what money I do earn tutoring is to be beholden to the financial industry for several decades.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

Everything Misguided99 says is a personal attack and is ridiculous. All of us who support the OWS are people who don't want to work and who pay no taxes and who want to take from everyone else.... according to their MISGUIDED opinion.

They're either too ignorant to get it or just don't want to get it.

[-] 1 points by Adam20751 (58) from New York, NY 2 years ago

The frightening thing is that, being from Wisconsin, I know that if we're to really be the 99% or anything like it, we have to reeducate quite a lot of folks like this. The size of the project is frightening, but I think we need to do more than entertain them on forums; we need to build a curriculum they can understand and we can implement.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

I agree totally.

[-] -1 points by Misguided99 (6) 2 years ago

Do you not understand that America was NOT built on the promise of 4-5 weeks paid vacation, good pensions, health insurance for all, free college, and free universities? It was built by people who understood their key to succeeding is grabbing an opportunity and working like hell to make something out of that opportunity? So for all the "free stuff" that you want...who will pay for it? Certainly not you? Than who? If you want all this free stuff, perhaps you should all move to Norway? Maybe they want new "free" loaders.

[-] 1 points by HRyan (24) 2 years ago

America WAS built on the promise of creating a society that was fairer and more free than any other that existed on the planet at that time. The founders endeavored to break down the class system as much as could be done at that time in history. The conservative "republicans" who love to quote the Constitution and refer to the founders really don't know much about them at all. If they had been alive during the Revolution they would have viewed the founders as dangerous anti-social lunatics, and would have been absolutely terrified of them. I know whose side the founders would be on in this situation, and it certainly wouldn't be the side of the corrupt bankers and greedy "malefactors of great wealth" who are in the process of destroying the country that the founders risked everything to create.

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 2 years ago

The founders said nothing like what you've posted. You are an unpatriotic anti-American piece of swine for misrepresenting them. The founders never approved of allowing corporations to buy votes in congress. When the founding fathers were being exploited by the East India Company, they didn't start a stupid ass corporate sponsored movement praising the free market. They went to the docks and threw the fucking tea in the ocean!! Again, you are an unpatriotic piece of trash that has no clue what the forefathers wanted.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

The "free stuff" you are referring to actually is paid for via taxes, so in essence, it's not free..... but people don't have to pay more for it, since they already pay for it via taxes.... education, healthcare, and many other things. Why should people be going into debt to pay for them if they can be funded through taxes?

[-] 0 points by Misguided99 (6) 2 years ago

As Ron Paul correctly pointed out, America borrowed $4 trillion dollars from China to wage a war in the middle east. Obama is back to the well borrowing from China again so we can spend more on voters for healthcare benefits, rather than rationing the massive amount of dollars already spent in wasteful government programs.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

Who put us into Iraq and Afghanistan and therefore put us into debt in the first place? You conservative trolls seem to ignore that.

[-] 1 points by HRyan (24) 2 years ago

You didn't answer the question.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

misguided 1% supporter; you just don't get it do you.

"So for all the "free stuff" that you want...who will pay for it?" ah, the taxes are paid by all, each to their ability. This is a rather simple concept that if you can not wrap your head around, I fear you will always be a slave to the corporate right. The stuff is not free, it is free to use by all,. you seem so afraid that someone will get a free ride so you are against everyone working together for the common good.

That is just sad, perhaps you should just go back to your corporatist site where they are all as deluded as yourself.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

And if we were to discuss "people who are getting a free ride" (which by the way would be meaningless in a just free egalitarian democratic society since we all benefit from work done by millions of people thru hundreds of years) we should be focusing on the gangsters at wall street and the rest of the finacial elite who are really getting free rides - they have cash coming out of their ears not from working hard but from explioting people and pressing som buttons on a computer.

[-] 2 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

Exactly!!!! Many on the right accuse the OWS protesters of being jobless hippies who want a free ride.... yet they are OK with the corporate welfare that is going on and the Wall Street and corporate cronies who are stealing us blind!!!!!

[-] 1 points by azelikov (16) 2 years ago

corporation owner have too much from society - they start to control the country - thats why they can get away without paying taxes it is much cheaper to pay FOX and (unfortunately) OBAMA than pay their fair share

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

Yep! They have paid many presidents and will continue to, unless we can change things.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Yes, people here in America have been 'educated' to believe many simply wrong and often very crazy sht. Some crap about "rugged individualism" and fantasies of an 'invisible hand' in some mythical "free market",. lol.

You are correct that we ALL benefit when we work together,. unfortunately cooperation in not a trait that is valued in american culture as it should be, instead wealth is worshipped and the wealthy are idolized as heroes., it does seem that this is changing, as this movement proves. Perhaps a "just free egalitarian democratic society" will one day grow on the corpse of this dying empire of corporate greed and military domination. One can dream right?

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

I sure hope so!!

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Remember that a lot of dreams have come true. People dreamt of ending feudalism - it came true. People dreamt of ending slavery - it came true. People dreamt of ending Nazism - it came true. It doesnt happen by itself though. It takes hard work to overcome oppression and injustice - thats why its so important that this movement grows!

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Hear, hear!

[-] 0 points by Misguided99 (6) 2 years ago

You seem to want to forget that over 48% of American individuals pay NO TAX at all. What percentage of Americans should pay tax? Easy to talk in sound bites...but this is a real question. What percentage of the US people should be on "the dole" as it use to be called in Ireland?

[-] 1 points by CaptainBacardi (106) 2 years ago

First, let's get our terms straight. That 48% pays no federal INCOME tax at all. They pay plenty of other taxes.

Second, I think 100% of working Americans should be able to pay income tax. In fact, everything that I advocate tends to be towards that particular end. The problem, though, is that it's nonsensical to tax people who are living at poverty levels, which is why we keep their taxes low.

What do I propose instead? I propose we find ways to help them become the productive members of society that they want to be. We find ways to help them prosper and rise out of the lower class and into the middle. We collectivize costs for basic needs like education and health care to take the burden off of their shoulders. We advocate for ways to ensure that workers get paid what they actually earn rather than artificially low wages that they are practically coerced into through disparities in their bargaining positions when dealing with potential employers. We find ways to raise the effective incomes of the lower class and pull them into the middle -- having more people that can afford to pay middle class tax rates will be far more effective in solving our budgetary problems than taxing the crap out of the wealthy ever could be.

In short, if you want individuals who are currently in the lower classes to start paying income taxes, you had better come up with ways to ensure that you first find ways to help them prosper so that such taxes don't drive them further into poverty.

[-] 1 points by Misguided99 (6) 2 years ago

CaptainBacardi...you are confusing apples and oranges. Pay attention to the income tax. EVERYBODY has to pay all the other taxes too. But the income tax is what primarily supports the Federal Government.

[-] 1 points by CaptainBacardi (106) 2 years ago

You are sidestepping my point by focusing on one little thing I said while ignoring the rest. You said they pay no taxes AT ALL. Your words, not mine. I corrected you and now you've shifted your point. Try to be more clear next time.

Yes, everyone should pay federal income taxes. Before that can reasonably happen, though, let's get that lower 48% to a point where they can afford to pay and not be driven further into poverty in the process.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

lol,. you are sooo funny and misguided.

Yes children, the poor (unemployed), and the retired on fixed incomes, among others should not be paying taxes. Why quote statistics if you are ill equipped to even understand them. In a capitalist system some people have to be unemployed or we have no people to draw new workers from, and no new business can be started. Should those people loose there homes, and families when they are between jobs? Most people who are under the poverty line and pay no taxes are not on the dole,. they are supported by family and friends, or homeless. You make huge assumptions based on some lies (or misused statistics) you heard on right wing hate radio,. how about trying compassion and supporting you neighbours instead of attacking people "on the dole". How can anyone be against a "just free egalitarian democratic society"? do you support injustice, enslavement, inequity, and tyranny?

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

People like Misguided bitch about people being on the dole, but what they advocate guarantees that those who are on the dole will stay on the dole. What hypocrites they are.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

So the founders should dictate what rights americans should get? Are you saying that the founders should decide what living americans today can and cant have? Are you saying that your constitution should dictate policy no matter what the majority of americans want? Thats not democracy. Theres a reason why it has amendments.

"It was built by people who understood their key to succeeding is grabbing an opportunity and working like hell to make something out of that opportunity?" Thats exactly whats not happening today. People at Wall St can make a fortune by pressing a few buttons, yet workers have to work longer and longer and harder for low pay. "So for all the "free stuff" that you want...who will pay for it?" Let me quote OWS: Tax the rich! understand?

"Maybe they want new "free" loaders." Norwegians have social security for all so that they can have a decent life even if theyre unemployed, yet we still have the least unemployment in all of Europe! People want to work and contribute (especially if they have decent pay, and a good workplace)

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

We need that type of system.... but a lot of people just don't get it and then fight it.... and then there are the greedy ones who rule.

Thanks for your info on Norway. I'm sick and tired of hearing the bullshit lies that so many Americans like to spew about other countries and how "socialism doesn't work". It only doesn't work for those who are greedy and who want everything for themselves.

[-] 1 points by RobertNDavis (133) 2 years ago

A friend of mine in Sweden came to NYC to take a class (an excuse to visit a group of international friends). She was utterly shocked by how far behind them we are scientifically, socio-economically, and politically. At her going away party, we asked her if she was coming back and the only thing she could tell us was "...not to live. I might visit again. But you should come and visit me!" Indeed, we should.

[-] 1 points by NevadaIndies (7) 2 years ago

Agree...Get LOSING AMERICA: How Self Serving Leaders Are Destroying Our Future. It came out last month and written by Helm Lehmann, former Nevadan (I) who got a higher % of votes for U.S. House than any independent in 40 years. Great read, traces back to 1998 and moves forward through 2011 - offers lessons from the past and hope for the future at Amazon and www.losingamerica.org

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

Thanks for the info.

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 2 years ago

"It was built by people who understood their key to succeeding is grabbing an opportunity and working like hell to make something out of that opportunity?" Thats exactly whats not happening today. People at Wall St can make a fortune by pressing a few buttons, yet workers have to work longer and longer and harder for low pay. "So for all the "free stuff" that you want...who will pay for it?" Let me quote OWS: Tax the rich! understand?

Absolutely, dead on right (see my response to the #OWS hater below). This person--like most in the hard right Tea Party, unfortunately--believes that any kind of government that helps people is somehow unconstitutional and evil. They forget, conveniently, that it's about choices and that they are enjoying the benefits of a country that has a balance of government vs. free market capitalism. They see things simplistically, in black and white terms, but not all of them do this. I'm trying to work with some who are willing to discuss more than an agenda of talking points developed by a centralized, co-opted movement. But it ain't easy. Keep posting. *We need more voices from outside to explain to the insular xenophobes that just repeating "We're number 1" doesn't make a lot of sense today.

Also, Paul Krugman explains it much better than I can: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/opinion/panic-of-the-plutocrats.html?_r=3&ref=columnists

Cheers.

Groobiecat [www.groobiecat.blogspot.com]

[-] 0 points by Izzy66 (5) 2 years ago

Not political? Then why any discussion of founders, rights, constitution? Sounds like you guys want to discuss the government, but not the methods that truly affect it: Voting. That is what our country was founded on, made on, struggled on, yet Occupy insists on minimizing that VOICE we are all talking about. Set up Voter Registration Booths - don't promote any one candidate or party - just as you must deflect association with any one group or interest - but at least show the rest of the world and those shot at Lybian/Syrian/Egyptian protests that powerful people AND voting democracy can change! Don't support a party, but support the VOICE we have! Isn't that what you are saying?

[-] 2 points by NevadaIndies (7) 2 years ago

Get LOSING AMERICA: How Self Serving Leaders Are Destroying Our Future. It came out last month and written by Helm Lehmann, former Nevadan (I) who got a higher % of votes for U.S. House than any independent in 40 years. Great read, traces back to 1998 and moves forward through 2011 - offers lessons from the past and hope for the future at Amazon and www.losingamerica.org

[-] 0 points by LeftCoastConservative (3) 2 years ago

VOTE! That is where the real power lies. Even the political elites must pay attention to you if you can marshal votes. We live yet in a nation of laws, and votes are the vehicle of change.

Don't argue, after the 2008 election, that elections do not have consequences. The people rejected the establishment Democrat and elected the first Black man President. And recall how fast that same establishment got on board when it began to look like the "People Train" was leaving the station without them.

People in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya were literally dying to get the opportunity to wield the vote that we get as a result of drawing breath of our 18th birthday. Don't disrespect those people, or our American forebears, by rejecting the vote.

[-] 0 points by Misguided99 (6) 2 years ago

Americans are working harder for low pay because of the choices they have collectively made. They like super low prices. They like the power their internet gives them to get more stuff really cheap. The fact that all that "cheap stuff" comes from China and Asia does not seem to matter....just give the Asia / Pacific rim those jobs.

Americans also do not seem to mind that they are exporting all the brainpower jobs to India too. That is OK for Americans if they can get cheaper prices.

Do you get it America? You have done all these things to yourself. And now you want to "tax the rich"? Why...because you are running out of people to bleed your benefits from?

There are "makers" and there are "takers". Looks like the "takers" just want to raid the "makers" because it is easier than working hard yourself? Hell....4-5 weeks paid vacation? free healthcare? free education? free university? Wow...being a "taker" is looking better all the time!

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

Who started the "super low prices"? The average citizen didn't start demanding them. They were created by companies moving their manufacturing and operations overseas and opening up dollar stores here, so they could make huge profits and pay next-to-nothing labor.

You are so incredibly out of touch.

[-] 1 points by Misguided99 (6) 2 years ago

In fact...you are out of touch. If the American people were willing to pay more for a product to protect jobs (like the Europeans do every day) then they could say no to Walmart. It is actually pretty easy. But then again, food companies stick cheap food in front of the faces of Americans and we have a massive obesity problem. Cheap goods, cheap food and lots of it...all very related.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

I pay more for my better-quality food, because what I eat is important to me. And I NEVER buy anything at Wal-Mart.

[-] 1 points by CaptainBacardi (106) 2 years ago

And how do Europeans make that collective decision to buy that which is locally produced rather than that which is produced overseas?

Regulations. Protective trade policies. They do it through the very sorts of government involvement you decry. Collective agreements have to be made on a collective basis to work. This is one of the flaws of a pure capitalist system -- short term interests can oftentimes run contrary to long term interests and the bulk of the masses will always act in accordance with what seems good at the given moment.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

I'd rather have better quality products for higher prices (although, not grossly inflated prices) that are made in the USA.

[-] 1 points by mahc (2) 2 years ago

We Americans who support OWS are not freeloaders. Many of us have lost our jobs due to OUTSOURCING. Corporations are making outlandish profits in this scheme and Congress has stood silently by, allowing our greatest natural resource---our JOBS---to slip from us. Don't blame the unions either. The unions and OWS seem to be the only entities trying to restore the balance between big business and labor. Follow the money ...

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Chomsky on outsourciing and corporations: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmakLRxGbW8

[-] 0 points by Misguided99 (6) 2 years ago

Yes...follow the money. The union bosses are jumping on this because dues paying members of unions have been declining for years. Get any union boss to admit to you (a) their annual salary, and (b) how much they will retire for life with their defined benefit pension plan.

Yes...follow the money.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

The takers are the financial elite who have gained more and more wealth and power (despite not being democratically elected) and left the workers to suffer.

[-] 0 points by Misguided99 (6) 2 years ago

You did not get the point of the "founding fathers." I am talking about the original framers of the U.S. Constitution. They designed their Democracy to be run by people from the private sector who would put their private jobs on hold and serve in Government...and then go back to their private sector life. As they only viewed these roles as temporary, they expected these people to do the right thing and make tough decisions.

Career politicians do not make hard choices. They keep saying YES so they can keep getting elected. Saying NO would not win votes, as the inmates will not vote for the warden if they are really honest with the inmates and say no to them. This IS a problem with our Democracy. A VERY big problem today.

[-] 2 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 2 years ago

"They designed their Democracy to be run by people from the private sector who would put their private jobs on hold and serve in Government..."

What all the strict constitutionalists don't get is that it's not about right and left, it's about exalting the individual vs. taking care of the common weal, and frankly, it's about deciding how to use and apply limited resources.

In Finland, they decided to eliminate homelessness. That was a prioritized policy decision: it wasn't wild eyed marxism, it was a choice. They're a capitalist society. They're successful. People aren't lazy and haven't been destroyed by intrusive government. They made a choice and it appears to be working for them. Unlike the rightists in this country, who exalt the individual over the greater good, many countries support their populations. They don't call them entitlements--that's an American construct. Finland? They strive mightily to ensure that their people--whoever they are--have shelter. Are they run by marxists denying freedoms? Um, no, they're very economically successful. They are however, one of the most educated countries on the planet. (source: the liberal rag WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB120425355065601997-7Bp8YFw7Yy1n9bdKtVyP7KBAcJA_20080330.html). And they're consistently some of the happiest people, according to the international "happiness index."

In the United States, we make choices too: We decided, for example, to invade a country that didn't attack us based on lies and insidious fear mongering. It cost the country $1 trillion dollars (half of the national debt from WWII to 1980). That was our choice as a country. We could have spent that money and improving education or providing housing for anyone who needs it, but instead we went to war, and allowed those who brought us to war not only to remain free, but to make lots of money. You think our system is superior? Great, but continuing to bring up the constitution isn't a solution and it's not persuasive.

The free market isn't the end all solution, and in fact, it's precisely because of the free market and lack of intelligent limits on Wall Street that the economy melted down in the first place. Who do you think is responsible for that?

As for the evils of "socialism"...

...If you don't speak German as a native language, ach! It's the result of government intervention that took over the economy and helped save the world from fascism.

...if you drive a car on the highway, please stop doing that! It's the result of socialist government intervention!

...If you are using the Internet, please stop now! DARPA, a federally funded entity invented it and that's socialism that you're supporting--cease and desist!

...if your parents or grandparents get a social security check--go quickly, and take it away from them! That's socialism!! Those people are bloodsuckers!!

Get it?

Peace.

Groobiecat

[For more on the "evils" of social security: http://groobiecat.blogspot.com/2011/08/dear-mom-and-dad-you-are-greedy-un.html]

[-] 1 points by CaptainBacardi (106) 2 years ago

Excellent post. I will check out your blog!

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 2 years ago

Thanks for this post. Enjoyed it a great deal, and learned something as well.

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 2 years ago

Cheers.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

Awesome post!!!!!!

[-] 1 points by Misguided99 (6) 2 years ago

And by the way...you are completely right on the point about going to war. However, take that 1 trillion number and multiply by 4. We cannot afford to be the world's police force.

There is also a concept from WW1, WW2, and the Korean war called "war reparations." So we "liberate" a country, spend $4 trillion on the effort, and they pay us nothing in return? Or...we pump billions into Pakistan so they will be our "friend" and they hide Bin Laden? And you think this government "elected official" idea is so good that you want to start electing politicians to run private sector businesses?

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

We can't "police" the world? is that what we are doing, or is it imperialism by choice because of greed and the need to control everyone else on the planet???

[-] 0 points by Misguided99 (6) 2 years ago

No...it was because Americans could not bear to watch Sadam Hussain killing people on the evening news. So Americans said...that is not right...and our politicians decided we needed to solve it. This is simple. America has limited resources, as it is not expanding like the world post WWII. So we cannot fight all battles. And America cannot pay for everyone's unlimited desire for health care. Health care dollars have to be rationed. Get it?

[-] 1 points by HRyan (24) 2 years ago

So explain to me: why is it that America can pay for its unlimited desire to blow up brown people on the other side of the world, which is a far more expensive undertaking (not to mention that it's pointless, barbaric, and self-defeating in the long run) than providing health care and a good standard of living for all Americans?

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

exactly

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 2 years ago

"And by the way...you are completely right on the point about going to war. However, take that 1 trillion number and multiply by 4. We cannot afford to be the world's police force."

Agreed.

"There is also a concept from WW1, WW2, and the Korean war called "war reparations." So we "liberate" a country, spend $4 trillion on the effort, and they pay us nothing in return?"

Good point. But we actually created the lend-lease act in World War II to help our allies. But here's the thing: The economy went through the roof as a result of World War II. Unprecedented growth. But this led to what republican president Eisenhower rightly dubbed the Military Industrial Complex. And that's part of the problem today--a HUGE part of the problem, because that $2 trillion? It didn't go to our soldiers or for building schools; it went to military contractors.

"Or...we pump billions into Pakistan so they will be our "friend" and they hide Bin Laden?"

Ironically, of course, we created bin Laden. We aided and abetted him to help get kick the Soviets out of Afghanistan. But then we did something really really stupid. After we used Afghan freedom fighters...we just left. Who filled that hole? The people who brought us 9/11. History is important, but not just constitutional history. And yeah, working with Pakistan is a direct result of earlier really not smart foreign policy--promulgated by both dems and repubs.

"And you think this government "elected official" idea is so good that you want to start electing politicians to run private sector businesses?"

What? I have no idea what you're talking about. I didn't say anything remotely like that. I did say that we've made choices in our society, the same as other countries, and used Finland as an example of a country that prioritized homelessness as something it wanted to tackle. I said that we prioritized going to war with Iraq as something that we wanted to tackle.

I also pointed out that not all things that the government does--or can do--are evil. If Ron Paul had been in charge during World War II--you'd be speaking German right now, because we wouldn't have intervened in the economy to convert it into a war machine that helped decisively destroy the fascism sweeping Europe.

You never actually addressed my key points.

[-] 0 points by Misguided99 (6) 2 years ago

Cars drive on highways because tax dollars paid for them. Highest transportation taxes are on trucking companies...you know...those blood sucking corporations? They pay for most of the roads....just do some real research and look at the numbers.

Darpa did not fund, or invent the internet. It was invented by Tim Berners-Lee @ CERN in Switzerland. Again...research the facts.

Social security worked really well as a ponzi scheme when the population was growing rapidly post WWII. Assuming you are less than 30 years old, there are not enough working people to keep paying into the system so you can retire. There is no MONEY in the social security system. As long as YOU keep working, your Parents and Grandparents can keep collecting. Again...do your homework...

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

If the highest transportation taxes are on trucking companies, maybe it's because they haul the biggest loads of ALL vehicles out there and tear up the roads more and have way more vehicles!!!! Why should I pay as much tax for roads and highways if I drive one small car as compared to a trucking company that owns hundreds of trucks that weigh a LOT more than my one small car???

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 2 years ago

My point? The highway system was the result of the evil federal government at work. I know tax dollars paid for them. That wasn't the point. I do plenty of research--but not everyone gets the concepts that I throw out there. In this case, my "If you enjoy this..." jibes are intended to undermine the "remove government from our lives" nonsense. No amount of research could explain that to you...

Re: the Internet, LOL. Dude, first, enough with the snark. You're wrong, OK? DARPA started the basis for the Internet--networked computers--long before there was a "World Wide Web." Jesus christ--you're arrogant and wrong. Look it up.

Social security is a ponzi scheme? Okay. Bye now. You and Rick Perry can ride off into the sunset.

There is money in the social security fund. FFS you do your own research. It was solvent until the federal government started borrowing money against the fund.

Use more caps, though; I'm sure that'll help you make your case. Oh, and more snarky condescension, please.

TB Lee invented the Internet. God, that's hilarious.

[-] 0 points by Misguided99 (6) 2 years ago

Do your homework. Wall street's 2008 melt down happened because the bubble in housing and home mortgages blew up. The core of the problem started with the creating of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and a number of housing and home ownership financing programs to make housing "affordable" to those who could not afford it. I know this because I worked for them. These were big government programs. Politicians wanted it to be really easy for people to buy homes. They did not focus on making sure people had the means to PAY BACK their mortgages.

Wall street took these government programs on steroids, and the game exploded. Wall street IS very good at giving people more of what they want...even if it was not good for them.

So if you want to complain...you should go back to the Senators and Congressmen who all pushed these cheap loan programs. That is the actual root of the problem.

Yet you are not actually pointing fingers at all the Democrats in Washington who wanted these cheap housing programs to begin with? Again...you should all do your homework and actually understand what you getting into.

[-] 1 points by RobertNDavis (133) 2 years ago

According to the FBI, 80 percent of mortgage fraud nationwide 'involves collaboration or collusion by industry insiders.' Stop blaming the victims here. The mortgage crisis WAS NOT because of the people who borrowed the money. The FBI investigated this, found the culprits and were then silenced by W and again by Obama. This is a well-documented fact.

[-] 1 points by JS1788 (1) 2 years ago

Yes, you're right. Big government programs pushing for more homeownership were certainly central to the problem. But when you say:

"Wall street took these government programs on steroids, and the game exploded. Wall street IS very good at giving people more of what they want...even if it was not good for them."

Where's the accountability in the private sector? If you're an analyst in a structured products group and you know the CDO that you're structuring is built on faulty mortgages and that it will end up defaulting, what prevents you from taking a step back and saying, "Hey, maybe we shouldn't sell this stuff to our investors, despite the fact that it might make us rich quick, because it could be damaging in the long run." But Wall St. is all about "this year's bonus" and not about the long run. That's why a serious overhaul regarding the payment structure on Wall St. is required. I'm not talking about reducing bonuses, but making bankers more accountable in the long run if their products do not provide lasting economic benefits. But, no. Wall St. is back to business as usual, which is why ppl are upset -- and they have every right to be upset.

It is a gov't problem, but to say that we don't need more accountability on Wall St. is ridiculous.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

agreed

[-] 0 points by Misguided99 (6) 2 years ago

I completely agree with your point. Politicians pandering for votes by giving out homes to everyone who cannot afford them. Consumers who cannot push themselves away from the food trough and control themselves, and Wall Street types who want to make a buck on Politicians and consumers. And you all just want to blame Wall Street?

[-] 1 points by ARealNewYorker (227) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Actually, if you read them (actually), there's no question that NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM denied that publicly-minded action was absolutely superior in every way to pure private interest. It was a GIVEN that public service was more inherently worthy than self-interest; if i receive a reply, I'll be happy to footnote this). They also thought wage labor was roughly akin to slavery, and they thought it was perfectly obvious that education should be paid for at the public expense (since there's nothing more beneficial to everyone than that everyone else be educated). And don't even try to speak about the extremely small amount of money they thought we should be spending on "defense."

But I appreciate the comment from struggleforfreedom80 - why are we beholden to the opinions of a bunch of people who have been dead for roughly 200 years? Ironically, THEY wouldn't have had it that way! The point of this - and of any deliberative democracy - is that the current members of the community get to decide how their affairs should be conducted.

[-] 1 points by HRyan (24) 2 years ago

Great comment, thanks! You actually know what you're talking about on this subject, and that's rare.

[-] 1 points by ARealNewYorker (227) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Thanks! I didn't want to come across too Founding Father-ish myself, but I do hate the way these people think they somehow just know what "the Founding Fathers would have wanted" without having read what they actually said. That also goes for what they think Jesus would have wanted. Now that we're on it, I'm going to quote that guy directly in defense of my new favorite person, Jesse Lagreca (I know quoting Jesus is the easiest way to empty a room, but the guy has a point here that most American "Christians" seem to ignore). Here goes, Matthew 19.16-21: "And behold, one came up to him, saying 'Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?' And the Lord said to him, 'Why do you ask me about what is good One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.' He said to him, 'Which?' And Jesus said 'You shall not kill, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' The young man said to him, 'all these I have observed; what do I still lack?' Jesus said to him, 'IF YOU WOULD BE PERFECT, GO, SELL WHAT YOU POSSESS AND GIVE TO THE POOR, AND YOU WILL HAVE TREASURE IN HEAVEN; and come, follow me." Oh my god, could he have been any clearer?

[-] 0 points by NevadaIndies (7) 2 years ago

Get LOSING AMERICA: How Self Serving Leaders Are Destroying Our Future. It came out last month and written by Helm Lehmann, former Nevadan (I) who got a higher % of votes for U.S. House than any independent in 40 years. Great read, traces back to 1998 and moves forward through 2011 - offers lessons from the past and hope for the future at Amazon and www.losingamerica.org

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 2 years ago

No.. We're struggling for more corporate cronyism in DC. We want to completely abolish voting in favor of letting the free market decide who represents us via bidding for seats in Washington so we can let the divine hand of capitalism choose our laws so we no longer need to think for ourselves.

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

Don't be afraid of Socialism. You SHOULD be afraid of capitalism growing unhindered. Extremes are ridiculous. The middle ground is where we should be walking.

[-] 1 points by CaptainBacardi (106) 2 years ago

Great comment. The best solutions lie in the dialectic that occurs when ideologies interact and not within the ideologies themselves.

[-] 1 points by kristy750 (21) 2 years ago

I have to ask how capitalism is growing unhindered. Crony capitalism is growing unhindered and that is what is destroying America. So to me, your protest makes no sense. You say you are against bank bailouts and capitalism, yet you have the blessings of all the the politicians who voted for the bailouts. You have the blessings of the White House who gave away our money to corporations for political donations WTF?

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

Yep!!!!

[-] 1 points by buzzcut (5) 2 years ago

No.

[-] -1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

I`m not an american citizen... The best of luck to you, though. Keep on fighting for freedom equality and justice. I really admire this growing movement! If you have any questions just visit my blog and leave a comment. Yours S. http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/

[-] 1 points by unibaker (1) 2 years ago

"The Corporation" is a great place to start for those who are trying to make sense of this and get a handle on what can be done, good to see that you have it posted on your site. Have you watched Commanding Heights?

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Hi. No havnt seen that one. Ill try to catch it some time, though. Thanks for the recommendation

[-] -1 points by hlopezisodessi (-1) 2 years ago

That's how Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Castro came to power, by using dimwitted herds. Nothing good comes out of class warfare. Ask not what the country can do for you, but what you can do for yourself! Instead of protesting , get together and do something productive. It's much easier to destroy, then to build. Look at the Arab countries in a civil war. And look at the history.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

I personally favor libertarian socialism http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDHBvQRyOr0 which opposes all forms of tyranny (including capitalism) I, and everybody else involved and supporting OWS strongly oppose any form of leninism or other forms of tyranny. I think most poeple involved in OWS agree with me that we need revolutionary changes in forms of a more just and democratic society. The power should be in the hands of the people - democratically controlled workplaces and communities, not in the hands of the filthy rich (which have not been democratically elected)

[-] 2 points by JugandBottle (4) 2 years ago

you have a point about the rise of these leaders, and the system in power today is a complete oligarchy, system run by a few. It can't work. People must unite and peace will be our victory if we follow this order: wake up, UNITE, organize, RISE, forgive, EVOLVE. This is our once chance

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

It's also responsible for the rise of democracy, which is a direct result of the French revolution...or were the herds less dimwitted then??

[-] 1 points by HRyan (24) 2 years ago

In this case, the dimwitted herds are being confused and manipulated by the right wing and the "malefactors of great wealth". Listen to conservative agitprop and you'll hear the most asinine, ahistorical garbage. It would make even Soviet propagandists embarrassed! Yet the dimwitted herds lap it up, not knowing any better. I personally know several people who believe that Obama is simultaneously a Communist and a fundamentalist Muslim terrorist.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

I have relatives who keep claiming that Obama will put all the whities in work concentration camps and that he will start charging people for their well water. I'm still waiting.

I have a cousin who keeps saying that if Obama keeps going (whatever that means), everyone will be on the streets. Meanwhile, he hasn't lost his house, he still has his job, and he drives a nice new vehicle. I'm still waiting.

[-] 1 points by azelikov (16) 2 years ago

we did - but filthy rich stopped being productive - they no more feel responsible for having so much power - it should be taken away from them

[-] 1 points by NinetyNine (24) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Why dont we protest the people that gave the bankers our money. Lets go to the Whitehouse. Lets go to show Nancy Peloci that we dont appreciate her, or the Congress she was in charge of, for giving our money away to the 1% Corporate elites. Lets stop the billions of dollars from going to campaign donor's fake energy businesses.

[-] 2 points by azelikov (16) 2 years ago

forget it - they do not have any power - it is concentrated in wall street - thats why we are here

[-] 1 points by HRyan (24) 2 years ago

I agree! Let's also stop the TRILLIONS of dollars that are being poured constantly into foreign wars that do nobody but defense contractors any good.

[-] 1 points by NinetyNine (24) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Absolutely! Remove any Politician that gives Trillions of dollars to Perpetuate Needless Foreign Wars, Banks, Wall Street, and “Money Laundering” Fake green energy companies. If the energy company is real and has potential, then good, give them money. Don't give money to a company just because the company gives big money to the Politician. The Politician will then blame the company that received the money, sound familiar? The largest criminal is the Politician. Remove the Politicians that vote for, or do nothing to stop this behavior. It is that easy. If they are corrupt, vote them out. We need to remove the Politicians and not let them play us against each other, so it keeps our attention off their power grabs, using our money. They are trying to distract us off of who is giving our money away, “the Politicians.” Let’s focus on Protesting Washington.

[-] 1 points by aaronparr (612) 2 years ago

Good idea. Sounds like a good agenda for an Occupy DC. Is there a GA there?

For myself, I am more interested in the issues of my area, and geting local government on the side of the movement.

[-] 1 points by NinetyNine (24) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

We should hold the politicians accountable. They have been buying personal power by paying off Wall Street & Banks. Change comes in a Democracy by electing politicians that put their country first and not themselves first. Capitalism provided me with this computer, to communicate without the filter of the government or the elite’s control. It allows me to speak out against political corruption. We need to protest the Politicians that wrote the checks out of our accounts. Not just the people that received the checks. We need to let Washington know it is not ok to write checks out of our accounts. Join us on a march on Washington and the Whitehouse. Let’s show the crooked Politicians how a Democracy works. Politicians are the only electable leaders of this country. Lets remove the bad apples November 2012.

[-] 1 points by Misguided99 (6) 2 years ago

Terms limits are the most important starting point. One term for each elected official, with no life long pension associated with the task.

[-] 1 points by NinetyNine (24) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Yes! Elect Politicians that have their country in their heart, not a thirst for power. Politicians should look at it as an honor to serve Americans, not as an opportunity to rob America.

[-] 1 points by Izzy66 (5) 2 years ago

Yes! Just as Occupy shouldn't align itself to any one group, person or interest, don't align with any political candidates or political party - just set up Voter Registration booths. Next to the resulting circus shenanigans of the politicians, the protestors will begin to appear as a cool, collective force. A twofer!

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by FreeMarkets (272) 2 years ago

Socialism is the belief that the mob has the right to the life, freedom and property of others, and is justified in taking it by force. It is an anti-freedom agenda

[-] 1 points by HRyan (24) 2 years ago

I could just as well say that Capitalism is the belief that rich fucks have the right to the life, freedom and property of others, and are justified in taking them by force if their interests are threatened. This interpretation of Capitalism is really no different from Monarchy. Remember the divine right of kings? Well, in this case, the divinity comes from the amount of money you have.

[-] 1 points by FreeMarkets (272) 2 years ago

You could say that, but it would not be true. Under our Constitution, you can have free market capitalism and freedom at the same time. The government's role is to enforce the rules. You cannot have socialism and freedom at the same time. The elite end up ruling over the masses. Most of your OWS ideas require a large, tyrannical government to implement. Check out the principles of the Tea Party - you will find you might agree with them

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

The Tea Party is non-sense.

[-] 1 points by FreeMarkets (272) 2 years ago

The Tea Party is just the citizens holding their government to charter they made - the Constitution. I don't know how you could call that nonsense. The Tea Party stands for freedom from tyranny. Too many people here seem to crave an all powerful government reigning over them.

[-] 1 points by aaronparr (612) 2 years ago

not true. go to the source and learn.

[-] -1 points by Misguided99 (6) 2 years ago

Do you not understand that "Wall Street" just makes Money by funding what the American people want to do? So you and your parents wanted to max out their credit cards? And your parents wanted to own bigger houses...even if they did not have better jobs, so they borrowed...and Wall Street just paid for it? And you all wanted to go to schools where the annual tuition for a single year is more than you can make in 2 or 3 years in a job? Do you not get it? The lazy habits of America is the problem. You are just acting like America.....pissed off when all your free stuff is taken away from you. Of course, it must be someone else's fault.

[-] 1 points by jemcgloin (63) from Staten Island, NY 2 years ago

Wall Street does not operate as a free market. They use they're wealth to pay politicians to make special rules for them. (For one small example hedge fund managers pay capital gains taxes for income gained managing other peoples money. Capital gains is supposed to be on gains on your own money.) These special rules allow them to privatize gains and socialize losses. The Federal Reserve creates cash all of the time and lends it at near zero interest rates to a few giant banks that lend it out at more than double the interest rates. Its free money from thin air. Money created to grow the economy should go to all of the people not just the connected. In the last months of the Bush administration a record $2trillion was created and given to the global banks (separate from the stimulus) which they were supposed to invest in the economy bet didn't. If the unemployment rates go below 5% the Fed shrinks the money supply to increase unemployment, but the unemployed get blamed for not having jobs. Then poor people are accused of stealing all of the money because they might get food stamps or welfare, or get ripped off by mortgage companies, that sell them balloon mortgages they know they can't afford. (Who were the ones in these deals that understood the fine print?) If the poor people stole all of the money they would'nt be poor. At the same time the middle class has had to have both parents working, more hours for less money just to tread water. They were told they had to mortgage their houses to global banks to send their kids to college so their kids could get a decent job. Now their kids are graduating to find jobs at McDonalds with know way to pay back their high interest college loans, because all of the knowledge jobs are being exported. The whole thing is a giant scam and we are going to put an end to it NOW!

[-] 1 points by aaronparr (612) 2 years ago

Wall Street makes money with creative accounting. Its a paper chase. You are aware that the American Financial system does nto create anything right?

Furthermore the fastest growing money makers in the past 10 years have all been highly exploitive. Do you know anything about the cash checking outlet phenomenon? How about the sub-prime mortgage collapse?

[-] 1 points by kuuura (19) 2 years ago

Do you understand that Wall Street makes money for itself and that is the only truthful answer? So that me and my parents can struggle to find jobs because their greed went into funding real estate, fashion, wine, and all that crap they love to consume? We didn't overextend, they overextended by using OUR money to make themselves MORE cash and not paying an equal percent of taxes. The rich use the lower and middle class people to make their millions but can't be arsed to funnel some back into the system to get us interested in busting our asses again. And so we have this movement now, because without it, we'd be jobless, hopeless, and just like you said--LAZY. But we aren't, are we? Thousands of people are fighting for equality, for jobs, for a dialog with those who use money as power and control our country. We WANT to work. You're completely wrong and so off the mark its not even funny.

Its not Americans wanting free stuff and crying when it gets taken away. Its Americans wanting equality with other Americans, and freaking out because the government--the one institution that is supposed to look out for us--isn't. And they've been bought out by the rich.

We want to work hard, earn our living, get out of our own debt, stop using the welfare system, and be productive members of our society. Its people like you who keep others ignorant, by spreading falsehoods using the same tired old rhetoric you heard of Fox news. Get a brain.

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

P r e d a t o r y L e n d i n g. I'm not saying we should DESTROY these financial institutions, but we need GREATER regulation. You think these people are extremists. The majority of them aren't. Stop putting words in other peoples mouths. You're generalizing and posturing.

[-] 0 points by fairisperspective (2) 2 years ago

We need to regulate ourselves, not the banks...if we don't borrow what we can't afford then we can't be a vicim of predatory lending...the problem of 2008 was a bi-partisan lack of oversight on regulation not that the regulations did not exist.

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

so banks shouldn't be forced to be responsible if it means greater profits?? where are the morals in business these days??

[-] 1 points by aaronparr (612) 2 years ago

that is not how a market works. if you don't have adequate regulation the market breaks down. Adam Smith lays this out quite clearly in his criticism of the Joint Stock company. He said that corporations and stock trade would never work due to corruption in stock trade leading to paralyzing inefficiencies in the marketplace. In the US the SEC - for a time - set adequate rules for the game and enabled corps to flourish.

Its with capture of the regulatory instituions and legislation by the welathiest corporations that the system has broken down.

[-] 0 points by Misguided99 (6) 2 years ago

You could not be more accurate on this point. People need to regulate themselves. That is really what all of this is about.

[-] 2 points by Adam20751 (58) from New York, NY 2 years ago

It's not clear to me that people with the awareness that would be required to self-regulate the banks have the power or numbers required to do so. There are enough basically enslaved workers across the world that the financial system can do a lot of its predation in "emerging markets" alone. This is about forcing our financial system to be good to the whole world, not just refusing to play when it's bad to us.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

What your saying is not true, but even if it was it would be irrelevant if you like the idea of democracy. Wall Street and the finacial elite have NEVER been democratically elected, yet they still have enormuos power and infuence over our lives. If you like the idea of democracy you should not favor giving power to people that has not been democratically elected.

[-] 0 points by Misguided99 (6) 2 years ago

Actually everything I said is true. The "99%" have tripled the amount of personal debt they carry in less than 20 years. If you do not believe me, just do some research as it is pretty easy to prove out. Our founding fathers NEVER envisioned electing public officials for life. But that is what our "democracy" has done. And the most favored public officials are the ones who tell the American people they can loose weight on the "hot fudge sundae diet" meaning...they can have it all their way, and someone else will pay for it. Politicians (Democrats and Republicans) are very much to blame for the madness in Washington...they are career people who specialize in saying "YES"...and now you want the same thing in the private sector too? You are insane....that is what Hitler did in Germany when he nationalized the private sector. Same thing in Russia. So you want to nationalize the private sector? So more elected officials can create even more hand out programs?

[-] 1 points by HRyan (24) 2 years ago

I, for one, am not in favor of "nationalizing" the private sector, but I'm DEFINITELY in favor of stricter government regulation. It has to happen. People are simply too greedy and selfish. If a guy can get away with stealing his neighbor's Porsche, he will do it. If companies can get away with dumping toxic waste into the Hudson, they will do it. Fact of life.

[-] 1 points by kuuura (19) 2 years ago

Why do you think our debt has tripled? We don't make enough money vs how much inflation has risen. We can't get the right job for our degree. We can't even supply ourselves with the basics--and you think this is the 99%'s fault? Shame on you. You should know better than that, that we are product of the system. And now you're bringing up Hitler? Nice job at using out-dated rhetoric to try and win your completely ridiculous argument. The movement wants equality, a HUMAN government made FOR the people, to WORK FULL TIME JOBS, and get out of debt themselves. Its not the hand-out programs, which are funded by US, the 99%, that are the problem. Its the fact that we even need to USE THEM SO HEAVILY in the first place. God damn, get your rhetoric out of my face.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

Wooohoooo!!!! Exactly!!!

[-] 0 points by Misguided99 (6) 2 years ago

Ask your college why they charged your parents $50,000 a year for an education? Because government programs favored "higher education." It had very little to do with actually getting you ready to work. Do not worry...my kids are having the same problem and I have paid that price...so I have "earned" the right to speak up way more than you have. Look at the school you went to and just take a look at all the buildings they built over the last 20 years...funded by Government loan programs.

Truth is, you can only get a full time job if there are openings in the field you chose to work in, provided you looked at this carefully when you were getting ready to go to school. And nationalizing the private sector will not change that. I am extremely sorry for the place you are in, since I am still supporting ALL the kids I put through college (and paid for without loans) but until you convince the American public that THEY are the real reason for the lack of jobs, you will be misguided.

[-] 2 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

How many kids do you have ("since I am still supporting ALL the kids I put through college"). Who's fault is it if you have several kids you have gone in debt to support? Did someone put a gun to your head forcing you to breed?

How do you know that kuuura is in a bad predicament?

Even if someone goes to a state-funded 4-year college, the tuition is high, and most people need loans to pay for it. When I was in school from 1989-1995, my school (a state-funded one) cost $120/credit hour. I can't imagine what the cost is now. Why is it that a Canadian citizen can go to one of the very best private universities in Canada to get a PhD for the SAME AMOUNT it costs someone to attend a COMMUNITY COLLEGE here in the States?

Please quit blaming people for going to college to get a higher education in hopes of having a CAREER THEY ENJOY. That IS NOT the problem.

[-] 0 points by Misguided99 (6) 2 years ago

Hey SwissMiss. I did not go into debt. I worked three jobs and paid for it all in cash. I do not believe in debt.

[-] 1 points by kuuura (19) 2 years ago

You are assuming everyone can do what you do and has the opportunities you have which is not true. Based on where you grew up, your gender, your ethnicity, and where you lived while going to school, you were afforded or NOT afforded certain jobs.

[-] 1 points by kuuura (19) 2 years ago

I chose wisely with my living situation during college and ate little more than ramen, shopped at thrift stores exclusively, and worked every single summer and during most of my semesters at college doing jobs for business people that I didn't get paid for TWICE.

My grades allowed me to get my tuition down to less than 1700 a year due to grants, awards, and scholarships. So your assumption that I'm just a paid-for, misguided trust-fund baby with parents who paid 50k in tuition is crap. They believe that I was owed a good education, and so they probably put down a maximum of 12k combined for my entire college career to help me out while I got my 4.0 and perfected my skills.

No. You do not get the right to speak up more than me because you have kids going through what you assume is the same thing. You do not know me, or my life, or what I've gone through to get to where I am now.

Those in my generation were expressly told that going to college meant we'd have a job when we graduated, or at least hopes of having a job in our field EVER. A master's degree meant we'd have a fancy job. And guess who applied at the cafe my s.o managed just before he was wrongfully terminated by his misguided boss was being controlled by his 1% wife? HARVARD GRADUATED, MASTER'S DEGREE APPLICANTS. hmm

I was also told by all the faculty at my college, highschool, all my older relatives, all the people I LITERALLY EVER SPOKE TO, that education jobs were going to be there when I graduated. Were they? No. Why? Because retired teachers had to get jobs again to support their family due to financial collapse. Oil, gas, electricity, food, clothing, rent, mortgages--all that shit went up. Did wages go up? No. They didn't. And so the teachers who were supposed to retire went back to teaching, and the youth in my field are left without jobs because we have too much experience to work at CVS which can't even make a dent in our rent anyways, but too little experience to get the most basic of education jobs, now held by retirees and master's degree holders.

I am not misguided. Its not the public that is at fault. You are the one that is misguided. Big oil companies artificially inflate fossil fuel prices, which raises the price of everything because you need to use it to transport food, clothes, water, EVERYTHING.

How don't you know all this crap yet?????

[-] 1 points by aaronparr (612) 2 years ago

That is the opposite of the truth. Public Universities and Colleges have had to increase their fees in order to provide the same services as government support for education has declined.

[-] 1 points by kuuura (19) 2 years ago

truth.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

It`s interesting how you totally ignored my main point - that the finacial elite has enormous power, yet theyre not democratically elected. Thats not democracy, thats private tyranny http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpd3grtjkK8

"So you want to nationalize the private sector?" I want democracy in the communities and workplaces http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism But nationalization of a big corporation is better than leaving it in the hands of CEOs etc who have never been democratically elected. Nationalizing a corporation in a democratic society means that the people now have a say in how this institution should be run. struggleforfreedom http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/

[-] -1 points by Misguided99 (6) 2 years ago

And how many of you in this movement actually PAID for your own college education? Or did you count on Wall Street to provide the funds so you could borrow tons of money to go to college? Do some homework children....you have all gotten "chubby" on all these programs and you do not want to even admit it. And all these programs started in Washington. Do your homework...you will find out what I am saying is true.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

So, are you suggesting that an 18-year-old, fresh out of high school, should be expected to have the financial means to pay cash for their college education? Furthermore, should a college student be expected to pay cash for the remaining years of their education, when most college students who work while in college (as my sister and I did) only make minimum wage or slightly higher.... and on top of that, they have to pay their living expenses? What happens if their parents don't have the means to pay for their college up front?

What you are saying is completely idiotic.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

And my student loan and grant came from the federal government (along with some academic scholarships that I earned from all of my hard work throughout school).... so, I can thank it for helping me pay for college until I could pay it back.

[-] 1 points by aaronparr (612) 2 years ago

I did.

[-] 1 points by jemcgloin (63) from Staten Island, NY 2 years ago

Why should banks be able to charge upwards of 10% interest on a student loan. It is in the interest of all Americans to have an educated citizenry. Many conservatives I know got free educations from city or state colleges, and now they expect people to graduate with tens of thousands of dollars in debt and get jobs making 25,000/year.

[-] 0 points by Misguided99 (6) 2 years ago

Yes...ask your college why they went on a spending binge over the last 20 years that caused all colleges to get away with jacking up the cost of tuition by a factor of 15x to 20x where it was just 20 years ago. Now there is more student debt than credit card debt...it will be a crash bigger than the real estate bubble breaking on Wall Street in 2008. And the free educations funded by taxpayers like me is just as crazy...

The lower standard of living that America has to get used to is actually not the problem in this question. The real problem is why the entire College complex got away in jacking up the college hype to the point that it is so expensive. This too is very simple. You went to college, and your parents either paid for your education, or co signed a loan for you to go. You where not really paying the bill, so you never demanded your school to prove how you were going to get a job with the degree you were trying to get. When you are not the actual "paying customer" it is pretty easy to get things buy you. If you EARNED the money you were spending, you would be making decisions quite differently.

Same issue with our healthcare system, another system with too much government intervention. People can rack up thousands of dollars in charges, but the only thing they worry about is their $10 to $20 dollar co-pay. Why fight for lower prices when you can just pass the buck to an insurance company?

[-] 1 points by jemcgloin (63) from Staten Island, NY 2 years ago

In India, which you think American graduates should compete against directly, Universities are heavily subsidized by the government. Here the tenured professors are being replaced constantly by adjuncts with less pay and fewer benefits, so I'm not sure what the Universities are doing with the extra cash. Maybe they were encouraged by the global banks that they work with and the corporate research plants that they subsidize, so that everyone could make a ton of money off of the deal.

At the same time, why should insurance companies actually pay for health care when they can hire people to find excuses not to pay at all. Why is it that the administrative costs for medicare is 3% and administrative costs for private medicare is 15%, and the medicare Advantage plans managed to lobby to get a 12% subsidy to make up the difference. Health Insurance badly breaks all of the rules of a "perfect market" as described by standard capitalist economic textbooks. It also has many externalities that disconnect prices from true costs. This industry can never be a market good as described by the textbooks. That is why countries that have "socialized" medicine have better care (for real people, not just the rich) for smaller percentages of the GDP/

[-] 2 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

Insurance companies need to go away.

[-] 0 points by Misguided99 (6) 2 years ago

No...whether you realize it...America has BEEN competing with India for the last 5 to 7 years. Their wage scale is no more than 20% than that of American expectations. They can do quite a bit of subsidizing when the difference is this great. Our Universities are using their excess cash to build more buildings and pay professors on defined benefit plans because their Unions are looking for all of us to make up the hole in their retirements because the market crash of 2008 was so painful. We are basically paying for all of this twice. Do some more homework and ask more questions.

[-] 1 points by jemcgloin (63) from Staten Island, NY 2 years ago

Americans have been competing with Indians for a lot longer than 7 years. The point is we have the market power to encourage a race to the top, but instead we are encouraging a race to the bottom. Global corporations make all of the people of the world compete with each other to drive down the price of labor, and increase their obscene profits.

[-] 1 points by kuuura (19) 2 years ago

So, more buildings because we have more people going to college, and paying professor retirements for educating our youth is a bad thing? I'm not really following.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Youve really got balls. The finacial elite has more cash than ever. At the same time millions of americans are strugglinto get by. The gap between rich and the working class is bigger than ever, and you have the nerve to say that Occupy Wall Street have gotten chubby..

If you like the idea of democracy you should be in favor of more democracy in the communities and workplaces and so on, not advocating more power to the finacial elite, which has not been democratically elected

[-] 0 points by Misguided99 (6) 2 years ago

The "financial elite" you refer to just make their money financing what the American people want to do. America wanted to go on a borrowing binge. Wall street helped finance it. American kids do not want to actually work to go to school...so Wall Street financed it. Americans who could not afford homes wanted them...because Democrats told them they "deserve" them...so Wall Street financed that too.

This is silly. If you want to curb Wall Street, tell Americans to stop consuming crap hand over fist. Save money.

Americans are struggling to get by because for the most part, they made bad choices. They did not NEED new cars, new houses, maxed credit cards, and more stuff. They needed to SAVE...not consume. And according to the numbers, they do their consuming by looking for great deals at Walmart, which has been exporting American Jobs to China for the last 30 years. Do you not get this? It is pretty fundamental.

[-] 1 points by kuuura (19) 2 years ago

Ok. So, the financial elite make their money by funding what we want to do? So us wanting everyone to pay equal taxes based on amount made is going to get lobbied by the rich and upheld, right? So, big companies like Exxon Mobil will pay actual taxes this year, and pay backed-taxes because they didn't pay any last year, so we can be happy. Because thats that Wall Street does, right? Thats cool. I love wall street.

EXCEPT THEY DIDN'T DO THIS AND THEY WILL NEVER DO THIS SO YOUR POINT IS MOOT.

Why the hell do you think we consume so much? Do you know what power advertising and the media have? Do you understand the pull of celebrity lifestyle? Do you get that our standard of living in terms of technology--what you NEED to have to get by in the world from a tech standpoint--has increased, but our pay has not?

Walmart is Wall Street. They are all together in this coalition of evil. And you're telling me its the American peoples' fault. So, because we are poorer, and more in debt, by a combined fault of greed and elite overspending and joblessness and inflation, and don't have a great job to afford to get food from Whole Foods, its our fault.

Not the rich leeching money from our veins. Not CEOs getting 40mil bonuses for no apparent reason. Not Walmart for outsourcing, but OUR FAULT??

Get back to licking Fox News' taint.

[-] 1 points by Misguided99 (6) 2 years ago

Until Americans stop their carnivorous habits of over consumption of things they have to keep borrowing, nothing will change. If you want to be really productive, just tell all the people on your Facebook friends lists to stop their over consumption, and save money by putting it away.

[-] 1 points by kuuura (19) 2 years ago

Why do you think we are such big consumers?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gkIiV6konY

watch this, and think about how the media influences people, not just women. not just our patriarchy. think about how they sell shit, why they sell shit. why do you think the food pyramid has grain as the most important part of your meal when its proven that meat and veggies are the way to go? because the grain industry is subsidized. they bought our idea of what a healthy lifestyle is TO SELL US CORN.

I'm already productive in the way you're saying will help me; I save all my damn money and go only to thrift stores, buy the lowest possible price for food at places like Whole Foods when they have a SUPER sale, or the Super 88 which is cheap because its run by the asian community in Allston. All my friends are poor, and are saving money. Saving money will not get us jobs (by all rights my 4.0 and 3 awards upon graduation should have landed me that a long time ago), and saving money will not make the inflation of things like gas, food, oil for heating, and rent any less than it already is.

It is not the consumer's fault. Thats like saying its the fault of children in low-income areas for eating at McDonalds and getting fat. Their parents can't afford ANYTHING ELSE.

[-] 0 points by Misguided99 (6) 2 years ago

The key point I am making is Americans need to start accepting accountability for their actions. Walmart IS main street, because Walmart figures out what Americans want...and serves it up. So what if the jobs go off shore? Any American can SEE small retail shops closing up in their town when they drive by them on the way to Walmart for the next cheap deal. They are making those choices every day.

A full 1/3 of Americans are obese today. We are 15th or 16th in health care quality, yet we spend more than any other country on earth (per capita) on healthcare? Food companies just serve up what people want...

Time for Americans to take more responsibility for their actions and stop blaming their poor choices on everyone else.

[-] 1 points by aaronparr (612) 2 years ago

Wallmart has enabled its low prices in part through collusion and Union busting. Its the exact same model that the IMF uses around the world and other financial institutions are now using in the first world: say there is a debt crisis, propose austerity, allow private enterprise to increase its market share when gov't is reduced.

Wallmart has broken unions left and right. They have bought off the ports. None of this has anything to do with free enterprise. It has to do with shaping the rules of the market to favor you, rather than to play by the rules.

Sine the wealthy have made the rules comply to their wishes for so long, there is little room for the 99% to do much of anything. Time for us to make the rules.

[-] 1 points by Misguided99 (6) 2 years ago

Sorry aaronparr...you make the rules every day when you go after the cheapest price you can pay for a particular item. Historically, profits in a corporation is what enabled wages to rise. Study this more closely.

[-] 1 points by aaronparr (612) 2 years ago

You can't blame the consumer for lack of choice. You can't blame the consumer on the economy when acting rationally within that system;s rules. You can't blame the voter for lack of choice amongst leading candidates. You can't blame the reader for concentration of media. You can't blame employees when they are mismanaged.

Sorry Misguided one, but you just don't get it. If you are going to cite history, show the data, or at least mention what you mean by that. I HAVE studied this closely and see no evidence to support your claim. Dogma yes. Reality however does not support it. But don't ask me to prove a negative. I'm asking you to back your assertion.

[-] 1 points by kuuura (19) 2 years ago

seconded. I don't really know how people can argue against what you and I seem to both be talking about. its crazy.

[-] -1 points by Misguided99 (6) 2 years ago

The "elected officials" that you so love will not tell you the truth. Telling the truth does not win elections. The inmates will only vote for the warden if he or she promises more free stuff. Contrats...Obama gave all of you more"free stuff"...let you stay on Daddy and Mommie's health care plan longer. You just want to make sure that those "rich people" pay the freight...not you.

I challenge you all to vote for a candidate that says NO...or is willing to tell the truth about American's getting lazy. Take a close look at Ron Paul. He has always told the truth and see where it got him....no one wants to formally recognize that he is telling the truth because the Truth hurts.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Ron Paul wants total private tyranny. He wants to give all the power to poeple who have never been democratically elected - the finiancial elite. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkXhF2DJ7fc

[-] 1 points by Misguided99 (6) 2 years ago

What possible connection is there between a person's willingness and desire to RUN in a popularity contest for elected office, and the actual capabilities of the person to execute in the role?

If you told Steve Jobs he would have to run for public election to be the CEO of Apple, because you determined that he was so successful in amassing power...that you now have the right to force him to be chosen democratically...what would he say to you? Do you think he would hang around? Or would your interests be better served with some person who you can elect to hold the title? And do you think you would like your pension plan, that is required to support you, to hold the stock of Apple when your democratically elected official takes over as CEO?

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

"What possible connection is there between a person's willingness and desire to RUN in a popularity contest for elected office, and the actual capabilities of the person to execute in the role?"

Youre missing the point. Do we want people who are not democratically elected to run institutions that have a totalitarian model ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqlTyAMVDUk&feature=related ) or do we want democracy - that people democratically control their own communities and workplaces and if necessarty elect representatives to run certain things. I want the latter because i am a supperter of democracy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDHBvQRyOr0

"that you now have the right to force him to be chosen democratically" Nobodys forcing anyone to be chosen democratically.

"Do you think he would hang around?" If someone dont wanna "hang around" because theyre not allowed to have power over other people without being democratically elected, then good riddance.

[-] -1 points by Misguided99 (6) 2 years ago

How cute. You do not seem to want to understand that "Wall Street" or the little piece of it you think you understand, blew up because it was just working with the government programs Washington created because Democrats long ago decided home ownership should be for everyone, even it they could not afford their houses. Freddie Mae, Fanny Mac, and all the Washington agencies actually created the mess, it just blew up on Wall street. Talk to your parents and ask them how many times they re-financed their homes. You were all beneficiaries of "Wall Street" but guess what...there is no tooth fairy....and you just are understanding that?

[-] 2 points by jemcgloin (63) from Staten Island, NY 2 years ago

Freddie and Fanny were involved, but the collateralized debt obligations and other scams and the third party insurance of these wacky instruments was bigger than them. More importantly the mortgage industry was just one card in the entire house of cards, some of which is still standing. When the big banks figured out that all of the other banks were playing the same scams, they all stopped lending to each other or anyone else, and that was the credit crunch that brought down the economy.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

Another card is the building sector. House prices became so inflated that most couldn't afford them. Builders also have cashed in on this. I saw the housing sector go crazy in my area and in surrounding areas..... subdivisions being built EVERYWHERE and prices of houses being inflated through the roof.

Why are there so many half-empty and evacuated subdivisions? When an industry goes crazy because of greed, it eventually will crash. I knew it would crash.

[-] 0 points by Misguided99 (6) 2 years ago

Sorry...it was when sub prime lenders realized their default rates were climbing because their worse debt risks, the people whom democrats felt had the "right" to home ownership..could not actually make the payments on their loans.

Again...you need to actually do the research...not just flip "political here say" around the table.

[-] 1 points by jemcgloin (63) from Staten Island, NY 2 years ago

Yes the poor naive bankers were misled by the sophisticated poor people, and forced to foreclose on their houses. I'm sorry I didn't do my research on Fox News to get the Fair and Balanced version. The poor people stole all the money. That's why they're poor.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

Why did these lenders give out so many sub-prime loans? No one can borrow money if the lenders aren't giving out the money. They figured out a way to cash in on it.... like giving out a high-risk sub-prime loan and then selling it off immediately. Who's to blame for that. Oh, not the lenders.... because they have the right to that profit, right?

[-] 1 points by HRyan (24) 2 years ago

Why do you think that unscrupulous bankers have the right to exploit lower-income people, but lower-income people don't have the right to a house?

[-] 0 points by kuuura (19) 2 years ago

um..shouldn't home ownership be for everyone, even if they can't afford it? because, I don't know, we're a 1st world country and people need to house their young and, I don't know, live? hmm

[-] 1 points by kristy750 (21) 2 years ago

Why should home ownership be for everyone? What's wrong with renting? Trying to make home ownership for everyone is why we are in this mess. Bush jumped on board with the American Dream Commitment started in 1999 by Clinton. This commitment was 2 trillion dollars to help everyone get a home. Fannie and Freddie are the problem. I suggest you read these 2 articles, but here is a sample from the first article:

"Our approach to our lenders is `CRA Your Way'," Gorelick said. "Fannie Mae will buy CRA loans from lenders' portfolios; we'll package them into securities; we'll purchase CRA mortgages at the point of origination; and we'll create customized CRA-targeted securities. This expanded approach has improved liquidity in the secondary market for CRA product, and has helped our lenders leverage even more CRA lending. Lenders now have the flexibility to use their own, customized loan products," Gorelick said.

This whole bailout was caused by government interfering with the way banks lend. Banks would have never operated this way on their own because they knew it was too risky. The government was essentially saying do what we tell you to do and we will bail you out.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2001_May_7/ai_74223918/?tag=content;col1

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2003_March_18/ai_98885990/?tag=content;col1

[-] 1 points by kuuura (19) 2 years ago

I think renting is fine if it is proportional to how much money you can make in the way it's meant to be: 1/4th of your actual monthly pay. But its not, pretty much anywhere. See, I live in Boston, and our average rent for a 2 bed is 2000 dollars. A month. For a 764 square foot, sorry excuse for a 2 bed. I understand your ideas. I get your approach. I get your criticisms, but I think that everyone should have the right to shelter, regardless of who they are, and everyone should have a home they can afford to pay for, a place they can afford to rent from.

It doesn't really impress me who is at fault at this point, I'm just what we can do to fix it, since pointing fingers at various groups, organizations, etc is futile unless they are brought to justice for whatever wrong-doings they've done. Which they won't be.

There's a lot more to all of this than either of us both understand, or could ever know. Banks, Fannie Mae, big Pharmaceutical companies, Wall street--whatever villain we choose to rally against has enough money and power to keep us in the dark for however long they wish.

What do you believe in, kristy750? What do you think should be done about this crisis? Do you believe there is a crisis, or do you think the OCCUPY movement is completely unnecessary? I really want to know.

[-] 1 points by Misguided99 (6) 2 years ago

Thank you kristy750. Loans are actually supposed to be repaid by people who take out the loan. That is really a novel concept.

[-] 1 points by kristy750 (21) 2 years ago

Oh and btw, I would be more inclined to sympathize with the protesters if they were protesting the true culprits of this economic bubble collapse Fannie and Freddie. The banks have repaid almost all of the bailout money with interest, but yet the cost of bailing out Fannie-Freddie will be about 160 billion and could go up to 1 trillion. Where's the outrage at these entities?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-13/fannie-freddie-fix-expands-to-160-billion-with-worst-case-at-1-trillion.html

[-] 1 points by Misguided99 (6) 2 years ago

It is simple...this is just a misquided mob...and over history...misguided mobs tend to do "mob things" and not "rational things" like understanding that Fannie and Freddie, based in Washington, is where the problem originated, and where the primary blame lies. This mob is just basing their efforts on what they hear in the popular press...very sad...I thought they were "educated."

[-] 1 points by kristy750 (21) 2 years ago

And what is truly hilarious is that this misguided mob is being corralled by the white house and the democrats. They think they have a revolution for the people. What they really have is a rally for the president and the status quo. DC just gave approval for the protesters to camp out for another 4 months. This is one strange revolution. You can't change the status quo when the status quo backs you. Like you said, I thought they were "educated." An educated individual would have to ask why the ones in power are helping their cause. The president gave the rally cry, rich against poor, and the herd followed.

[-] 1 points by kuuura (19) 2 years ago

So, can I ask you a question? Have you emailed OCCUPY at all with your concerns? If not, why haven't you brought these points up with OCCUPY via email if you really were concerned enough to criticize the movement and make this many posts about it? If you think people are misinformed, which I think you'd be surprised at how many of us are on your side with the key issues you've expressed so far, why not actually do something about it instead of rally with your supporters on a forum?

I'm against politicians supporting our movement. Republicans and Democrats in our government are exactly the same, and I haven't been shown otherwise by anything they've done. I'm pretty sure most OCCUPANTS feel this way too.

[-] 1 points by kristy750 (21) 2 years ago

I don't need to email OWS with my concerns. OWS doesn't care about my concerns, as my concerns are that the constitution is being thrown out the window. My concern is that our government has abandoned the checks and balances placed in our constitution to keep our elected officials honest. This protest is supported by the politicians you say are against. Why is that? This protest is about asking the same entity that you do not trust to take care of you. Why is that? This protested is supported by the mega rich, those you say you are against. Why is that? Why are you only protesting some rich people and not all rich people? Why are you not protesting GE and Immelt, George Soros? Because this protest is not about banks or the rich, it is about changing our system of government. It is about throwing out the constitution. If this was truly about the rich and banks, the protests would also be against Fannie, Soros, GE, and most importantly the White House. But instead the protesters sit around and make "demands." It sounds like you're terrorists. What will happen if the "demands" are not met?

[-] 1 points by kristy750 (21) 2 years ago

I know, right. I have never understood why it is everyone has to own a home. It's actually better to rent right now. I own my home and have to pay homeowner's insurance, property taxes, maintain my lawn, fix anything that breaks down, replace the roof, fix leaks, etc. If I rented, I could just call the landlord and no money out of my pocket. If you can't afford a home, it's not the end of the world. If you never own a home, it's not the end of the world. If you are chasing after what everyone else has and feel you deserve the same, you will be miserable for all your life.

[-] 1 points by kuuura (19) 2 years ago

I can't reply to your response to my question about emailing OWS.

By saying OWS doesn't care for your concerns, and you can't even be bothered to email them, you're just shrugging off responsibility for the opinions you post here and your validity as an actually concerned person, and not just a troll, that of which I think you might be.

My concern is ALSO that the government has abandoned the checks and balances system to keep elected officials honest. MOST occupants are worried about this as well.

Why do they support it? Because they want to use it. Why do we ask the entity we don't trust to take care of us? Because the system was MADE FOR US, not them, for US. We're just taking it back. The protest is supported by the mega rich who also happen to have BRAINS IN THEIR HEADS. Why is that? Because they see the inequality and know we are fighting for what is right, and are inherently good people. I'm not protesting some rich people, I'm protesting unethical business practices, the Wall Street Bailout, the fact that the rich are taxed less, major banks using fraudulent documents to ruin home-owners and foreclose homes, GE not paying ANY TAXES LAST YEAR, etc etc etc etc. The protests ARE ABOUT THESE THINGS. How about actually attending one and talking with more than one person on their views?

Terrorists? Ok. I'm done with you.

Nice job being COMPLETELY uninformed about what our movement is about, and resorting to ridiculous judgements because you know your argument is invalid. You sound more and more like a conservative media puppet with every single post, kristy750.

Done. Not responding. Don't even bother replying.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

Righ on!!

[-] 0 points by Misguided99 (6) 2 years ago

The Czech Republic believed housing was a right too. When they converted to communism they created plenty of dormitory barracks for people to live in. So everyone who could not afford housing, had housing. And those who could work and then pay for their housing, just escaped across the border. The hmm stuff is cute...that is how communism started too.

[-] -2 points by Misguided99 (6) 2 years ago

Do you not even understand that the very medium you choose to communicate with...the web and mobile, is the reason why 30% of the world is not needed in the workforce? This cool free thing called the web has eliminated most of the jobs you would like to have. And, of course, "Wall Street" figured out how to pay for it so you could all play on it for free? Do you not get it?

[-] 2 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

Internet is free? Really? I wish I would've known that, because I'm paying for my internet at home, and it's not that cheap.

[-] 1 points by Misguided99 (6) 2 years ago

You pay a cheap price to access it, and nothing to use it. Who do you think is paying the fixed costs of running this website? Some corporation who is absorbing the costs.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

In order to use it, I HAVE to pay for it. Your comment makes no sense.

[-] 1 points by kuuura (19) 2 years ago

no. the internet created more jobs. it makes us more educated. Are you ridiculous? All the major net groups like google, yahoo, aol, etc, employee BUTTLOADS of people, the ones that would be missing out on middle-men real-time services that the internet did away with. You're just derailing to try and prove your point that we don't need to protest against wall street and our corrupt government. Go back to rhetoric school.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

Exactly!!! Just think of all the extra IT people, web designers, web architects/web engineers, graphic designers, marketing people, etc., etc., etc. that are needed now because of the internet and computers in general!!!! Those careers DID NOT EXIST before the internet and PCs became available. DUH!!!!

[-] 0 points by Misguided99 (6) 2 years ago

You really do not understand. Google and Yahoo are NOT where the jobs were lost. Corporate America is NOT hiring now because web technologies have made them so productive they do not have to hire. If you track this back over the last 15 years, you will come to a VERY different conclusion.

Also...Yahoo and Google eliminated massive numbers of jobs in the newspaper industry. Google is in the middle of a six month release of its own (called Google Panda) that has had the impact of putting more than 10,000 free lance workers out of work. Google this if you do not believe it.

[-] 1 points by kuuura (19) 2 years ago

paper media to provide information has been upgraded to digital media to provide information. same job, different format. workers who work in industries where technology is always changing the format and the way their jobs function have to constantly learn, relearn, and upgrade their knowledge-base. its common sense.

While I agree that web technologies have made a lot of different jobs obsolete, they have also opened up different and new sets of job markets, and humans need to be able to adapt to technology in order to thrive. Its just different. Not better, not worse, just different.

Google inducts its employees with the option to buy discounted stocks with the company. If google does well, they get bonuses in proportion to their stocks as well as what they get from stocks. If google does poorly, they don't get bonuses from that. As far as I'm concerned, google is a pretty sound employer though they do control so much, though their actions with youtube and blocking protest videos in the UK is extremely sketchy.

Corporate America is not hiring because they really do not give a shit about the middle-to-lower class. They care about money. That is all.

Web technologies create more jobs with every single platform that is created. Tumblr, ebay, craigslist--there's a new site each day that employs teams of people that range from 5 for super small enterprises to THOUSANDS. And how many sites are there that are brimming with potential for new product testers, database managers, graphic artists, marketing people, writers, and so on and so forth? Thousands.

News is online. It didn't vanish.

I really don't know if you're just trying to pick fights with people over crap because you think they're wrong, or are trying to help people by educating them about something they don't understand....

[-] 1 points by aaronparr (612) 2 years ago

The web has not increased productivity at all. Do you have data to support this?

Productivity in the US has been increased in manufacturing due to automation and more sophisticated computer controlled processes. Its why the US still produces a great deal but employees very very few in manufacturing.

[-] 1 points by Misguided99 (6) 2 years ago

Thank you for making my point. The Web plays a major role in all those more sophisticated processes, etc.

[-] 1 points by aaronparr (612) 2 years ago

A minor role. If the web goes down, all of those processes still function.

[-] 1 points by jemcgloin (63) from Staten Island, NY 2 years ago

The internet was a government program that does create, and destroy jobs. Technology always does that. The problem is that as we get more and more efficient, and each worker is able to create more wealth in fewer hours, all of the gains of our productivity go to the corporations and their billionaires. Wages used to go up with productivity, but since greed became popular about 30 years ago the real median wage has been flat, while the incomes of the richest 2% has multiplied by 6. A census study that came out yesterday says that real median income is down 9.6% since 2007. The economy cannot recover until that is reversed. Corporate profits are at record levels but they take the cash and bank it. Corporations are not "job creators." They are pirates burying their treasure chests.

[-] 0 points by Misguided99 (6) 2 years ago

Your knowledge of financial and economic history is VERY weak. "Greed became popular 30 years ago?" Go back a few thousand years to the tulip bulb manias, and even further. Wages are not going up now because Internet/ Broadband can export virtually any job in the world to India where it can be done at a fraction of the U.S. wage. That is what is different today. Wages did not go up over history to reward workers. Wages went up when new potential employees are scarce for skilled roles.

There are more people in the top 25% of the IQ stack in India than there are ALL the people in the United States. Wrap your brain around this one. They are all on Skype. Get it?

Do you own a mobile device? Was it made in the U.S.? Get it?

[-] 1 points by UGuysRstoopid (2) 2 years ago

I like what you are saying. I love how everyone is trying to occupy wall street and march against huge corporations, but are all wearing nikes and filming it with their $1200 canon cameras. Doesn't make sense to me

[-] 1 points by jemcgloin (63) from Staten Island, NY 2 years ago

I was basicially talking about supply side economics, and the "greed is good" mantra of the last 30 years. Before that time worker productivity and wages mostly tracked each other. The United States did have to open up its markets to foreign countries that had no protections for its workers or its environment. We could have set up trade laws that encouraged higher wages and environmental protections around the world. Instead we set up trade laws that only protect capital. We are not only exporting knowledge jobs, but factories. Corporations have convinced politicians to force their constituents to compete in a race to the bottom. We all work harder and smarter and get less and less for our troubles. What is the solution?

[-] 0 points by Misguided99 (6) 2 years ago

IT is very simple. Ask all your buddies in this "movement" to agree that they will pay 10% more for every good or service if it will fund jobs in the United States. Slamming Wall Street will not make one bit of difference.

[-] 1 points by jemcgloin (63) from Staten Island, NY 2 years ago

The simple part is that all of our productivity keeps going up, but only a few take all of the gains.

[-] 1 points by aaronparr (612) 2 years ago

Within the United States the neo-liberal economic paradigm was not openly supported by a US president until Reagan. Learn your history. Learn your present.

[-] 1 points by jemcgloin (63) from Staten Island, NY 2 years ago

Yes Reagan was elected thirty years ago. That was about the time that the median wage flattened out, and the income of the richest skyrocketed.

[-] 1 points by aaronparr (612) 2 years ago

While Reagan's economic policy greatly contributed to these problems, the 70's brought a number of issues into US society that have still not been addressed:

The US was until 1970 a major oil producing country. We hit our own oil peak in roughly 1970. Innumerable issues in our economy come down to our energy problem.

Decline of American industry and the US worker was a relatively new problem. This is partially related to our energy problem, but the GATT agreement of 1973 plays a VERY large role in this considering how much that agreement opened up international trade - and the off shoring of workers. The WTO is an institutionalized GATT and both are part of the Breton Woods system. Reagan's economic policies were an outgrowth of this as well as thought up by that religious nut - Milton Friedman. Moral: never trust a dogmatic economist.

The international credit crisis in the 70's and the inflation crisis that we have revisited over and over again in the unnaturally frequent boom and bust economic cycles. (Brought to us by the banksters)

Secret War in Afghanistan and revival of special forces to handle black ops as well as training of groups we would later call terrorists. Although Reagan indulged heavily in terrorist creation - Carter initiated it.

[-] 3 points by deltech (4) 2 years ago

A business is concerned with making money. Government should be concerned with the people's well-being. Somewhere someone came up with the idea that "What's good for business is good for America." It sounds good but in a global economy it just doesn't work. Unless you have a strong middle class spending money that isn't borrowed, the economy will never be strong. A strong economy means a strong country.

[-] 1 points by kuuura (19) 2 years ago

seconded

[-] 3 points by ms3000 (253) 2 years ago

I am an attorney and I am still willing to come down and meet with someone with decision making authority to get permits for toilets, sanitation services and potable water. The city will shut you down if you don't make an effort to comply with public health law section 225 part 7-4. I am trying to help but the permits and toilets and water trucks cost money even if lawyers offer their free time,

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

I read that the park is on private property, but the company that owns it got it if it agreed to allow the public to use it at will.... so, I guess it's like a public park on private party, if that's possible.

[-] 1 points by ms3000 (253) 2 years ago

I am not sure what the law is on this but if they are creating a public health problem because they don't have clean water or sanitation and they are going to the bathrooms in huge numbers in restaurants and shops, the problem really needs to be addressed with clean water, porto potties, showers and heated tents for the colder months.

[-] 1 points by MeAndWeThePeople (59) from Chicago, IL 2 years ago

"The city will shut you down" - How do you shut down a revolution?!

[-] 1 points by ms3000 (253) 2 years ago

I am talking about the park which I believe is on private property but if there is a health risk posed, they can use that as an excuse to disperse everyone. We need to obtain permits for toilets, hygiene, potable water and sanitation services. The law also calls for an engineer's report and other criteria to protect public health.

[-] 1 points by MeAndWeThePeople (59) from Chicago, IL 2 years ago

Permits don't apply in a revolution, the park is ours, just try shutting it down and you will see whose park it is.

[-] 1 points by aaronparr (612) 2 years ago

Its not big enough yet. Plus you need local authorities on your side before the real guns enter this fray. Don't underestimate what you are up against. Learn how to build a successful movement not just play at protest.

[-] 1 points by MeAndWeThePeople (59) from Chicago, IL 2 years ago

What got me into this movement was the arrest of 700 protestors on the Brooklyn Bridge. When they marched into Washington Square last weekend they didn't bother getting the "more than 20 people" permit and the cops let them in. The cops won't touch us because it will create a spark that will set Wall Street on fire.

[-] 1 points by aaronparr (612) 2 years ago

I wouldn't count on that. The moment the movement gets violent, overt violent police action is considered legitimate. Until you have the police on your side, you are vulnerable.

Learn something from Egypt. While the Army has proved to be a double edged sword, the army enabled the success of their revolution.

[-] 1 points by ms3000 (253) 2 years ago

I think you are right, it would be a stupid move by Mayor Bloomberg, I am just letting people know about the law.

[-] 1 points by MeAndWeThePeople (59) from Chicago, IL 2 years ago

Bloomberg who rewrote the law so he could serve a 3rd term and spent $100 million during the "campaign" just in case anybody tried to contest him.... Dictator in the making.

[-] 1 points by ms3000 (253) 2 years ago

true but the reality is that the Public Health Department could go down there and say they are not in compliance and a threat to public health and order the police to end it. Anyway, a few of us have reached out to help them get the permits for toilets, potable water and sanitation services but no response because we are leaderless. All we are asking for is the General Assembly to vote for an executive committee comprised of 7, 9, or 11 (or some other odd number of people) to handle these housekeeping issues and to put some kind of acton plan in place. This is a declaration and action plan I helped write:

https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/home/the-steps-to-non-violent-revolution

https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/

Will keep trying! Don't give up!

[-] 1 points by insomniaczombie (2) from Clarkston, MI 2 years ago

the only reason they are able to have what they have in that park is because its not public. its a private park owned by some one else. I think actually a banker. he finds the efforts cute, and for the moment is allowing the protesters use of the property. idk if he's waiting to charge money to everyone, but I have heard the owner is going to the mayor and has given police permission to keep things under control. so for the moment you can be on that land. but if the owner wants you out, your out. so if they tried putting toilets on the land the guy that owns it mite not crack down on that. this is what I've read any way. its the only reason you can sleep in the park since in nyc sleeping in a park is illegal.

[-] 1 points by ms3000 (253) 2 years ago

I understand your point but I imagine the city can shut them down if they pose a public health risk. Bottom line, basic sanitation, hygiene and water needs must be met for this to continue.

[-] 1 points by aaronparr (612) 2 years ago

Sounds good, but shouldn't you be speaking about this at the GA or sending a PM to make this happen?

[-] 1 points by ms3000 (253) 2 years ago

how do I send a PM? I was down there on wednesday and saturday but I am also representing people who get arrested.

[-] 1 points by aaronparr (612) 2 years ago

Click on the author of the article and send a PM. Thats one thing to try.

Althoguh if you have gone down to talk with people, you are on the best path.

More power to you! Good luck out ther in NYC. We'll see how things go here tomorrow in Oakland.

[-] 2 points by madeinusa (393) 2 years ago

We need the Glass–Steagall Act brought back to stop Wall street greed

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

exactly

[-] 2 points by madeinusa (393) 2 years ago

MSNBC headline: Recession officially over, but US incomes kept falling

I wonder why? The corporations are stealing from us as a result of this fake artificial recession concocted to extract more money from us and to enslave us like slaves in China

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

exactly

[-] 2 points by madeinusa (393) 2 years ago

The solution is to keep money out of politics. Please look at and sign this petition:

http://www.getmoneyout.com/

[-] 2 points by madeinusa (393) 2 years ago

Education is not a business. NO more Charter schools. No more charter school segregation. Keep the racists out of education.

[-] 2 points by DaDOMatic (5) 2 years ago

This is a shout out around the world! all cartoonist's please add occupywallst.org and flickr to your blogs and websites and create links to each other. This effects all of us and the future of our children. I am DaD O Matic of DaD O Matic's Twisted cartoons and I have added this site to my blog, will you? I am the 99%.

[-] 2 points by EdMull13 (2) 2 years ago

Too Big To Fail "MAKE THE SMALLER" Don't d business wiyh Big Banks.. Use small and regional banks. No Pols or Laws needed. Nothing lost and Main Street wins over Wall Street influence.

[-] 2 points by aaronparr (612) 2 years ago

Credit Unions not banks. Its better to actually own the profits made with your money.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

Agreed. I 'm switching to one of my local credit unions this week. Wish I would've done it a long time ago.

[-] 1 points by aaronparr (612) 2 years ago

The main thing is to only to take debt with your credit union. that way you benefit from paying off the debt. think of a credit union as socialized banking. you will own a share of the profits.

keeping your money in a credit union is beneficial to the credit union, but it does not benefit you as much as shifting all of your debt to the credit union.

I also recommend joining a local credit union. that will help keep the money in your actual community.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

Perhaps this should be one of the key points of this movement..... everyone switching to local credit unions.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

I mistakenly just got my mortgage from a big bank. I will re-fi through the credit union as soon as I can.... as not to give the big bank anymore of my money and to own a share pf my profits, like you said. I wish I would've thought about this before.

We need to do this en masse.

[-] 2 points by GreenRevolution (15) 2 years ago

Did you know? "Dennis Kucinich Tells Occupy Wall Street to Nationalize the Federal Reserve": http://www.infowars.com/dennis-kucinich-tells-occupy-wall-street-to-nationalize-the-federal-reserve/

Cynthia McKinney "support all of the occupy movements": http://allthingscynthiamckinney.posterous.com/updates-on-life

[-] 2 points by rubysjones (4) 2 years ago

EXCELLENT!! Powerful and beautiful. GO!!!

[-] 1 points by andypap (2) 2 years ago

an opinion from Greece. Not to compare the corruption cost of the political system and it's sub connections in here, but there is another huge cost to support. This is the "defence" cost to maintain and keep military forces and operations around the world. This costs around 800 Billion$ for US per annual for Iraq & Afganistan missions. For Greece costs more than 5% of the annual GDP . Imagine who's greedence favor is all about

[-] 1 points by andypap (2) 2 years ago

an opinion from Greece. Not to compare the corruption cost of the political system and it's sub connections in here, but there is another huge cost to support. This is the "defence" cost to maintain and keep military forces and operations around the world. This costs around 800 Billion$ for US per annual for Iraq & Afganistan missions. For Greece costs more than 5% of the annual GDP . Imagine who's greedence favor is all about

[-] 1 points by markarecio (26) 2 years ago

Occupy Wall Street For A Long Time Until There is Social, Economic, And Political Change.

Three Things Come into Mind: One is Wall Street and Government Should be Separate. Two is Tax The 1 Percent Rich for Fairness and More Government Revenue. Three is Sales Tax Should Be Distributed To Social, Constructive, and Economic Programs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91ZPdoExVjQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zn_x5vpD8W8&feature=related

[-] 1 points by NowhereMan (1) 2 years ago

I play this video over and over. It's been my "soundtrack" to the occupation--and very inspiring.

[-] 1 points by georgia99 (37) 2 years ago

off subject but.. Carnival Cruise Lines made through 2005 - 2009 11.25 billion paid 126 million taxes thats 1.12% Boeing 2004 - 2009 made 17.5 billion paid 796 million in taxes thats 4.6% Ford 2010 3 billion paid 69 million 2.3% Allegheny Energy 2.5 billion paid 58 million Broadcom 1.2 billion paid 41 million 3.32% Nvidia 2005-2009 1.8 billion paid 41 million 2.2% Xcel Energy 4.3 billion paid 77 million 1.78% Amazon 3.5 billion paid 152 million 4.3% Host Hotels 2004 - 2009 1.1 billion paid 34 million 3.05% Conocophilips 16 billion paid 451 million Valero Energy 68 billion got a 157 million tax refund Exxon Mobil paid 0 in taxes alonge with GE who also paid 0 in taxes Google falls in a 2.4% tax bracket and I have saved the best for last Bank Of America 4.4 billion with a 1.9 billion tax refund Goldman Sachs in 2008 pulled 2.3 billion and got a 800 billion tax refund Since 2004 when I started subcontracting i have been paying at least 27% of my income and never got a refund this is the world we live in. if i have to pay so should they.

[-] 1 points by Murray (5) 2 years ago

If these facts are right it is an incredible disgrace to say the least. I hope more people join this movement.

[-] 1 points by FreeJack (15) from Alexandria, VA 2 years ago

Goals:

  1. Influence share holders to divest in corporations that pay CEOs and senior executives more than 100 times their lowest paid worker.

  2. Influence all Americans to close accounts at major banks and join credit unions.

  3. Force Congress to pass Fair Trade laws to replace Free Trade laws.

  4. Force Congress to pass term limit legislation, three terms for the House and two terms for the Senate.

  5. Force Congress to make corporate campaign contributions illegal, only US citizens can contribute up to $100 per candidate.

  6. Force Congress to pass the Employee Free Choice Act H.R.1409.

[-] 1 points by SqueezieToy (7) 2 years ago

American Dream-George Carlin There's a reason that education sucks, and it’s the same reason it will never ever ever be fixed. It’s never going to get any better, don’t look for it. Be happy with what you’ve got. Because the owners of this country don’t want that. I’m talking about the real owners now, the big, wealthy, business interests that control all things and make the big decisions.

Forget the politicians, they’re irrelevant.

Politicians are put there to give you that idea that you have freedom of choice. You don’t. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land, they own and control the corporations, and they’ve long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the State Houses, and the City Halls. They’ve got the judges in their back pockets. And they own all the big media companies so they control just about all the news and information you get to hear.

They’ve got you by the balls.

They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want; they want more for themselves and less for everybody else. But I’ll tell you what they don’t want—they don’t want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking.

They don’t want well informed, well educated people capable of critical thinking. They’re not interested in that. That doesn’t help them. That’s against their interest. You know something, they don’t want people that are smart enough to sit around their kitchen table and figure out how badly they’re getting fucked by a system that threw them overboard 30 fucking years ago.

They don’t want that, you know what they want?

They want obedient workers, obedient workers. People who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork and just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shittier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, the reduced benefits, the end of overtime and the vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it.

And now they’re coming for your social security money.

They want your fucking retirement money; they want it back so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street.

And you know something? They’ll get it. They’ll get it all from you sooner or later because they own this fucking place.

It’s a big club and you ain’t in it! You and I are not in the Big Club. By the way, it’s the same big club they use to beat you in the head with all day long when they tell you what to believe. All day long beating you over the head with their media telling you what to believe, what to believe, what to think and what to buy.

The table is tilted folks, the game is rigged.

Nobody seems to notice, nobody seems to care. Good honest hard working people, white collar, blue collar, it doesn’t matter what color shirt you have on. Good honest hard working people continue, these are people of modest means, continue to elect these rich cocksuckers who don’t give a fuck about them. They don’t give a fuck about you. They don’t give a fuck about…give a fuck about you! They don’t care about you at all, at all, at all.

And nobody seems to notice, nobody seems to care. That’s what the owners count on, the fact that Americans are and will probably remain willfully ignorant of the big red, white, and blue dick that’s being jammed up their assholes everyday.

Because the owners of this country know the truth, it’s called the American Dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it.

[-] 1 points by SqueezieToy (7) 2 years ago

American Dream-George Carlin There's a reason that education sucks, and it’s the same reason it will never ever ever be fixed. It’s never going to get any better, don’t look for it. Be happy with what you’ve got. Because the owners of this country don’t want that. I’m talking about the real owners now, the big, wealthy, business interests that control all things and make the big decisions.

Forget the politicians, they’re irrelevant.

Politicians are put there to give you that idea that you have freedom of choice. You don’t. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land, they own and control the corporations, and they’ve long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the State Houses, and the City Halls. They’ve got the judges in their back pockets. And they own all the big media companies so they control just about all the news and information you get to hear.

They’ve got you by the balls.

They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want; they want more for themselves and less for everybody else. But I’ll tell you what they don’t want—they don’t want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking.

They don’t want well informed, well educated people capable of critical thinking. They’re not interested in that. That doesn’t help them. That’s against their interest. You know something, they don’t want people that are smart enough to sit around their kitchen table and figure out how badly they’re getting fucked by a system that threw them overboard 30 fucking years ago.

They don’t want that, you know what they want?

They want obedient workers, obedient workers. People who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork and just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shittier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, the reduced benefits, the end of overtime and the vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it.

And now they’re coming for your social security money.

They want your fucking retirement money; they want it back so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street.

And you know something? They’ll get it. They’ll get it all from you sooner or later because they own this fucking place.

It’s a big club and you ain’t in it! You and I are not in the Big Club. By the way, it’s the same big club they use to beat you in the head with all day long when they tell you what to believe. All day long beating you over the head with their media telling you what to believe, what to believe, what to think and what to buy.

The table is tilted folks, the game is rigged.

Nobody seems to notice, nobody seems to care. Good honest hard working people, white collar, blue collar, it doesn’t matter what color shirt you have on. Good honest hard working people continue, these are people of modest means, continue to elect these rich cocksuckers who don’t give a fuck about them. They don’t give a fuck about you. They don’t give a fuck about…give a fuck about you! They don’t care about you at all, at all, at all.

And nobody seems to notice, nobody seems to care. That’s what the owners count on, the fact that Americans are and will probably remain willfully ignorant of the big red, white, and blue dick that’s being jammed up their assholes everyday.

Because the owners of this country know the truth, it’s called the American Dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it.

[-] 1 points by Murray (5) 2 years ago

You could not be more correct about this. Sadly I don't think it will change either. Big money has a stranglehold on things now and are not going to let it go without an all out war by the people.

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

Can someone please tell me why America has a "class" system when the Europeans who came here were running from that same thing in England?

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

Can someone please tell me why America has a "class" system when the Europeans who came here were running from that same thing in England?

[-] 1 points by thejunkie (50) 2 years ago
  1. Starts using Drug.
  2. Enjoys Drug.
  3. Drug leads to suffering.
  4. Cries about suffering.
  5. Try to lower drug prices.
  6. Elect new drug dealers.
  7. Continue using drug.
  8. Enjoy drug.
  9. Drug leads to suffering.
  10. Blames drug dealer
  11. Dies from drug.
  12. Drug dealer dies from lack of funny american.
  13. America dies from lack of funny american and drug dealer.
  14. One funny american left makes Hollywood movie and watches it alone.
[-] 1 points by PoorerRichard (14) 2 years ago

Here's a sign I'd carry, if I could get there, Treme Fans, take notice...

"Bank You, You Banking Banks!"

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

all bloggers are with you http://usagainst.blogfa.com/

[-] 1 points by sufinaga (513) 2 years ago

this is what democracy looks like! this is the real spirit of america, this is really the spirit of the youth of the planet. so its a civil war: youth v the hated police ALL OVER THE WORLD. we need global solidarity against this global tyranny. they must have no place to run no place to hide not even a TEMPORARY mars colony costing us trillions.

[-] 1 points by humanbeing (8) from Olga, WA 2 years ago

"movement of anger"? non-violence is our only chance at true peace and revolution. possibly a longer, but "truer", road. in the words of mlk..".harness anger under discipline for maximum effect". we have to be smarter. violence and anger just lead to more violence and anger. power to the peaceful! power to the people! keep up the labor of love xxoo we are with you!

[-] 1 points by cuba3 (1) 2 years ago

Unfortunately 99% are so weak that it makes 1% laugh all day long. In fact they are taking vacations somewhere where is safe and less noise. Slaves and masters existed all the time in history. There is very little that 99% can do. Just be happy that you were not born in Zimbabwe, and you are still alive. The one lucky percent can do and will do anything they want with us. They have everything in their power - money, law, police, guns, food, medicine, you name it.

All this chanting is pretty much useless. What do ALL YOU SUGGEST? Abolish money? Use gold? Total anarchy? Looting? Growing organic? Free "medical" marihuana for everyone? Breeding more slaves in third world countries who will work to the death? Starting a war? Revolution? There are no solutions. People in the government in every country around the globe will feast and enjoy the life at the expense of 99%.

[-] 1 points by 36of534 (15) 2 years ago

We are the Wall Street Protestors. Existence, as you know it, is over. We will add your Fiscal and technological distinctiveness to our own. Resistance is futile."

[-] 1 points by Socialist (2) 2 years ago

It's a good thing then, that 99% of the population thinks you guys are a bunch lunatics!

[-] 1 points by Socialist (2) 2 years ago

Too big to fail? Isn't that what Fannie May and Freddie Mac said?

[Deleted]

[Deleted]

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by UGuysRstoopid (2) 2 years ago

This is the stupidest thing I have ever seen. I guarantee that the girl with a 4.0 didn't major in economics or business, most likely fine art or some stupid shit like that. College isn't free, it's a fact, and if you don't get that I don't get how you passed college level classes. Get over your hip, new generation, revolutionary self and realize that America is great because of our capitalist, free market system. Get off your lazy ass and stop making stupid ass signs, if someone paid 7.85/hr for making stupid signs, you'd be one rich son of a bitch. The sad thing for you is that it doesn't work like that. Go flip cheeseburgers, or clean some toilets, you're not above that.

[-] 1 points by abmebratu (349) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

The United States Senate = Fat Cat's club

[-] 1 points by abmebratu (349) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

The vast majority of Americans know that their vote doesn't really matter. As soon as we elect an official, they turn their backs on us and run to the bankers, corporations, and fat cats for money. They then spend their lives as incumbents passing law after law helping their new found rich friends and hurting mainstream America.....This is why my generation is called upon to devise a way to extricate money from politics as best we could. I know this is a tough proposition, but if we put all our minds together and think big and beautiful we can do it.........God Bless America.

[-] 1 points by theone (3) 2 years ago

"We must grow in size peacefully like small controlled fires and later force our movement of anger and frustration like wild fires" fail

[-] 1 points by Murray (5) 2 years ago

Ignore all this talk about the demands of the protestors. The only demand is that change happens to this outrageous system. Politicians need to make the necessary changes to support the one and only demand necessary. "change has to happen to stop the theft or taxpayers futures" Your children's children will be paying for the nonsense that has already gone on and if they don't stop it will all come tumbling down for sure. Demand only that Obama create rules to control Wall Street and the Banks. If he doesn't then replace him. If the Republicans don't then replace them and so on until someone stands up to the corruption.

[-] 1 points by Murray (5) 2 years ago

People must understand the difference between Capitalism and Democracy. Capitalism is a “form of doing business” — Democracy is a “state of being” of the people of a country. Where the two overlap is when Capitalists create huge amounts of debt and pass it onto the people of a Democracy. Every time a company or person makes a million or a billion dollars and brags about it remember that that money will have to be paid by the tax payers at some point because that is the only way money is created. Capitalists do not create money — they create debt for taxpayers to pay eventually. Money is a form of energy and can only be created by work, not by the pen. The Capitalists have created Trillions in debt over the past decades and now we the taxpayers have to pay up for it. Sound like a communist state? Well it is when greed gets involved. Capitalism can only work if it is controlled by those who have to eventually cover this debt. ie: people or government. As long as politicians are allowed to be bought by big business it will have to be the people. GO “OCCUPY WALLSTREET” YOU ARE OUR ONLY HOPE.

[-] 1 points by kristy750 (21) 2 years ago

You are going to have explain this better. How does capitalism create debt and how do they pass it onto the people? Let's say I start a business selling pizza. I need capital. So I look for investors. I then find investors and I lease a building, buy furnishings, appliances, food, and then employ 10 people. I get my permits from the city. I then open and make great pizzas. I charge 15.00 dollars a pizza. People come in and give me 15.00 dollars and they get a pizza. I then use this money to pay the lease, my employees, utilities,taxes, pay back investors. At what point am I creating a debt for taxpayers? I am the taxpayer.

[-] 1 points by Murray (5) 2 years ago

Yes in this case you are the taxpayer because you actually pay taxes. Multinational corporations do not pay taxes ( at least not enough to count any way.) The real debt is created by the banks. They lend out money they don't have which on the surface seems to be OK until reality sets in as it did in 2008 and all these institutions want their money that they lent out but of course they can't get it because it did not exist in the first place. Now they say they are going broke so need us to bail them out with more money that does not exist right now. ( ie: debt) The problem now gets bigger. Leveraging is the real problem. If banks are going to lend out money that doesn't exist then they cannot be bailed out with money that doesn't exist. The only real money seems to be tax money. It has been earned at some point and therefor has some value. When you made your pizza you earned your money so it is real. Just writing down on a piece of paper that you earned money is not real.

[-] 1 points by kristy750 (21) 2 years ago

But what you are describing is not capitalism. All of our goods come from capitalism. The computer you are using, your iphone, your ipod, the food you eat, the clothes you buy all come from capitalism. Who would produce these goods without a capitalist system? What you are describing is crony capitalism. The government has created a tax system that rewards their friends, their contributors. That's why we need a flat tax, no loopholes. I understand that there is no real money changing hands in the bank lending business. But you have to understand, the banks never would have loaned money to such risky borrowers without the pressure of our government and we never would have been in this mess if not for the American Dream Commitment. Fannie is the problem. The banks have repaid 99% of the TARP money with interest. We are out 160 billion from Fannie and could be up to 1 trillion according to the CBO.

I find it highly ironic that the white house has sent down the call to protest banks, but back in 2003, they were calling these same banks their "Dream Partners." Do you know why they were the "Dream Partners?" Because they banks were doing what the democrats pressured them to do. Lower the lending standards to make housing affordable for everyone. So are these banks demons or dreams? It seems to me that the democrats know they are the cause of the financial meltdown and need to find a scapegoat for their disastrous policies of social justice.

Here is what was said about the banks in 2003:

To date, Fannie Mae has provided more than $1.3 trillion for nearly 12 million targeted families, completing two-thirds of the American Dream Commitment in about 30 percent of the time, and leading the market in serving minorities and the nation's affordable housing needs.

Joining with representatives from 11 leading mortgage lenders and Fannie Mae partners, Raines applauded the mortgage finance industry for its extraordinary efforts to reach and serve "emerging markets" of historically underserved families and communities, deliver Fannie Mae's $2 trillion in targeted capital, and extend the benefits of the nation's housing boom.

Lender partners participating in today's announcement include: Bank of America; Bank One Corporation; Charter One Bank; Countrywide Financial Corporation; Doral Financial Corporation; First Horizon Home Loan Corporation; Fleet Boston Bank; Huntington Mortgage Company; Irwin Mortgage; J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.; and Standard Mortgage Corporation.

"Together, America's top lenders and Fannie Mae have made terrific progress in bringing the nation's housing boom to overlooked Americans and addressing the gaps in housing opportunity," Raines said. "Fannie Mae applauds our lender partners for helping us surpass the halfway mark in our $2 trillion commitment to underserved families so quickly. Together, we lead the market in serving Americans of color and modest means."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2003_March_18/ai_98885990/?tag=content;col1

And here is how Fannie caused the meltdown in their own words:

"Our approach to our lenders is `CRA Your Way'," Gorelick said. "Fannie Mae will buy CRA loans from lenders' portfolios; we'll package them into securities; we'll purchase CRA mortgages at the point of origination; and we'll create customized CRA-targeted securities. This expanded approach has improved liquidity in the secondary market for CRA product, and has helped our lenders leverage even more CRA lending. Lenders now have the flexibility to use their own, customized loan products," Gorelick said.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2001_May_7/ai_74223918/?tag=content;col1

[-] 1 points by proudtobeliberal (2) 2 years ago

Just like the monkeys we come from, the sooner we start throwing our POOP, the quicker people will take us serious!

[-] 1 points by logicalthinker (2) from Sacramento, CA 2 years ago

I would like to know, when will YOUR hypocrisy end? Why aren't you planning protests at George Soros' house? Or Michael Bloomberg's? There's over $30 BILLION in corporate wealth between the two - yet not a word is spoken about how upset with them you are. And why not Hollywood wealth? Why not occupy Hollywood? All those rich movie stars out there staying rich, yet supporting you in voice, yet making next to nothing in contributions... hanging onto all that cash for performing in front of a camera and not doing any REAL work! And how about all those RICH GREEDY studio bosses? The CEO's and board members of Universal, Warner Bros, Disney, Lucasfilm etc... Where are you on those? Why not protest the offices of NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN... OOOOHHHH that's right! BIG liberal contributors! Can't touch them! Yet, they are run by filthy RICH millionaire and billionaire CEO's and board members! YOU ARE LOSER HYPOCRITES!!! Oh and I see you're mostly carrying iPhone and Android products...quite expensive to operate with the required internet access for those...well THANKS ATT and Verizon for making that all possible! BILLION DOLLAR CORPORATIONS!!!

[-] 1 points by logicalthinker (2) from Sacramento, CA 2 years ago

I would like to know, when will YOUR hypocrisy end? Why aren't you planning protests at George Soros' house? Or Michael Bloomberg's? There's over $30 BILLION in corporate wealth between the two - yet not a word is spoken about how upset with them you are. And why not Hollywood wealth? Why not occupy Hollywood? All those rich movie stars out there staying rich, yet supporting you in voice, yet making next to nothing in contributions... hanging onto all that cash for performing in front of a camera and not doing any REAL work! And how about all those RICH GREEDY studio bosses? The CEO's and board members of Universal, Warner Bros, Disney, Lucasfilm etc... Where are you on those? Why not protest the offices of NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN... OOOOHHHH that's right! BIG liberal contributors! Can't touch them! Yet, they are run by filthy RICH millionaire and billionaire CEO's and board members! YOU ARE LOSER HYPOCRITES!!! Oh and I see you're mostly carrying iPhone and Android products...quite expensive to operate with the required internet access for those...well THANKS ATT and Verizon for making that all possible! BILLION DOLLAR CORPORATIONS!!!

[-] 1 points by andrewn (3) from West Des Moines, IA 2 years ago

Third, as I mentioned above, we will need to clarify our stance. We do not to attack every little thing that someone wants legalized or illegalized, we need to appreciate the system of democracy and let the people decide but when we have 2000+ issues (I’ve heard this week alone) we need to focus our power to accomplish what we want to accomplish. The saying “united we rise, divided we fall” applies here; we cannot stretch our movement to thin with every idea; we need to focus on the main ones, the underlying facts and broaden them to encompass a group of ideas. I have looked over plenty of video and talked to plenty of people online and I’d like to propose a set of ideas that can help get this in focus. Now, I am not saying this has to be the set of ideas, but I am just giving it as an example and I really think it should be limited to fewer than 4 general ideas.

-Accountability (This is purely focused on the elimination of corruption which is the obvious and the most notable cause, and it is hard pressed for anyone to say they are against this) -Representation and Opportunity (We stand for opportunity for all men and women to accomplish the American dream, we want equal rights not just based on skin tone or where you were born but how much money you make and how much education you have...pretty hard for a senator to say he/she is against opportunity as well) -Responsibility (something we will really have to improve upon as they will drag us through the mud with some of the practices by a few of the protestors but the general idea is that we was government to be responsible, no more childish behavior, no more over spending, if we are broke cut things that are reasonable and no back stabbing or bickering over agenda to better yourself compared to Americans and America)

Lastly, I would like to request logic and reasoning when we protest. I understand it is tough that there might be situations when we are treated poorly, kicked out of restaurants or degraded by police officers, but we are not representative of what this movement is about when we resort to the opposite extreme. We need to hold our ground, remain firm, but still remain normal. Every chance the media and the government has they will try to use everything against us, and run our nose through it, and the quicker we realize this as a whole, the quicker we can stop and get directly to the facts. I don’t think that protestors in every city have done something wrong but if we act smart and work together and work as a whole we can accomplish a lot more than we have been.

I hope you understand my points as I have noted them, I really appreciate all the amazing work the protestors have done thus far and how much people have sacrificed. I continue to hold strong and push this movement in my hometown and I would love to discuss these options and more with you or anyone who is interested and most particularly with any of the organizers of the occupy movements around the US and the globe. Thank you for your time.

Andrew N I am 99%

[-] 1 points by andrewn (3) from West Des Moines, IA 2 years ago

I have a few minor/major suggestions that i really think will help focus and push this movement forward.

First, for many of you that have become very emotional for how the press has slanted this, try not to speak to a camera or a radio. The voice of this movement should represent the people, however, this is something that is very personal to everyone and when the media engages something so emotional they are bound to illicit a response that isn't exactly what this movement is about. We need to remember that is wasn’t long ago when the tea party was brought to light as a racist and bigot group of conservatives that has since proved to be far from true.

All official Occupy (fill your city here) facebook and websites should restrain from taking an official political side. I understand that this is a mostly socially liberal founded group but this has completely no political ties, and you should treat it as such. This applies also to the poor wording towards the tea party; which should be considered an ally in this movement, as they essentially represent the same underlying facts that are present in this movement. Together we might not agree with everything the Tea Party does, but the fact that they can help create the push needed since they are already in political positions is very beneficial for us. This also applies to the difficulty of singling out democrats vs. republicans in terms of both sides doing things wrong. We cannot be afraid to explain what the president (and former) and democratic congress have done wrong just as much as we have about the republicans. No side of this battle is clear from blame, and we shouldn’t be afraid to stand united and say they are all to blame and the “buck” stops with every one of them.

The second thing needed is a symbol. Symbols are powerful, symbols transcend words just as music does; it can make the world understand our frustration with this government just as they might sometimes be. I have seen plenty of symbols shown but one that has always stuck with me since sept 19th when I heard about this movement was the picture of the closed fist. It has been used a lot, but with a really good symbol we could definitely create a really good push and show that we are more than organized but we have started to develop and form into an actual party of people with the same ideas. This symbol unfortunately needs to eventually come with one other thing before election time 2012 – a face. The movement is representative of all the people and it is very hard to choose someone that can clearly represent all the vast ideas people have but if we narrow down the ideas from the huge spectrum they encompass now to just a grouped selection of vague ideas we can have someone who is representative of those ideas and who can speak loudly and clearly enough for the whole world to hear. Every movement has a face, (ie. MLK Jr, Frederick Douglas, Susan B. Anthony, Maya Angelou) and there will come a time in the near future where we will need a face.

[-] 1 points by standupnow (2) 2 years ago

Who is the Organizer of the movement. I am Rodney Archer founder of a National Financial and Historical Initiative. I like the idea that you are coming together. However, why be a part of system that has clearly turned its backs on the American people. We were supposed to know more financially and do more with our own talent, money and time. Now is the time. I have a plan, it is simplistic and accelerated to create income vs. earn it, own the houses, cars, education, vacation experience free and clear and finally create individual and business banking systems to avoid the banks altogether. Lead me to the Leader or Leaders and let's talk.

[-] 1 points by standupnow (2) 2 years ago

Who is the Organizer of the movement. I am Rodney Archer founder of a National Financial and Historical Initiative. I like the idea that you are coming together. However, why be a part of system that has clearly turned its backs on the American people. We were supposed to know more financially and do more with our own talent, money and time. Now is the time. I have a plan, it is simplistic and accelerated to create income vs. earn it, own the houses, cars, education, vacation experience free and clear and finally create individual and business banking systems to avoid the banks altogether. Lead me to the Leader or Leaders and let's talk.

[-] 1 points by CatG123 (2) 2 years ago

I just want to share a link to a article that I think should be explored and pondered upon. Thanks for your time.. I fully support this movement and would like to thank you for finally having a voice.. We are the http://www.truth-out.org/goodbye-all-reflections-gop-operative-who-left-cult/131490777999%

[-] 1 points by CatG123 (2) 2 years ago

I just want to share a link to a article that I think should be explored and pondered upon. Thanks for your time.. I fully support this movement and would like to thank you for finally having a voice.. We are the 99%

[-] 1 points by Sandor (1) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

Can't be there but heres a suggestion for a sign

Steal a hundred - Get a record
Steal a billion - Get a bonus
Steal a trillion - Get re-elected

[-] 1 points by TarigAnter (33) from Khartoum, Khartoum 2 years ago

Read this Tea Partyer opinion:

With all due respects, the Occupy Wall Streeters are not fit to carry the tea bags of the Tea Partyers .

Tea Partyers do not block traffic and pick fights with cops . Tea Partyers shower .

[-] 1 points by johnb9990 (2) 2 years ago

20 million Americans underwater on mortgages or bankrupt already = Economic Holocaust.

This terrible crime is being denied. Denied by the bankers who did it. Denied by the people who are supposed to enforce the law. Denied by George W. Bush (record home ownership) and Barack Obama (trying to get blanket immunity for the criminals). And denied by the American people, who have chosen to blame the victims, while hypocritically giving justice to Bernie Madoff's victims.

Don't ever forget that being fraudulently induced into buying worthless property makes you the victim of criminal fraud. You are not responsible and you have a right to fight back against a corrupt society that tells you the con-artists are the "productive class". They are not "productive", they are PREDATORS.

[-] 1 points by Lycopodium (2) 2 years ago

Right On!!!!! Keep fighting! America is with you. In fact the WORLD is with you!

[-] 1 points by Lycopodium (2) 2 years ago

Right On!!!!! Keep fighting! America is with you. In fact the WORLD is with you!

[-] 1 points by thetruth (4) 2 years ago

Is anyone talking about Goldman Sacks and JPMorgan Chase (namely Jamie Dimon)??? The theft of Washington Mutual Bank was a crime committed by Dimon, Paulsen, Geitner (and many others)... a ruse played on Shelia bair at the FDIC which casued her to panic and wrongfully seize a slovent bank (WaMu) so that she could hand over 52 Billion in assetts to JPM (Dimon) for a paltry 1.8 Billion.

This crime destroyed millions of families and their life savings. Is anyone talking about that??? This was a clear example of government aiding Wall Street in another one of their greedy misdeeds.

People should be discussing JPMorgans role in the crash of Sept 2008. An interesting read can be found by googling "Deep Capture".

[-] 1 points by thetruth (4) 2 years ago

Is anyone talking about Goldman Sacks and JPMorgan Chase (namely Jamie Dimon)??? The theft of Washington Mutual Bank was a crime committed by Dimon, Paulsen, Geitner (and many others)... a ruse played on Shelia bair at the FDIC which casued her to panic and wrongfully seize a slovent bank (WaMu) so that she could hand over 52 Billion in assetts to JPM (Dimon) for a paltry 1.8 Billion.

This crime destroyed millions of families and their life savings. Is anyone talking about that??? This was a clear example of government aiding Wall Street in another one of their greedy misdeeds.

People should be discussing JPMorgans role in the crash of Sept 2008. An interesting read can be found by googling "Deep Capture".

[-] 1 points by thetruth (4) 2 years ago

Is anyone talking about Goldman Sacks and JPMorgan Chase (namely Jamie Dimon)??? The theft of Washington Mutual Bank was a crime committed by Dimon, Paulsen, Geitner (and many others)... a ruse played on Shelia bair at the FDIC which casued her to panic and wrongfully seize a slovent bank (WaMu) so that she could hand over 52 Billion in assetts to JPM (Dimon) for a paltry 1.8 Billion.

This crime destroyed millions of families and their life savings. Is anyone talking about that??? This was a clear example of government aiding Wall Street in another one of their greedy misdeeds.

People should be discussing JPMorgans role in the crash of Sept 2008. An interesting read can be found by googling "Deep Capture".

[-] 1 points by thetruth (4) 2 years ago

Is anyone talking about Goldman Sacks and JPMorgan Chase (namely Jamie Dimon)??? The theft of Washington Mutual Bank was a crime committed by Dimon, Paulsen, Geitner (and many others)... a ruse played on Shelia bair at the FDIC which casued her to panic and wrongfully seize a slovent bank (WaMu) so that she could hand over 52 Billion in assetts to JPM (Dimon) for a paltry 1.8 Billion.

This crime destroyed millions of families and their life savings. Is anyone talking about that???

People should be discussing JPMorgans role in the crash of Sept 2008. An interesting read can be found by googling "Deep Capture".

[-] 1 points by dzajic4 (2) from Tučepi, Splitsko-dalmatinska 2 years ago

J.p.Morgan bribe NJPD

[-] 1 points by dzajic4 (2) from Tučepi, Splitsko-dalmatinska 2 years ago
[-] 1 points by Rasoul (2) 2 years ago

on 15.october Stuttgart/Germany will be connected with you. the train will move

togehter we are strong on 15.october Madrid, Barcelona, Athen, saniago de chile, Brussel, Rome, Paris, Kairo, Berlin, Stuttgart

cu

[-] 1 points by Rewolucja (2) 2 years ago

You must keep fighting and don't give up NEVER EVER !!!!

Polish revolutionist from 1989

[-] 1 points by GlobalGuerrillas (4) from Boston, MA 2 years ago

Here's some wiki space to share info and methods on the best ways to occupy a location. How to get food. How to set up camp w/o breaking regulations. How to deal with police:

http://www.miiu.org/wiki/Occupy_Wall_Street

[-] 1 points by Justice4all (133) 2 years ago

End the fed! End the fed! End the fed!!

[-] 1 points by gallardo (4) from Aveiro, Aveiro 2 years ago

As i see it, these movements shouldn't be any ideologic based thought, because those lead us to what we do have know, so ancient formulae or speeches aren't the way. New perpectives should be attempted. It is positive that all people in the world contest the designed path that is and has been constructed so far, mainly based in the lack of values or person value degradation (egocentricism, individualism ....). Of course people have the power to do anything about it's own society or government and at least by force, choose, but having the power to entitle someone, don't make them less responsable for the society acts. So what to do? What NEW SOLUTIONS for society should be considered and placed? I think most of the aware persons know what they don't want, but can't figure what they really want; "I want mass and fast consumption, but don't want debt"- can this exist? The new order/model should be human based, simple, but true. We do not necessarily have to live in a jungle! But a revolution/ new order will take place.

[-] 1 points by Johnw (44) 2 years ago

I think its time for a new third party in politics, one that is more representative and inclusive than the current two-party system. http://thenewthirdparty.blogspot.com

[-] 1 points by zoom6000 (430) from St Petersburg, FL 2 years ago

Create a new political party and change the game

[-] 1 points by yesimad (1) 2 years ago

this video is the perfect representation of the whole movement: hypocritical. hosted on vimeo and background music by kanye west. the message of occupy wall street is great, but too bad the majority of its supporters are just some hipsters in their late tweens trying to be cool cause they're ''part of the movement man'' while listening to their iPods and tweeting on the AT&T network. claiming you're part of the poor 99%, really? who you trying to kid, you sit out there chilling at the park all day long for a couple of days tweeting about how poor you are. I couldn't afford that.

[-] 1 points by grymreapper (2) 2 years ago

We are the 99%. Lower your fee's and surrender your businesses. We will add your finances and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your companies will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.

[-] 1 points by seespikerun (5) 2 years ago

All those of you who camp out in the wind and rain and cold...you are heroes. Lets keep showing the pundits and naysayers that we are not just a flash in the pan. We will remain, we will occupy this city!!! I think we should make a request to the media and general public, that they put up information (phone numbers, emails, addresses, form letters, petitions and websites) of our local/regional elected officials and publish that we are asking for specific reforms regarding the creation of an equitable tax structure, anti corruption laws and corporate regulation. If we have specific demands attached with specific instructions on how members of the general public can get involved in this process (even from home...without coming down and protesting, which is honestly what most of the 99% will be willing to do).We need to be the change that we would like to see in the world, and we need to remind the public sitting at home, of this notion. If we outline some very specific, yet broadly inclusive actions (by this i mean, no "radical" demands for abolishing the DEA or saving the whales....or whatever other causes may also seem important to many of the factions within our movement. We need to reform our nation one thing at a time...one by one, checking things off our list of grievances and then moving on to our next demand. To do this most effectively we should start with demands that include the most members of our movement as possible...ie; something to address the Wealth Gap, Corporate Accountability or Tax reform. Once one demand has been met we will have far more credibility in the eyes of the public, not to mention in the eyes of the 1% and we will make some tangible progress, while building exponential momentum. ), we will make real progress. We will have people willing to be arrested en mass and engage in civil disobedience in an entirely new and even bigger way than they are currently) I think the sooner we have some basic demands and calls to action (like the facebook organized plan to switch enrollment from the "big banks" and to join a local credit union this week) then the larger this movement will get. people are simply apathetic and overwhelmed as a whole. We need to empower the 99% and create an outline for real, measurable, social change. I am willing to participate in any peaceful civil disobedience for this purpose and would love to see others give me some input on this idea. Give the occupiers a productive reason to get arrested hehe. If you agree with my ideas, please try and suggest this course of action to others so we can discus it at the GA soon. Thanks for listening, Alex

[-] 1 points by Timmy (5) 2 years ago

What about "rugged individualism"?

[-] 1 points by Timmy (5) 2 years ago

What about "rugged individualism"?

[-] 1 points by Timmy (5) 2 years ago

What about "rugged individualism"?

[-] 1 points by Rewolucja (2) 2 years ago

Poland is with You !!!!

[-] 1 points by olibolli (1) 2 years ago

Keep it up guys. We're watching you from the other side of the planet. What you're doing as a community is so inspiring!
Best wishes from Australia

[-] 1 points by ronrico (1) 2 years ago

OWS do not despair. They will demonize you the way the Nazis did the Jews. Filthy, vermin, scum... it's the oldest trick in the book. As the fear builds the forces arrayed against you and the language they use will become increasingly violent. People are going to get hurt. It always happens. Stay non-violent.

Remember Ghandi. They said the British would never leave India.

Remember Mandela. They said Apartheid would always remain.

Remember 400 years of slavery. They said it was an honourable trade.

The majority of Canadians are behind you and this movement.

[-] 1 points by Momfaleeld (1) 2 years ago

Please dont sell yourselves out. The whole world is watching. You guys have to stand your ground. Power to the 99% all over the world.

Viva the revolution!!!!

[-] 1 points by mcombs (1) from San Francisco, CA 2 years ago

An underlying messages I see in the occupy wall street movement is that we need to have our elected officials not beholden to wealthy donors. How can they truly claim to represent us when they have to think about financing their re-election?

We need to restore faith of the American people in our government. Some ways in which to do this are campaign finance reform and codifying in our constitution that corporations are not people and cannot have the same rights.

[-] 1 points by AmericanInfidel (1) from Decatur, TX 2 years ago

99% huh. You're more like 2 - 3 %, if that high. What do you expect from those who expect their way should be paid by others? You'll be easy to spot & pick off during you're Little revolution. Looks like you never take a bath & your grooming is atrocious. Bring it on is all we got to say, bring it on.

[-] 1 points by diogenesthe99 (7) 2 years ago

The media insists that occupywallst doesn't have a coherent message.

The media insists that the movement is about left vs right, socialism, or hand outs.

The media is wrong.

There is a coherent message.

It's not about left vs right, its about the world vs the whole corrupt system.

Those who we entrust with our money for its safekeeping should not gamble it away, while betting with their own money that they WILL lose ours!

We should not got to war in order to borrow money from the federal reserve, at interest, and put our countries into never ending debt.

There is a discussion about raising taxes on the rich, and while this is good, it is useless if the taxes we pay end up going as interest payments to the ultrarich.

The rich are not our enemies. The rich aren't even in the same class as our enemies.

The corporations are not our enemies, they employ us and pay the taxes that fund our commons.

The government are not our enemies. They are sick and weak from attacks and corruption and our apathy, engineered by the true enemy.

The multinational organizations that supersede countries, especially the international banks and their instruments the federal reserves are the cause and the benefit-ors of the crisis.

There will be more

Diogenes The 99

h t t p : / / d i o g e n e s t h e 9 9 . b l o g s p o t . c o m /

[-] 1 points by enslaved (1) 2 years ago

This movement needs a leader. One who is more intelligent than the genius capitalists who have used their skills to bully us into the gutters while they wallow in the riches they have greedily taken from America.

[-] 1 points by WallSt4sale (2) 2 years ago

I have full faith in this uprising, but I will not be joining it. As much as I would like to, it is just not the time and the place for me to revolt. I must say, though, this has a lot of potential. The signs take me back to the 1960s and 70s, which as we all know made tremendous leaps to show that Americans can exercise their right to protest. Let me say that I am neither republican nor democrat nor tea partier, I am simply a fundamentalist. Unfortunately, people of OccupyWallStreet, we live in an age where the media shrouds the rest of the world in bias. The government is unwilling to take action with our nation. Not just our nation, but the nations of the world. Sure, you might here that the European Crisis has hopes, but unfortunately that is all they are, hopes. The media has the power to make up stories. They could say "Oh, there's all of the sudden a bank plan in Europe", when there is no substantial evidence, and no support. Look in front of your eyes, people of the revolution and people of the world. Our world is crumbling before our very eyes. Sure, the Dow can surge 500 points in 2 seconds, but it can equally lose a lot more than it can gain. Take a look, we have government bailouts pumped into the economy, we have unemployment being quite stagnate, we have our entire economy being interloped with other nations economies. There is no sense of individualism anymore, no aspect of truth. Here's the problem. Our deficit is about to hit 15 Trillion dollars, and there is nothing we can do about it. If we tax everyone 100% of their income and investments, we would still have a tremendous amount of debt. If we cut 100% of government spending, that doesn't reduce the deficit, just stops the deficit from growing. The only way out of actually reducing the deficit is not to print more money, or to give more money to people, rather, to set up the boundaries for people to earn money themselves, that is the only way economics work. Speaking of printing more money, we are faced with an even larger crisis, the devaluation of the american dollar. America is the only nation that can print money on a whim. Have a economic problem? Just print more money. Each time excess money is printed, the faith in the dollar decreases. If and when nothing is to be done about this enormous debt, we will be unable to make payments on our loans and interest for other nations. What happens then? These nations become angry, and starts regarding the US Dollar as a second rate currency. You might look at this as "what does this have to do with America"? Well, our only answer to solving economic problems is to print more money. If nations no longer regard the US Dollar as a first rate reserve currency, which is bound to happen, then we will no longer be able to print more money. America would be in utter disarray from this, and cause an economic collapse. What do we do about this? We change. We change our way of lives. We need to be willing to sacrifice for the greater good of the World. We change the people in Congress. We change the leaders of the world. The Occupy-Wall Street movement hasn't even scratched the surface. When all the rumors deem false, and when Europe's plans flaw, the worst is yet to come. The worst is yet to come.

[-] 1 points by CONGRESSSOLDOUT (1) 2 years ago

I am so proud of everyone who is stepping up and voicing their dissatisfaction with big business and government selling out the working middle and poor class.

I am so SICK of BIG BUSINESS AND GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION all around the world. Lets all rise up and tell them enough is enough.

Keep up the good fight...

[-] 1 points by Uspatriot5000 (128) 2 years ago

Funny, this is only gaining traction in the North and out West like California. All the places unions have a hold. Down here in the southern states, at best there may have been 200 people show up for one. We really don't buy into this mess. There is a reason a lot of your jobs have moved down here, including the auto industry. Why do you think we get all of the new car factories like Honda, BMW, etc.

[-] 1 points by ICWeiner (1) 2 years ago

Heeeeey. Who keeps deleting my comments. Facists.

[-] 1 points by georgia99 (37) 2 years ago

There is a Documentary everybody must see. its called inside job. its about wallstreet and the actions that got us here today. charles ferguson made this movie and did a great job breaking everything down.

[-] 1 points by buzzcut (5) 2 years ago

Nous devons croître en taille paisiblement comme petits feux contrôlés et plus tard la force notre mouvement de colère et la frustration comme les feux de forêt. Le scrupuleux ont peur de perdre ce pouvoir de contrôle une fois, ils avaient pour si longtemps et apprécié. Ces lâches qui ont les armes et les ressources depuis si longtemps. Il y aura un point dans le grand mouvement où le pouvoir du peuple sera emmener vers le bas et ne pas avoir peur d'exprimé leur voix de la démocratie.

[-] 1 points by buzzcut (5) 2 years ago

Something stinks here. I'm just right under the bull. All the chicks are ugly here thogh.

[-] 1 points by buzzcut (5) 2 years ago

Where can I find any free food? Anybody know. Doritos are good. Man my mouth is dry.

[-] 1 points by buzzcut (5) 2 years ago

Does anybody know the best place to pee. I don't want to get arrested. I saw on the new some guy pooping on a police car. Can we do that?

[-] 1 points by MikeZ (3) 2 years ago

Hey guys, the John Lewis video from Atlanta is going viral, and I have to say, you guys are in serious danger. Not from any outside force either. It's not even the way he was denied, but the entire meeting. Shocking, if you can't see this yourself, you're in trouble. You think that there is no leadership? Where did these procedures come from? They evolved organically out of nothing?

This video is out there and the gig is up for THIS manifestation of the group guys. You might not have gathered every lost soul yet, but "the 99%" would take another thousand years of Wall Street over this.

It's amazing how quickly the utopian creepiness took hold. How gone do you have to be to think that people will understand the dictat against the GENETICALLY HUMAN tendency to manually applaud? Infants clap their little hands independently! It's not "the banks" they are setting you up against, it's humanity. Then the malnourished moderator pumping his fist yelling "Mic Check!" to silence a dissenter.

You can still make some change. The Adbusters crowd is not going to get you there. I'm not for the bailouts. A bipartisan movement to restrain the power of crony capitalists is possible. But what's on that tape is not that movement. What's on that tape is scary but not for the banks. If I was a CEO at one of the major banks, I'd be nixing any thoughts I might have had about running a counter PR campaign now. No need to. It's scary for the people involved.

[-] 1 points by BringBackGlassSteagallAct (67) 2 years ago

You all are great! This great financial reform movement has been a dream of mine since 2008, after hearing the Congressional Hearing on Energy Reform and on how Financial Deregulations hurts the hard working Americans, and turns undeserved brokers/executives into overnight Millionaires!

So I feel (and many others) that only way we can get back on safe financial footing again is to close the Enron Loophole, created for energy/oil speculators, and bring back The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which prevented the current banking and insurance scams/loopholes. After all, it worked great until late 90's, until when Congress threw it out. Since then, like prior to 1933, we are experiencing what our country went though then, total Wall Street Greed with no Penalties, its all legal Gambling now...thanks to the architects of our new system in 1999, President Clinton and Rep Senator Phil Gramm. Think about where we are now, it all started in 1999 with the subprime loans Gramm was peaching on Senate floor. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKQOxr2wBZQ&feature=related

And for the Free Trade Movement, bringing back the Glass-Steagall Act will not hurt our financial markets or hinder Free Trade, as the GOP rhetoric claims, instead with this back in PLACE bankers can still make millions a day, but not the trillions as they do now on the accounts of hard working Americans.

Bankers need more regulation, not less. Don't let the Bankers new Game to charge for debit cards as the results of the Dodd/Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act surprise you. Right after it passed, we have the banking lobby on national TV saying that "we" will pay for it, after we bailed them out, What nerve! So this is their response to having it their way since 1999: We have have to find a way to give out Executives their way out of line bonuses: Bingo, charge for debit cards! This is them throwing their influence over our Election officials, that are suppose to work for us, after all we voted for them to do the right thing, which doesn't include the banking lobbyist agenda....

Cheers to all that are involved. Let's get focused and bring back Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, they got it right 1933, we don't need to reinvent the wheel because bringing this Act back will create an even playing field once again....and let's also tell Congress to finally Close the Enron Loophole, which allowed Enron to charge what they wanted for energy; they went to jail for this; but no one closed the loophole, why? Re-election Monies from the banks and oil companies! The writing is on the wall.

Why we need Glass-Steagall to be reinstated:

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/03/071603.asp#axzz1aPEc3wXj http://www.counterpunch.org/2008/09/19/shattering-the-glass-steagall-act/

Why are oil prices high?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waL5UxScgUw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbdtTGYQBMU&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNp0y0SjOkY&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-kExdTgNZA&feature=channel

[-] 1 points by PissedinPDX (4) 2 years ago

Follow the words of Jefferson, but do it peacefully or we will all loose.

[-] 1 points by PissedinPDX (4) 2 years ago

Just like the Kings of England, the US elected officials have gone from listening to the people, to knowing what is best, regardless! They must listen, VOTE EVERYONE OUT UNTIL WE GET THOSE THAT DO!

[-] 1 points by PissedinPDX (4) 2 years ago

Cities Broke, States Broke, Fed Broke, People broke, why - US Corparations,!

Can't pay your student loans, with the high interest rates why- US Banks helping you out!

[-] 1 points by PissedinPDX (4) 2 years ago

Read Jared Diamonds Books its all in there! VOTE OUT EVERYONE NOW IN OFFICE

[-] 1 points by NOTANIDIOT1 (6) 2 years ago

How and Who would determine maximum salaries?Government. How would that Gov. keep that idea in place when people start to resent having thier worth decided by gov.? by appointing officials in cushy powerful bueracratic jobs rather than free elections. why should someone work harder if they got paid as much as the lazy guy next to them? they would not. once people realize how unworkable the system is they will bribe these unnacountable officials YOU WANT controlling things.then the mass corruption you claim to hate will dwarf all the corruption you can see today. you mindless drones are fighting to become slaves because it sounds cool to hear it through a bullhorn. None of this is new or untried, just irritating to watch.ask michael moore if the maximum a movie producer should make is $30,000.

[-] 1 points by Vicewatch (43) 2 years ago

Tell the banks to buzz off when they come hat in hand for bailouts, and watch your economy bloom:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-news/global-exchange/icelands-no-bailout-stance-hasnt-chilled-investors/article2060163/

The other lesson to learn from Iceland is how it responded to the financial crisis by making itself a haven for whistleblowers and investigative journalists uncovering fraud:

http://immi.is/Icelandic_Modern_Media_Initiative

This tiny nation did what we should be doing right now.

[-] 1 points by Feloneius (9) 2 years ago

And by the way...Why would we spend trillions of dollars to built this massive space station just to shut down the shuttle program..Hmm i wonder..There is alot of things going on besides a bad economy...The main problem on this planet is overpopulation..Now ask yourself..How do you solve this problem..????? Maybe create one big arse scam...pull off the greatest 9/11 ever..they seem pretty good at it..I would say...Humans arent to bright ..Has anyone noticed..??? Just look at Bush for God's Sake..And hey while your at it ..Look at the people who voted him in Twice...LMAO...twice...O.o..Maybe they really are sprayin stuff in the air and puttin stuff in the food and water..seem logical..??? Makes yah wonder..yah think..www.getaclue.net

[-] 1 points by NOTANIDIOT1 (6) 2 years ago

I just read your groups ideas on maximum salaries, then watched a video of some IDIOT speak in three second soundbites then pause so all of you can repeat each line. gee, you guys are gladly, willfully, ready to march to any drum the mob beats. that is not freedom, but USEFULL IDIOTISM displayed in a textbook perfect example. Right on,MAN! (I mean SHEEPLE).

[-] 1 points by Feloneius (9) 2 years ago

Anyone seen where there puttin the money from the 20 trillion in oil in Iraq...or The 30-40 trillion in Lithium and Opium in Afghanistan my brothers guarding with his life over there?...Cause it sure the hell isn't going into this country as far as i can see..Got a big dam scam going on here..People pick up the last years worth of Rolling Stone issues..Some serious corruption and Depopulation plans in this planets future..With alot of Really rich people with alot of Roid Army with alot of guns in our future..You people are really out of touch with reality..I hope these protests are for real..And spread like the plaque..Or we are going to be looking down the barrel of a huge ass 9/11..on a mega scale in our future..Mark my words kiddie's!!!

[-] 1 points by rallydriver (1) from New York, NY 2 years ago

It was my honor to join the march from Foley Sq on Wedneday 10/5 as a representative of www.ProgressiveSecretary.org. My sign was too wordy for the media, but you can see it here: http://action.progressivesecretary.org/content_item/wallstsign My fellow Progressive Secretary members are carrying similar signs all over the country. We hope you'll join us: an all-volunteer letter-writing cooperative that sends thousands of messages directly to Washington officials every week.

[-] 1 points by dada (2) 2 years ago

Ivan Marovic of Serbian Otpor just wrote in his blog http://blog.b92.net/text/18891/Pocelo-je/ that Center for Applied NonViolent Action and Strategies is behind OWS movement. Somebody confirm or deny this please...

[-] 1 points by CarolineBock (1) 2 years ago

From Mom in the Suburbs -- what can we bring? You say food, but what in particular. Peanut butter and jelly sandwiches? Bottled water? We don't want you to get sick! The suburbs may be 'unoccupied,' but we are your parents, struggling, fearing for the future too, and getting mad too -- it just takes us a little longer, we are so tired from working two jobs, or worrying about the jobs we have, or don't have, so tired from worrying about grandma and grandpa and how their 'entitlements' are on the line (And how we hate the word 'entitlement'! Didn't your grandparents work for that old age and health insurance, Social Security and Medicaire? Wasn't there once a social contract in this country to take care of the less fortunate, the elderly? Things may need to change in regards to these programs but let's have a true, civil debate about what changes our made in this social contract). Anyway, let us know what we can bring down to the rally. It looks like you are going to be occupying for a while. Mom in the Suburbs . Caroline Bock

[-] 1 points by TTTTT (66) 2 years ago

I don't think this movement is going to be as easily shanghaied by the existing system as the tea party was. It will be more difficult to get recognition and unbiased coverage of the movement as it is not backed and promoted by the existing powers as the tea party has been. But this is the real 99 percent of not only America but the world that has had enough. The people are waking up, they see through the selective, biased, coverage,or non coverage, of the media, they see through the paid off politicians in both parties, They see through the largest money heist in history pulled off by wall street and the bankers. The illegal wars, the thievery of pension funds. People say we are disorganized because we don't have a set list of demands. Our country has been careening out of control for so long it isn't as simple as 1,2,3. We the people have been ignored for so long there is a lot of damage that needs to be undone. Personally I think it needs to start with getting business out of government, they can not serve 2 masters and of course they are going to give those who pay their way more consideration. Lobbyist need to be outlawed, it is nothing but legalized bribery, and sets the stage for the selling out of real democracy. Maximum profit for the few can no longer be the bottom line to everything. The existing supreme court needs to be relived of duty and replaced with real justices that will base decisions on what is fair and just for the people, not passing power to the elites.

[-] 1 points by Trumpeter (24) 2 years ago

How about we sell the USA to another country that can better manage us?

[-] 1 points by Eh2Zed (29) 2 years ago

I just posted this at ADBUSTERS, but it applies to you useful idiots also. You had better be careful.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1372233

And "BOOM" goes the dynamite.

LUUCCCYYYY, you got some splannin to do.

You need to explain this ADBUSTERS. Is this what your non-leader movement supports? One lesson you useful idiots never learned, probably because it has to do with physics and math, is that NATURE ABHORS A VACUUM. You idiots have no (visible) leader, and throughout human history, a leader ALWAYS takes over. One person will lead a majority of people in your enclave, and then THEY will determine what you stand for. By allowing this in your "George Soros Funded Leaderless Mob" (like Soros would EVER give money without his control on it), you prove who and what you stand for. I posted here once before, and told you to look up Canadian Counter Terrorism, and Terrorist Support Network laws. I said you may edge over the line, and now you are a hairsbreadth away from crossing it. You had better PRAY it doesn`t get violent at your socialist/marxist/anarchist/nihilist/unionist/Democrat "occupation". Nice term, foreign troops "occupy" territory, like Nazis occupy France, USSR occupies Eastern Europe, China occupies Tibet. Good choice of term. Occupied. Keep in mind one thing guys, when the shitstorm hits, the conservative side and belief system you oppose, own guns, and KNOW how to use them.

[-] 1 points by caroline1176 (1) 2 years ago

I am really happy that people are having an open debate on who's plan would be better to fix the economy and give jobs to people. But am I wrong when I say that "we are the 99%" means that our lives are being affected by big corporations and paid for politicians that aren't protecting our interests. and doesn't the 1% own most of the wealth in the country. that would mean that someone who is worth 20 million dollars and makes a million a year DOES NOT fall into the 1% category. I can agree with that message. I can agree there is a problem, what I cannot agree with is how WE the 99% are fighting against each other. Yes there is a problem, Yes we need to fix it. I know we don't have all the answer's now, but lets get together and try to figure them out. But Please please please, stop thinking you are the one percent or even close to it This is factual of how the wealth is distributed in America now

EX: 100 percent. 1 percent owns 42% of all wealth. 4 percent own the next 27% 5 percent own 11% 10 percent own 12% and 80 percent have the 7% of all total wealth.

WAKE UP.....this just isn't fair and something needs to be done about it. I don't think anyone here wants a free ride. Just a decent life.

[-] 1 points by Trumpeter (24) 2 years ago

How can we prevent elected representatives from being bought out?

[-] 1 points by kblee2011 (5) 2 years ago

The GREAT DIVERGENCE needs to end. Period.

I'm tired of doing the work, creating the product, and stuck at a wage that has increased 2% in 3 years.(Actual decline came when Nafta was initiated and jobs went overseas.

My retirement account is a joke after living through the S &L crisis, The internet bubble, The housing bubble and all the bubbles in between....(all created as a result of human deceit and greed)

Voting, calling / writing your congressman/leaders is a joke....They're bought and paid for.....deaf ears with a smile and a back slappin "I care about this" and do nothing.

During that 3 years I have had to produce/do more work due to job cuts, not replacing workers, work unreported overtime and accept my healthcare coverage will be reduced. I am thankful to have a job....I know way too many not having one. I know way too many who've lost their homes, I know of families living in cars, under tarps.....Selling belongings, (furniture, vehicles) to survive....I know way too many who are sick and cannot afford the care needed.

Enough. The great divergence must end.

Thank you OWS.....I feel I have a voice.

[-] 1 points by buvo (8) from Skopje, Aerodrom 2 years ago

socialism is the best system ever....greetings from macedonia and keep going on...this is a global issue...big corporations are everywhere....bad things happeining in europe too

[-] 1 points by Primecutsdon (2) from Ithaca, NY 2 years ago

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi

It took 3+ weeks till the mainstream press stopped ignoring the movement...and another week till CNN, FOX, CNBC & more started ridiculing and marginalizing it.

This thing isn't going away...now the corporate gloves come off and we see just how much power has been surrendered to the corporate interests over the past 30 years.

I'm part of the 99%.......and I'm mad as hell !!!!

[-] 1 points by NOTANIDIOT1 (6) 2 years ago

sounds like russel simmons doesn't trust big gov. to carve up his wealth-does he give 99% to charity?: As FNC’s Geraldo Rivera appeared in New York City for his Geraldo at Large show on Sunday night to give attention to the Occupy Wall Street protests, participant and music mogul Russell Simmons sparred with FBN’s Charles Payne after Simmons complained that his taxes were too low and claimed that his employees pay more taxes then he does. When Payne jumped in to suggest, “you could have written an extra check,” Simmons shot back: “Why am I gonna write a, that’s a dumb thing.” Payne mocked Simmons’s refusal by cracking, “Because you feel patriotic.” After Simmons indicated that he contributes money to charities instead of donating more taxes, Payne challenged the music mogul on a credit card business Simmons apparently earns money from, and whether such a business is what the protesters Simmons supports are complaining about. Payne: But, listen, you have a credit card company, you have a credit card company, and you charge people interest to use those cards. Isn’t that what they’re railing about? It’s not a free card. How did you make $100 million? Simmons again defended his refusal to voluntarily contribute more taxes: The point I’m making is that I’m not knocking corporations. I’m knocking the game they’re playing. I’m not knocking the players, I’m knocking the game. And what I’m telling you is that this country allows too much access to their politicians by too much interests and too much money. It’s really simple. And I’m happy to pay more taxes, but I’m not going to pay more taxes alone. I’d rather give it to my charities.

[-] 1 points by NOTANIDIOT1 (6) 2 years ago

can't take reading anymore incoherence from such obvious winies. As soon as big labor saw masses of "usefull idiots" they come riding in to make use of the publicity. Wow!- here comes michael moore -big surprise!-how many of his ill-gotten million$ is he giving away so you all are satisfied you finally are treated fair? ASK HIM RIGHT IN FRONT OF A CROWD THRU A BULLHORN TO SHARE IT ALL WITH YOU. He will make a movie about YOU and be rich again, right? if there are, say, 100,00 of you there and he is reportedly worth $50million he can hand out $500 to EACH ONE! I bet he'll start writing checks on the spot. Once his new movie ABOUT OWS comes out he'll be rich again and ALL OF YOU THERE ARE OWED ROYALTIES! GO DO IT-see what he does!

[-] 1 points by tertiuscurrent (1) 2 years ago

The Case for Nullification: Since the 2000 election was illegal (US Supreme Court illegally interfered in the FL presidential election) it follows that every act of the executive after the GW Bush inaugural, including executive orders, bills signed and vetoed and all appointments, should be respected by no US citizen and held to be utterly null and void.

[-] 1 points by Thisisthetime (200) from Kahlotus, WA 2 years ago

Please stay Leaderless. It will take longer for the corporations and government to infiltrate Occupy Wall Street and start making this movement look bad.

[-] 1 points by schflyatz (3) from Newark, NJ 2 years ago

You cannot stand against crony capitalism unless you also stand against crony unionism. Expand minimum wage to include minimums based on profession and cost of living in metro statistical area. Eliminate compulsory union membership. Quit picking the pockets of unrepresented workers to pay for union fatcats, most of whom work for government these days. Form a labor party in which membership is voluntary, and which advocates for all the workers--not just the dues payers.

[-] 1 points by schflyatz (3) from Newark, NJ 2 years ago

You cannot stand against crony capitalism unless you also stand against crony unionism. Expand minimum wage to include minimums based on profession and cost of living in metro statistical area. Eliminate compulsory union membership. Quit picking the pockets of unrepresented workers to pay for union fatcats, most of whom work for government these days. Form a labor party in which membership is voluntary, and which advocates for all the workers--not just the dues payers.

[-] 1 points by wsjiii (2) 2 years ago

The Fed + Corporatism divided by Ron Paul = 100% Liberty

[-] 1 points by ms3000 (253) 2 years ago

Please remember that the 99% declaration only provides guidelines! Under this proposed plan, [https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/] the delegates will spend three months from 7-4-12 to 10-4-12 proposing and drafting a list of grievances to be presented to the government BEFORE the 2012 elections so they can be forced to pledge to accept the petition or reject it and allow the voters to decide. The idea is to legitimize the movement, keep the focus on the movement during the elections of delegates and the convention in Philly and and then force the politicians in the 2012 election to take sides against or for the 99% and then let the people decide.

[-] 1 points by jerseydavec (1) 2 years ago

Please hang in there and stay the course, You folks are exercising the rights that many of fought for. Its time to end the greed and our jobs going overseas. The rich boy clubs of Bankers, Ceo's,Congress and Senate reps have sold us out, lied to us and screwed us long enough. Do this peacefully and with purpose. Please do a little better at clarifying the issues and offer solutions. I salute all of You!

[-] 1 points by NevadaIndies (7) 2 years ago

Get LOSING AMERICA: How Self Serving Leaders Are Destroying Our Future. It came out last month and written by Helm Lehmann, former Nevadan (I) who got a higher % of votes for U.S. House than any independent in 40 years. Great read, traces back to 1998 and moves forward through 2011 - offers lessons from the past and hope for the future at Amazon and www.losingamerica.org

[-] 1 points by OCCUPY401RHODEISLAND (1) 2 years ago

401 OCCUPY RHODE ISLAND Begins Saturday Oct 15 2011

Burnside Park Providence RI

[-] 1 points by NevadaIndies (7) 2 years ago

Read LOSING AMERICA: How Self Serving Leaders Are Destroying Our Future. It came out last month and written by Helm Lehmann, a Nevadan (I) who got a higher % of votes for U.S. House than any independent in 40 years. His platform - going after Wall Street and Banking! www.losingamerica.org Great read, traces back to 1998 and moves forward through 2011 - offers lessons from the past and hope for the future also at Amazon

[-] 1 points by NevadaIndies (7) 2 years ago

ead LOSING AMERICA: How Self Serving Leaders Are Destroying Our Future. It came out last month and written by Helm Lehmann, a Nevadan (I) who got a higher % of votes for U.S. House than any independent in 40 years. His primary platform - going after Wall Street and Banking! Great read, traces back to 1998 and moves forward through 2011 - offers lessons from the past and hope for the future at Amazon and www.losingamerica.org

[-] 1 points by NevadaIndies (7) 2 years ago

ead LOSING AMERICA: How Self Serving Leaders Are Destroying Our Future. It came out last month and written by Helm Lehmann, a Nevadan (I) who got a higher % of votes for U.S. House than any independent in 40 years. His primary platform - going after Wall Street and Banking! Great read, traces back to 1998 and moves forward through 2011 - offers lessons from the past and hope for the future at Amazon and www.losingamerica.org

[-] 1 points by oneofus (4) 2 years ago

In the words of 2 presidents who (coincidentally?) were both shot down as they stood in defense of the will of the people.

My father always told me that all businessmen were sons of bitches, but I never believed it till now. - John F. Kennedy

These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert, to fleece the people. - Abraham Lincoln

[-] 1 points by BringBackGlassSteagallAct (67) 2 years ago

I have an idea for us to help re-regulate Wall Street, how about arranging a million people march on the Hill to bring back the Glass-Steagall Act and to Close the Enron Loophole once and for all? The public needs to be educated; I feel once this gets out, they will respond accordingly. How about Michael Greenberger as our key note speaker...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbdtTGYQBMU&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNp0y0SjOkY&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-kExdTgNZA&feature=channel

Why we need Glass-Steagall Act back:

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/03/071603.asp#axzz1aPEc3wXj http://www.counterpunch.org/2008/09/19/shattering-the-glass-steagall-act/

[-] 1 points by rdjbv73 (1) 2 years ago

Finely!! America awakes!! Liberate the people from creed!! greetz from holland

[-] 1 points by Thisisthetime (200) from Kahlotus, WA 2 years ago

Keep up the Good Work.

[-] 1 points by ChetArthur (17) 2 years ago

time to move beyond waving placards.

http://www.postcarbon.org/blog-post/523782-memo-to-the-occupied-movement-a You courageous people in the #occupy movement are absolutely right in saying the system is broken, greedy, and unfair. But when our discussion turns to replacing the current system, we’ve got to embrace a bigger view of reality than the one held by stock traders and politicians. It's not just our wealth they want to control, it's our vision for what is both possible and necessary. We need a post-growth economy that works both for people (all of them) and for the rest of nature: a localized economy based on renewable resources harvested at nature’s rates of replenishment, not a fossil-fueled global economy driven by the imperative of ever-higher returns on investment.

There will be life after growth — and it can be a better life if our nation’s priority is the quality of life of our people and the integrity of the biosphere, rather than stock prices and corporate profits.

[-] 1 points by biggerjiggers (1) from Tours, Centre 2 years ago

solidarity from france They had the money, and the media and the cops. But we are the 99%. Ever wonder what it would look like if the 99% got truly upset and wanted, their life, their job, their weekend, their time with their kids back? This is the end for them! INDIGUEZ VOUS!!!!!

[-] 1 points by sjppja4 (4) from Hanover, NJ 2 years ago

You are not 99%. Maybe 40%. Why so dishonest? You don't speak for me! And I'm not in the 1%.

[-] 1 points by Timmy (5) 2 years ago

Wouldn't it be AWESOME if this turned into an intellectual discourse on individualism vs capitalism. For all the money we spend on EDUCATION in this US of A and the FREE FLOW of INFORMATION (since Gore founded the INTERNET). Unfortunately, I'm hearing a lot of complaining about the freedom of choice, its repercussions, and a desire for those that have made the RIGHT choices to pay a FAIR SHARE. Don't we have a PROGRESSIVE tax system, EIC, indigent care, soup kitchens, PHILANTHROPY - only millionaires and billionaires can build CARNEGIE HALLS etc. This is all about OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY, coveting the wealth of others, the use of FORCE (i.e. GOV'T) to re-appropriate the property of those that compensate via wages, insure via institutional investment, and provide liquidity in an imperfect market. A riot instigated by POTUS lmao :-D

[-] 1 points by whatever (1) 2 years ago

If all of those protesters actually took responsibility for their own lives and finances instead of blaming everyone else ...

Nah, what am I thinking, this is the era of sue McDonald's because you are a glutton, whine because big over-bloated government nanny does't get bigger and more bloated, unions worrying about themselves more than their members, making welfare more compelling than actually working ...

We created this country and broke away from European thinking to eventually turn into Europe!

[-] 1 points by PoliticallyIncorrectBenjamin (50) 2 years ago

Clean up the movement, focus on the problem not the symptom, and get the extreme left wing fringe out of it, they are making you all look liken the biggest idiots on earth.

[-] 1 points by occupysumer (2) 2 years ago

Sign the petition by clicking like and or uploading a video, pic, song or poem...just your take on corporate greed and fat cats in DC on the take...the best will be used in our film and no matter what you will be in the credit role for participating. Bring them all down. Walk like an Egyptian. V for Vendetta.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Occupy-America-Video-Petition/257131307665338?sk=wall&filter=1

[-] 1 points by managexpress (1) 2 years ago

ManageXpress calls people around the world to stand up against the greed and the corruption. This revolution is not just about America. All countries are suffering. Please share this with your fellows.

[-] 1 points by Izzy66 (5) 2 years ago

This does NOT have to be any political persuasion, BUT we do live still in a democratic process, we will STILL have an election in 2012. In fact, thats all we have is campaigning and no governing. To Rocket immediate legitimacy to the protests, gain national spotlight on the need to Vote and Register as well as make many DC Politicians sit up and take notice, SET UP VOTER REGISTRATION BOOTHS throughout the square. DON'T PUSH FOR ANYONE PARTY, just set up the booths! The effect will be immediate. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, Koch industries is purchasing the next election.... Please don't lose this chance.

[-] 1 points by BringBackGlassSteagallAct (67) 2 years ago

You all are great! I feel the only way we can get back on safe financial footing again is to close the Enron Loophole for oil speculators and bring back The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which prevented the current banking and insurance scams/loopholes. After all, it worked great until late 90's when Congress through it out. Since then, like prior to 1933, we are experiencing what out country went though then, total Wall Street greed. Cheers to all that are involved! Jim

[-] 1 points by planckbrandt (5) 2 years ago

We'd better get ready for November. Another manufactured financial crisis to stop all this "occupy Wall Street" business...

We need to call out John Roberts for why he is not using Judicial Review to strike down these 4 decades old campaign finance "laws" that are letting the Top 1% and their Agents the 2nd % wipe out all our assets and livelihoods. Roberts is supposed to guarantee equal protection of property rights and all rights under the US constitution for all American citizens...not 1% of American citizens...

We need to focus the magnifying glass on him and that Court that lets these bogus campaign finance "laws" stand since 1974...these outdated and now obviously and completely unfair PAC laws are the root cause of most of our problems today...

This just in from Europe about the manufactured crisis coming...http://www.leap2020.eu/GEAB-N-57-is-available-Global-systemic-crisis-Fourth-quarter-2011-Implosive-fusion-of-global-financial-assets_a7640.html

[-] 1 points by ThePoliticalScientists (5) 2 years ago

Wait wait people, please let the banks tell their side of it. Finally they have released a song that does just that.check it out....http://cdbaby.com/cd/politicalscientists2

[-] 1 points by ThePoliticalScientists (5) 2 years ago

Wait wait people, please let the banks tell their side of it. Finally they have released a song that does just that.check it out....http://cdbaby.com/cd/politicalscientists2

[-] 1 points by atanabe (8) from Brattleboro, VT 2 years ago

Help translate Occupy wall st!
Sign language? Chinese? French? Go all out! http://occupywallst.org/forum/occupytranslation/

[-] 1 points by groovypet2 (2) 2 years ago

I will keep sending this. His name is Chris and he should have his video and story up.

links to all the stuff makes it easier.

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=217906

http://cgi.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/members/forum.cgi?read=30166

[-] 1 points by GammaPoint (400) from Oakland, CA 2 years ago

Sweet video!!

[-] 1 points by groovypet2 (2) 2 years ago

A Voice on Wallstreet. He first was noticed for his heart felt video,that went viral.

http://cgi.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/members/forum.cgi?read=30166

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=217906

[-] 1 points by goth (1) 2 years ago

Occupy WallStreet n´ then All Street spread round the world then we´ll all meet

[-] 1 points by PoliticallyIncorrectBenjamin (50) 2 years ago

Wavy jazz hands children, no clapping.

[-] 1 points by BulletProof (3) 2 years ago

Some suggestions from the financial sector - I personally think demands should be far more aggressive than this but it's interesting to see how there is some support from this area... that's the most important thing - to show how many people who are caught in the system actually have many concerns and complaints about it too.. http://blogs.reuters.com/reuters-money/2011/10/10/what-the-occupy-wall-street-crowd-should-be-saying/

[-] 1 points by deltech (4) 2 years ago

I read a comment that dictators like Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and Castro came to power because of dimwitted herds. If the writer did know anything about history he would know that they came to power due to the frustration of the people with the economic conditions( which were all very bad) at the time. The Allies learned a lesson and after WWII they made sure the defeated countries would not fall into an economic depression and invite another dictator to come to power. I just think it's funny that some people criticize other people for their apathy and when their views don't agree they're dimwitted herds.

[-] 1 points by 99stories (1) 2 years ago

We Shall overcome - faces of 99% http://youtu.be/D8dmQ5Tp-sc

[-] 1 points by NinetyNine (24) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Why dont we protest the people that gave the bankers our money. Lets go to the Whitehouse. Lets go to show Nancy Peloci that we dont appreciate her, or the Congress she was in charge of, for giving our money away to the 1% Corporate elites. Lets stop the billions of dollars from going to campaign donor's fake energy businesses.

[-] 1 points by BulletProof (3) 2 years ago

Re: JPMorgan's police donation: http://imgur.com/gallery/D9VI0 Each cop doesn't get this money-it goes to the top as usual. Attn Cops! you are the 99% Let them know it - we're all in this together.

[-] 1 points by BulletProof (3) 2 years ago

check out economist Joe Stiglitz affiliations http://www.muckety.com/Joseph-E-Stiglitz/38167.muckety It's important to know the connections of people of note who speak at OWS. Unless he has denounced his previous affiliations, this guy's motives are obvious - more jobs? that's what he comes up with? how many insincere republicans have said the same? how typical!

[-] 1 points by diggs (3) 2 years ago

@Misguided99 Your argument seems to be that consumer demands have created the situation we are in today. I would counter that consumerism is a manifestation of a larger structural problem. We live in a representative democracy. The founding fathers that you speak of put that system in place with the intent that those representatives would express the will of the people. Unfortunately, those representatives express the will of the corporations fueled by lobbyist contributions to their re-election campaigns. This has resulted in regulations, laws, and policy that work primarily for a tiny fraction of the populous. Those are the freeloaders we need to be concerned with. Those representatives that have become so comfortable with their wages, benefits, and influence that they have neglected to do their job and govern because they are too busy campaigning. Our representative democracy is broken. We will fix this through direct democracy, I'm sorry if this scares you or makes you uncomfortable. I take no stand on capitalism vs. socialism, but I think our founding fathers would have supported the will of the people. They sure would have supported the discussion, which we at present are incapable of.

[-] 1 points by bloke73 (2) 2 years ago

Just spoke to voter registration commission in my state, Tennessee, and they said that there is no law prohibiting citizens handing out voter applications, it is considerd a voter registration drive. I think this idea has legs and would like to hear back from anyone that is interested in starting voter registration booths while we have the momentum, this is one way to get our message across I feel. Please reply if you are interested in starting this at your local community action events.

[-] 1 points by bloke73 (2) 2 years ago

Just spoke to voter registration commission in my state, Tennessee, and they said that there is no law prohibiting citizens handing out voter applications, it is considerd a voter registration drive. I think this idea has legs and would like to hear back from anyone that is interested in starting voter registration booths while we have the momentum, this is one way to get our message across I feel. Please reply if you are interested in starting this at your local community action events.

[-] 1 points by vam (1) 2 years ago

It's awesome to see this protest continuing! A first world country should be able to give all of it's citizens a decent standard of living!

[-] 1 points by deecee1 (1) 2 years ago

Two suggestions 1)A tax strike 2)Promote passage of usury laws to make credit card debt less profitable for banks

[-] 1 points by dhg (1) from New York, NY 2 years ago

THANK YOU!!! this movement is awesome. brings tears to my eyes to think there might be hope for change.. AWESOME work. thank you- thank you- I am one of the 99% too--

[-] 1 points by iatexan (4) 2 years ago

Get a real education...read the blog on www.thebigturds.com

[-] 1 points by Timmy (5) 2 years ago

We are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.

[-] 1 points by riskybusiness100 (1) 2 years ago

The movie "Meet John Doe" has an innovative concept for helping the 99%. It's a free movie, available online, and its worth 2 hours of your life to watch it.

[-] 1 points by Freemont (2) 2 years ago

People need to understand how the financial oligarchy create wealth and artificially inflate the money supply. The best example I've seen is "Trading on Thin Air" (tradingonthinair.com - I believe the documentary is easy to find online It touches on the fundamental problems of why we are here. -

[-] 1 points by BobbyOBahama (11) 2 years ago

The SOLUTION to OUR PROBLEMS ....is WE are OUT of BALANCE...ALL 100 percent of us is out of balance....THE SOLUTION is WITHIN each and every one of us.... http://KiMaah.com

[-] 1 points by LloydJHart (190) from Vineyard Haven, MA 2 years ago

The below is my thank you to all those participating in the debate over the "Proposed List Of Demands For Occupy Wall St Movement! (User Submitted) thread in the forum section of this site that now has upwards of 1380 comments.

Proposed List Of Demands For Occupy Wall St Movement! (User Submitted) http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-for-occupy-wall-st-moveme/#comment-18182

I want to take a moment and thank everyone for adding their comments to this thread and making it a viable online debate forum and exchange for ideas related to these proposed demands. I also want to thank Rush Limbaugh, Fox news and hundreds of conservative web sites and blogs for rallying opposition to these proposed demands giving those of that us that support these proposed demands a vigorous debate to sharpen our teeth on.

Since Rush Limbaugh, Fox news and the hundreds of conservative web sites and blogs began their onslaught of this page I have received hundreds of phone calls, most filled with hate and dismissal but some I am glad to say from polite and respectful conservatives that simply wanted to go more deeply into the thinking behind these demands. One very respectful conversation I had was with economics students over a speaker phone at George Mason university that went on for nearly three hours. There have been dozens of phone calls with folks that showed their respect but respectfully disagreed and there have been phone calls where there has been some agreement on one or several of the demands. The most agreement from seemingly conservative callers I was able to glean was on raising tariffs on all goods imported into the US to create jobs in America.

Even though it got hard for my wife and I to listen to all the hate and vitriol in most of the calls it was worth it to talk with those seemly conservative individuals that treated us with respect and allowed me to explain why I whole heartedly support these demands.

We get very emotional about money especially when we don't have it because money has become the central source of our main instinctual drives for food, shelter and sex. Until we grasp what it is that has us upset we will continue to over react and miss opportunities to come to agreement to stabilize the supply of our basic human needs as a species living in an environment that has limited resources.

Regardless of your political leaning I want to thank you all for participating in this thread and the debate that has ensued.

We all want the same things, food, shelter and sex. So lets try to find some common ground to stabilize the supply of our basic human needs without completely destroying the thin mist of life on this planet.

All heart felt love to you all.

Lloyd J Hart

http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-for-occupy-wall-st-moveme/#comment-18182

[-] 1 points by Dublin99 (65) 2 years ago

Ask any American living in France for more than a few years, whether or not they want to move back home. Most will say no. Because, if they have become an EU citizen, they will get free healthcare and free education for their children. If they become unemployed, they get paid 90% of their annual salary for one year so they can get another job as soon as possible but not fall into crippling debt. These are attainable in the US as well. You're just told it's un-American. It's not. It's just getting something back for your tax!

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

Agreed! I have a cousin who moved to Belgium and who now lives in Germany, and he said he'll never return to the USA. My family knows some other people who have moved to other countries that have way better benefits like the ones you mentioned, and they never will come back here.

But, when I mention any of this to other Americans, a popular response I get is, "If you hate it so much here, then move the fuck out." I don't want to move out. Rather, I want to make this country better. They just can't (don't want to) understand that.

[-] 1 points by unlocksmith (1) from Sunnyvale, CA 2 years ago

of the rich, by the rich, for the rich #FAIL

[-] 1 points by tsdevi (307) 2 years ago

We need to move past the worker identity in order to address the many problems that emanate from a hierarchical society that is based upon sexism, ageism, classism and racism. We cannot cure the fundamental inequalities by eliminating the appearance of prejudice and subjugation that is rationalized by prejudice, nor can people any longer take comfort in the notion of their petty successes in the hierarchical model. Why settle for an identity? There is work that needs to be done that falls outside the realm of our sanitized ideas about what a "good" job is and ought to be. All work must be regarded as valuable and respected instead of people simply being valued for how well they are able to exploit the labor of others, how much money they make, and what the color of their shirt collar is. Private industry is not necessarily superior to industry that is supported by government. If drugs were manufactured by the NIH, they would cost less and the industry would be able to devote attention to drugs that the people needed most, instead of those that were the most profitable (read Marcia Angell). Conversely, government intervention in farming has proved to be a disaster to our health, to local economies and utterly wasteful of tax payer dollars (watch King Corn). Our government has become an overgrown machine of waste, or resources, of human potential and energy. Campaign finance reform, liberating ourselves from the notion that industry is the ultimate expression of human development, recognizing the absolute necessity of restoring and replenishing our ecosytems and, in so doing, creating an economy that is ardently devoted to reciprocal relationships between people and between people and nature. There is so much work that needs to be done....are We the People ready to do it?

[-] 1 points by mahc (2) 2 years ago

Outsourcing of our greatest natural resource---our JOBS---continues at an alarming rate and America's Congress has been complicit. There's more than "meets the eye" in the cozy relationship between many corporate businesses and our nation's lawmakers. Globalization is not all bad, but in the context in which we are witnessing it, many of our fellow Americans have been left JOBLESS! Labor and business used to work well in this country. Now, there's an on-going effort to dismantle the unions that made us a manufacturing paradise. One more note: To those who think unions are the problem---think again! No unions ... no check and balances to speak of on business---which is exactly what has led us down the bumpy road we are on now!

[-] 1 points by ConsiderLOVE (7) 2 years ago

I got info on this group "Occupy Wall Street" from this site!https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001707973399 I was somewhat dismayed to realize this group is a "RACIST" Group Denying Racism is their New RACISM! I will NOT support a Racist Stereotyping GROUP this is shamefull in this day an age RACIST are BACK!!!

[-] 1 points by jdk1958 (2) 2 years ago

Remember, you can demand changes in policy. But the change must start with the person you see in the mirror each morning. Look at the clothes on your back. Where are they made? Look at the items you put in your home, your office and your car. Who made them? If an American worker did not make them, than there was no benefit to the American economy when you purchased them. NONE American jobs fuel the America economy, not Chinese, Malaysian, Vietnamese or any number of exporting countries.
BUY AMERICAN. Put an American to work. Why Occupy Wall Street? Occupy Wal-Mart, Target, Macy’s and K Mart. Demand they provide American produces for the American consumer

[-] 1 points by jdk1958 (2) 2 years ago

Remember, you can demand changes in policy. But the change must start with the person you see in the mirror each morning. Look at the clothes on your back. Where are they made? Look at the items you put in your home, your office and your car. Who made them? If an American worker did not make them, than there was no benefit to the American economy when you purchased them. NONE American jobs fuel the America economy, not Chinese, Malaysian, Vietnamese or any number of exporting countries.
BUY AMERICAN. Put an American to work. Why Occupy Wall Street? Occupy Wal-Mart, Target, Macy’s and K Mart. Demand they provide American produces for the American consumer

[-] 1 points by iam53 (4) 2 years ago

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.”Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share? They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).

The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20,”declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,” but he got $10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!”

“That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

[-] 1 points by Adam20751 (58) from New York, NY 2 years ago

It's unclear where the percentages in your analogy come from, and it's dis-analogous with history (we've moved away from progressive taxation since we had such a system five decades ago; we didn't get angry at the rich and make it more progressive).

[-] 1 points by iam53 (4) 2 years ago

How about here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#Year_2011_income_brackets_and_tax_rates

and here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_States

You might have to back into some of the calculations based on tax revenues vs. population (see 2010 census).

These pages show we've had a sliding scale for taxes based on income for the last 3 years. I'm not sure where your reference for the last 5 decades comes from. Clearly based on the changes in brackets more people would fall into high tax brackets as by your own movement's claims fewer people are making more money. Yet more people have been added to the lowest bracket.

Just sayin'

[-] 1 points by Adam20751 (58) from New York, NY 2 years ago

"A sliding scale based on income" and a system so progressive that the top ten percent is paying half and the bottom half is paying negligible amounts are not nearly the same thing.

Nowhere on those pages is there any indication that half the population pays zero or negative tax; they don't. They pay a small percent of the total tax revenues, but because income disparity is so ridiculous (table at bottom right of the income tax page), this burden is highly relevant to their actual standard of living.

The system's history is made most clear by the table of marginal tax rates (one must understand what marginal means) listed by year. As you can see, the system has a somewhat varied history, but we've lowered the rates quite dramatically and consistently since 1952, with the only serious blip being under Clinton (incidentally this is the last time the nominal debt declined).

Also of note are the equivalent pages of large European countries, where the lowest brackets really do pay no taxes (ours have always paid some, though much is returned in one way or another) and the highest brackets have a marginal rates around 40% (France is 40, Germany is 45). The lowness of our highest tax rate (33%, or 25% with the AMT) is one of the largest problems that the OWS folk can agree on.

Also also of note is that 4% of our population (generally some of the wealthiest) pay the alternative minimum tax rate of around 25%.

[-] 1 points by whippler (1) 2 years ago

I visited OccupyDameStreet in DUBLIN IRELAND. They send their greetings of SOLIDARITY.

http://12160.info/page/2649739:Page:684335 http://www.facebook.com/OccupyDameStreet

[-] 1 points by clothrop (1) 2 years ago

Traveling five hours from New Hampshire, I was proud to join you and cook for you on Saturday. Free food to all, and from many--what a great way to build local support! The sense of community and positivity is what will bring me back.

Young people (including me) brought about an end to the Viet Nam war by galvanizing the country. Young people can do it again. We "older" people can be shaken out of our complacency again. Power to the People! If the young Arabs can overthrow dictators, think of what American youth can do!

Remember to thank the police officers who are there to keep you safe. I did, and they were surprised, and pleased.

[-] 1 points by madeinusa (393) 2 years ago

"We’re going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. In theory, some of those loopholes were understandable, but in practice they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying ten percent of his salary, and that’s crazy. [...] Do you think the millionaire ought to pay more in taxes than the bus driver or less?"-Ronald Reagan June 6, 1985 speech at Northside High School in Atlanta, Georgia

[-] 1 points by trancemuter (2) 2 years ago

Could somebody explain to me what Russel Simmons was doing at the OWS? With over 350 million in his pocket he is one of the biggest sellouts money can buy in NYC! For me it's just an other marketing trick he is using to stay cool with his "consumers"! It's funny how some weasels are trying to sneak in!

[-] 1 points by planetlove (31) 2 years ago

The importance of language: Demands versus Unity

I think one of the most strategic issues the 99% movement is facing and will be decisive in maintaining momentum is the around what the media seems to be forcing of “what are the demands” of the protesters, generally using a predominantly dismissive tone of an unorganized fringe movement. Words matter and the very reductionist attempt to focus on ‘demands’ smarts of divisiveness. The 99%ers cannot and should not let the narrative be reduced to something conveniently catchy for the sound bite deliverable news reporters need. What does the word ‘demands’ inspire in you? Does it conjure up images of rebellious teenagers or worse, something more commonly associated with kidnappers or terrorists? Something to be appeased that will then go away?

While many people have made thoughtful suggestions of moving forward on some actionable improvements, and I agree getting some wins to sustain momentum is important, I want to implore the collective 99% to focus on what unifies us and what we want to create (not just remove, replace, etc, although warts and all discussion of root cause problems is necesary). I think a positive narrative that is aspirational and captures the hearts and minds of the broadest spectrum of America and offers a vision for the future will be the most powerful force.

Now brace yourselves, about to get touchy feely for a minute, but I think Deepak Chopra wrote an interesting article in 2008 in reference to the Obama-Palin dichotomy (http://www.chopra.com/node/1064), what Chopra terms the shadow effect of essentially negativity, anger, fear, violence, selfishness countering our aspirations, virtue, and vision. I think over the last 2 years we have seen the movements of the shadow forces come to a previously unthinkable level of mainstreaming and prominence – tea bagger agenda, anti-immigration fear of the ‘other’, racist comments regarding Obama, and countless other examples. Without going so far as to say we are at some good versus evil face off, I think we can all agree that the vicious polarization is coming to a head.

And so how to move forward? Is this a moment of necessary but painful creative destruction? I think the biggest battlefield is in the hearts of the naysayers or shadow elements (i.e. right leaning American constituency, not the wealthy elite per se, but the ideological red state, tea party, social conservatives). Let’s not forget the politicians and nastiness we have seen are responding at some level to this constituency. Is there a way to acknowledge the fear that shadow proponents have of change and carve a path forward where our collective good is larger than real or perceived individual “losses”? Can the positive message of an aspirational vision be so crystallized that even the naysayers or contrarians come around? What unifying common vision of re-inventing the American dream as a viable and tangible possibility could bring us together? Let’s continue to articulate a constructive and unifying vision that truly taps into the broader 99% of the American people. Let’s not be forced into a corner prematurely focusing on ‘demands’ before we know how big this movement can get. Let’s not play into the us-versus-them narrative that is so convenient for nightly news. This was best articulated by Naomi Klein on the Maddow show: “the genius of the making the slogan ‘we are the 99%’ is the SKY IS THE LIMIT..it can include EVERYONE…if this is a big movement we can DREAM BIG.” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#44811000

[-] 1 points by justinkunst (1) 2 years ago

Public Voting of #OccupyAmerica Ideas. All People can Register and Participate :: http://www.lifesizebook.com

[-] 1 points by trancemuter (2) 2 years ago

Can somebody explain to me why was Russel Simmons considered the 99%? He is the biggest sellout in NYC with over 350 million in his pocket, it's totally obvious to me that this is only an other marketing scam for him! Funny how the weasels try to sneak in...

[-] 1 points by madeinusa (393) 2 years ago

Wall street and conservatives are trying to turn us into hoarders by making us buy stuff from their cheap ugly big box stores and purchasing their cheap Chinese junk that breaks after a few uses. Hoarding is a result of their psychological warfare against us to extract all of our money.

[-] 1 points by Misguided99 (6) 2 years ago

No...just the opposite. U.S. consumers DEMAND cheap prices, and the market has to figure out how to serve up what Americans want. That is not Wall Street, that is all of you on main street. You just do not want to admit that there is no one else to blame.

[-] 1 points by madeinusa (393) 2 years ago

We are to blame too for buying this cheap breakable shit from China. However, the rich have jammed this globalization shit down our throats. I don't by foreign products.

[-] 1 points by Rob (881) 2 years ago

41% of Americans consider themselves conservative http://www.gallup.com/poll/148745/political-ideology-stable-conservatives-leading.aspx so , you are now at the starting point of being known as the "58%ers". What other group do you want to exclude now?

[-] 1 points by madeinusa (393) 2 years ago

Lets get down to the nuts and bolts issues not clear in polls by generalized questions and I bet the answer would be different. 82% want to tax the rich if we want to be simple minded and generalized.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/04/18/112386/poll-best-way-to-fight-deficits.html

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-08-10/politics/29995084_1_medicare-reforms-john-boehner-major-reforms

[-] 1 points by Rob (881) 2 years ago

You missed the point. If you desire to insult and as a result exclude those that call themselves conservative then you cannot claim 99%. Insult the heart, lose the mind.

[-] 1 points by Adam20751 (58) from New York, NY 2 years ago

This thread of the discussion is extremely important.

I think there are two questions wrapped up in here:1) What percent of the population's consent are we actually going to act on? (incidentally, I think around 75 of the not-apathetic is plenty, as waiting for more than that is risking global catastrophe while an entire generation gets educated), and 2) how much responsibility do we think we have to educate rather than just acting on the beliefs people already have? (I'm for a whole lot of educating, perhaps a year at least, before we try for anything seriously political, because otherwise I think we'll get muddled by to much internal disagreement)

Both of these questions need to be discussed with reasons given. We know we have a variety of answers; now we need to try to figure out which ones are the best, because we can't move on well without some more consensus.

[-] 1 points by madeinusa (393) 2 years ago

You are correct that I should not be insulting to anyone. However, I believe that the conservative policies have brought this on; this is my opinion based on my reading, research and results of policies. I also include so called "democrats" in this too. Its hard to not insult when I have been directly affected by conservative policies that have resulted in job losses and mnaufacturing being sent to asia for purposes of greed. I would like for us to think about america first, not other countries and free markets

[-] 0 points by agnosticnixie (17) from Laval, QC 2 years ago

The problem is that at these point, liberal and conservative as identifiers have become almost entirely cultural - worst in that is probably the notions of fiscal conservatism/liberalism, which is little more than an electoral slogan with absolutely no meaning behind it.

[-] 1 points by madeinusa (393) 2 years ago

DRAFT of our Constitutional Amendment for public debate this fall:

"No person, corporation or business entity of any type, domestic or foreign, shall be allowed to contribute money, directly or indirectly, to any candidate for Federal office or to contribute money on behalf of or opposed to any type of campaign for Federal office. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, campaign contributions to candidates for Federal office shall not constitute speech of any kind as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution or any amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Congress shall set forth a federal holiday for the purposes of voting for candidates for Federal office."

To double your impact, send GetMoneyOut.com to one other person.

[-] 1 points by Misguided99 (6) 2 years ago

Great....so should I interpret that to mean that you would NOT let Obama did what he did in the last election, which was to avoid taking government money so he could avoid regulations and disclosures required?

[-] 1 points by madeinusa (393) 2 years ago

he has to if he wants to compete with republicans and the KOCH Brother backing.

[-] 1 points by mrsbblack (102) 2 years ago

Declaration of the Occupation of New York City - read it and make your comments. www.purpleblogspot.blogspot.com OWS, the purple party (IMO)

[-] 1 points by mrsbblack (102) 2 years ago

tell us about your town and its supporting events - for OWS. www.purpleblogspot.blogspot.com every voice counts!

[-] 1 points by madeinusa (393) 2 years ago

The governor of NYS is firing 3500 State employees in favor of giving billion dollars to a foreign corporation Global Foundries. Then giving 4.4 billion dollars to IBM who has been taking corporate welfare from New York for years while firing thousands!

[-] 1 points by madeinusa (393) 2 years ago

The rich corporations have been moving whats left of industry into the south or into suburbs because they don't want us to have a community or be friends because they are worried we will unionize. By forming unions like we have done at our OWS protests we can fight them. Next, if we get jobs, we need to unionize our coworkers for a voice. We need a voice in the workplace.

[-] 1 points by madeinusa (393) 2 years ago

Conservatives don't want you to buy Made in USA because it hurts their rich friends pockets. No more so called "free markets" that the rich have twisted into a raid of our piggybanks.

[-] 1 points by madeinusa (393) 2 years ago

I remember the days before Reagan and conservatism, before the mid 1980's. Things were great, people had money, people got along, were happy, and things were quiet. Until republicans started taking over with Ronald Reagan. Its time to turn things back. Boycott Fox News and boycott republicans. Boycott corporate Democrats. Protest the Koch Brothers. No more Citizens United. No more corporate money in elections.

[-] 1 points by jemcgloin (63) from Staten Island, NY 2 years ago

The Real Job Creators

The real job creators are the consumers. If the consumers have money to spend, then businesses will be able to expand, and will be able to find money to invest. When the stock market rewards companies that fire workers, steal pensions, and move factories overseas, and politicians cut the salaries and benefits of public workers, social security, medicare and other benefits, than the money that is spent in local businesses will shrink.

Tax cuts are more likely to be spent overseas, invested in risky instruments like the ones that crashed the economy, or put into speculating on commodities driving up the prices for food energy and precious metals.

Over the last 30 years the real income of 80% of Americans is flat, while the income of the richest 2% has multiplied by six. (And two former census officials released a study yesterday that says that the real median income is down 9.6% since 2007!) At the same time the capital gains taxes, and corporate taxes are down, and the top income tax income rate has been cut in half. What do we have to show for it? The biggest recession in 60 years.

Tax cuts do not grow the economy. Businesses are sitting in $2.9trillion in cash, waiting for consumers to start spending again. At the same time Republicans are demanding more cuts in incomes and benefits for the middle class.

It is a downward spiral designed by transnational corporations to turn the United States of America into a third world country. Saudi Arabia just awarded a $1trillion deal to a Spanish consortium to build a high speed rail system. How come it didn't go to American companies? Because, we never built a high speed rail system. It's "too expensive." The Chinese have built 7,000 miles of high speed rail, and many other capital projects. The Chinese stimulus plan was $3trillion--5 times bigger than ours. They do all of the things we can't afford, but we owe them a trillion dollars.
Make giant corporations and billionaires invest in your country, not someone else’s.

[-] 1 points by jemcgloin (63) from Staten Island, NY 2 years ago

The signs go by too fast you can't read them.

[-] 1 points by madeinusa (393) 2 years ago

Fight Wall Street by only buying Made In USA products. If you can't find them at the store, search the internet. They are there you just have to look. This will hurt Wall Streets pocketbook.

[-] 1 points by madeinusa (393) 2 years ago

Free Trade agreements are sending our jobs overseas while corporations keep prices the same or higher while the rich corporations are reaping the benefits of slave labor in China and asia.

[-] 1 points by madeinusa (393) 2 years ago

Before 1981 Ronald Reagan tax breaks for the rich, they paid 90% over 10 million is income. Now its the same as you and I. UNFAIR! No more tax breaks for the morbidly rich!

[-] 1 points by sbanicki (6) 2 years ago

The issues are easy to understand and simple to fix if politicians have the will to fix it. We as a nation are heading towards becoming an Oligarch; a nation controlled by a handful of corporations that are controlling "our" government leaders to further consolidate the power of the Oligarch.

If the occupation of Wall Street is going to have any impact on bringing about change it needs to promote and take on the challenge of amending our constitution outlawing political contributions from both labor and corporations.

This is the change that is needed. More: http://bit.ly/oOvp7z

[-] 1 points by sbanicki (6) 2 years ago

Occupy WallStreet to Amend constitution bit.ly/r3hWpi

[-] 1 points by mookda (3) 2 years ago

--that's my rant, freedom of choice--"forget about 'it"

[-] 1 points by wakeUp (22) from Virginia Beach, VA 2 years ago

No war. No poverty. No money. The Venus Project. www.thevenusproject.com

[-] 1 points by wakeUp (22) from Virginia Beach, VA 2 years ago

Lots of anger and enlightenment over the current problems. This is all very good. But what is the solution? The solution is to totally change the social institutions that created the problems in the first place. This will mean a total re-design of our entire culture. This solution has been in development for the last 70 years and is now ready when we are. www.thevenusproject.com

[-] 1 points by teapartypatriot (1) 2 years ago

Wow! What a bunch of lazy commies! GET A JOB!

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago
[-] 1 points by ncg83 (1) 2 years ago

im fortunate and grateful to have a job but live paycheck to paycheck in my small southern town just like almost everyone else i know here. except of course for the owners of the privately held company i work for. im behind this movement 100%. cant come to nyc as id like to but will support all i can from my small corner of the country. I AM THE 99%!!!

[-] 1 points by Jane (1) 2 years ago

Nothing to do with anything--I wish people who made videos and films these days did so in such a way that people watching them actually were able to read the writing in them, super duper quick flashes of printed words may go great with the beat, but they leave the viewer out of the whole viewing process, it takes me longer than a fraction of a second to read anything, I got tired of trying to hit the pause button button, so did not finish "watching" this video, mind you I also miss the printed updates at the end of tv programs because it is impossible to read them is the second or two they are visible, very annoying

[-] 1 points by GrahamE (2) 2 years ago

The 15-M people in the Puerta del Sol in Madrid deny they are simply articles of the market but they and we are. In the UK the word is that nothing must be done to upset the bankers or they will move their HQ's abroad, the same is said in Spain, the USA and probably in Hell itself. Likewise the markets everything is geared to what the markets say and measures taken to placate them to give them what they want.

But it's a charade without the 99% these vast organisations would have and be nothing, no one to rob or to swindle - call their bluff they are powerless without the fear they generate and without the business of the 99%. Let them eat their money then see what value would it have.

But if it is true that politicians have to accommodate the markets, the banks and the global corpora rations and bend to their will then what do we need these useless politicos for anyway? let the markets truly rule us and do away with these flawed and deceitful concepts of "democracy" and simply let the decision makers decide without these useless middle men and of course women.

[-] 1 points by GrahamE (2) 2 years ago

The 15-M people in the Puerta del Sol in Madrid deny they are simply articles of the market but they and we are. In the UK the word is that nothing must be done to upset the bankers or they will move their HQ's abroad, the same is said in Spain, the USA and probably in Hell itself. Likewise the markets everything is geared to what the markets say and measures taken to placate them to give them what they want.

But it's a charade without the 99% these vast organisations would have and be nothing, no one to rob or to swindle - call their bluff they are powerless without the fear they generate and without the business of the 99%. Let them eat their money then see what value would it have.

But if it is true that politicians have to accommodate the markets, the banks and the global corpora rations and bend to their will then what do we need these useless politicos for anyway? let the markets truly rule us and do away with these flawed and deceitful concepts of "democracy" and simply let the decision makers decide without these useless middle men and of course women.

[-] 1 points by teddyr (159) from Bronx, NY 2 years ago

Hey, you OWS people need to get back to Old Navy and fold my clothes after I try them on.

[-] 1 points by SouthernCross (2) 2 years ago

People, soon the movement will be called upon for real demands, somebody will have to go to some table with some lawmaker or whatever represents something to put the cards on the table. Is the movement ready for that by any chance? Just wondering,.....Long Live to us all..

[-] 1 points by sbanicki (6) 2 years ago

The movement needs to step up and initiate a constitutional amendment banning corporate campaign contributions.http://freeourfreemarkets.org

[-] 1 points by planetlove (31) 2 years ago

Keep these positive messages coming! Music and images are so powerful...I've never been more proud of what my country is capable of. This is so necessary to counter the false descriptions as some fringe, hippie movement.

[-] 1 points by cmandel (1) 2 years ago

it's a great video, i appreciate the message and the signs make a powerful visual of the occupation. but, out of all the protest music out there, why choose kayne? he makes records with the wrong intent - financially superior mentality.

[-] 1 points by gaia417 (7) 2 years ago

I wanted to share this with the group.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcePaR1LSVA

Enjoy.

[-] 1 points by 0moom0 (6) 2 years ago

http://youtu.be/YEXsE-sP2ps A video on Antonio Gramsci from

http://wearemany.org/

Percy Bysshe Shelley's famous poem, "Mask of Anarchy," gave us the name for this site. The poem is a powerful call to action for the oppressed and exploited of the world to organize together against tyranny and injustice, which we feel well expresses our own motivation for collecting the resources in this site:

Rise like Lions after slumber In unvanquishable number - Shake your chains to earth like dew Which in sleep had fallen on you - Ye are many - they are few.

[-] 1 points by DaDOMatic (5) 2 years ago

This is a shout out around the world! all cartoonist's please add occupywallst.org and flickr to your blogs and websites and create links to each other. This effects all of us and the future of our children. I am DaD O Matic of DaD O Matic's Twisted cartoons and I have added this site to my blog, will you? I am the 99%.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by FreeJack (15) from Alexandria, VA 2 years ago

Goals:

  1. Influence share holders to divest in corporations that pay CEOs and senior executives more than 100 times their lowest paid worker.

  2. Influence all Americans to close accounts at major banks and join credit unions.

  3. Pass Fair Trade laws to replace Free Trade laws.

  4. Force Congress to pass term limit legislation, three terms for the House and two terms for the Senate.

  5. Force Congress to make corporate campaign contributions illegal, only US citizens can contribute up to $100 per candidate.

  6. Pass the Employee Free Choice Act H.R.1409.

[-] 1 points by LeftCoastConservative (3) 2 years ago

About your goals I have no comment, except for #4: don't do it.

We have had term limits in California for state legislators for many years, and while I supported them at first, I have come to see that term limits actually INCREASED the influence of lobbyists (corporate and otherwise), because no politician could retain an office long enough to become competent enough in public policy to write coherent laws. In California lobbyists often write laws for legislators, who then guide them through the process to the Governors desk.

Also, you realize that Federal term limits will require a Constitutional amendment, and that establishment politicians of both parties will fight it to their last political breath? Better start registering a LOT of new voters.

[-] 1 points by fairisperspective (2) 2 years ago

It's a good list.

  1. We need a list of which corporations these are. We need to understand how we have to change our lives day-to-day, for some this will be the end of OWS.
  2. Maybe not close the bank accounts, but use CASH..no credit cards, debit cards...it will turn things local and stop the outsourcing of everything we can do for ourselves. It will also eventually help people understand that bank accounts, ATMs etc should not be free, we must pay for them but also we will decide for ourselves, instead of banks deciding for us, whether we need them or not
  3. We can be the judge of fair trade when we see what our vendors drive and where they live.
  4. No idea how you will get non term limited politicians to do this without a lot of new politicians that run on this.
  5. How about no money...no one can be paid to do any campaign work...I'd think a lot harder about giving up 10 hours of my time than $100.
  6. Unions and trade organizations need to behave fairly too

Lastly, unrelated to your post, social security is NOT AN ENTITLEMENT... I have been paying into this for 20+ years...if anyone wants to shut it down, then I want my money back first...a deal is a deal and if that means we have to disproportionately tax a group that has benefited over that 20+years.

[-] 1 points by grymreapper (2) 2 years ago

cannot be there, so showing my support any way i can. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0sYgDVvxxs

[-] 0 points by Guest (0) 2 years ago

Guys, You are having a great historical chance but it seems that your movement is loosing its impetus and is getting more and more toothless. I am afraid it will fade out very soon because of its internal problems: no leaders, refusal of politics, (claim that "We are not a political institution"), vague demands. For example You claim that You are against "corporate greed", but how would You like to fight with it ? Didn't the church try to fight with greed for the last 2000 years ? Are You citizen's movement or a sect ? Regarding corrpution: Isn't this a job of police ? Do You have any ideas how You would to fight with it ?

In my humble opinion, if You really want to change something, not just a one-time concessions, You SHOULD become a political movement and represent the "99%"--the majority of the american people. First of all, You should elect some leaders which would organize the movement from the noisy mob into a political force. You should make the others take into account your demands. Next, You SHOULD try to get to Congress. As of now, ALL congressmen are members of the ruling elite. Whatever they say during the political shows, they will never accept laws against their class.

And most important, You should demand reforms of the political system and completely forbid private "sponsoring" of election campaigns: only in this way You may avoid political corruption and representative of the 99% of the americans will get to Congress.

[-] 0 points by twsst5 (1) 2 years ago

I don't understand these kids. They have no idea what they're protesting and are demanding to tear down the very government that runs our country. That's pretty smart. It's sad to see them out there trying to act like they're fighting for a cause when really they just want to feel important and give meaning to their lives. I saw one man interviewed that had a sign for creating more jobs, then he went on to say he quit his job to be there. Go back inside, get jobs and work hard. Don't expect handouts, take the initiative.

[-] 0 points by hlopezisodessi (-1) 2 years ago

None of you can speak for me. This smells of Communism, so count me out and make 98%, or 97%, or .00001%, since none of you can speak for the rest of America. Nice try OBAMANATION

[-] 0 points by madeinusa (393) 2 years ago

Conservatism= suppression and racism

[-] 0 points by Misguided99 (6) 2 years ago

Yes,,,,you are all the children of the 99% who spent too much, borrowed too much, and wasted too much. The party of the last 20 years was great...but you do not like the hangover. Go ask your parents why they partied so hard and built up massive amounts of debt. If you fundamentally do not understand the source of the problem we are living, then you are easily led. Of course, Hitler counted on people who were easily led too. You are well along on this path children!

[-] 1 points by HRyan (24) 2 years ago

Big Daddy President Bush told us that if we were patriotic Americans who wanted to support our country, we'd go out and spend, spend, spend. Just like he and his party was doing. Remember the weird doublespeak "explanations" of how we were supposed to pay for the invasion and transformation of Iraq? How's that working for us now? How's that going to work for our grandchildren?

[-] 1 points by MrWombat (124) 2 years ago

Spent too much - I can agree with that but at least they were stimulating the economy. However I still do have a problem with conspicuous consumption in poor people - how will they pay their bills?

Borrowed too much - Deregulated banks encouraged irresponsible borrowing.

Wasted too much - See free trade and Double Dutch and Double Irishing Google. Waste of American jobs and tax revenue. See stimulus with no attempt to weed out the black hole of American jobs and corrupt Wall Streeters who COULD have bailed THEMSELVES out with the money their corporations made them. (Alanis Morisette spa parties anyone?)

Last 20 years - It was going nowhere but down. Many were too stupid to see it and some were apathetic or outnumbered.

[-] 0 points by Americanworker (0) 2 years ago

No, you're not the 99%.

Let's see ... Corporations can be protested freely and simply by boycotting their products. But what can we do to protect ourselves from the real source of tyranny and poverty - BIG WASTEFUL GOVERNMENT? What does OWS have to say about reducing public sector union pensions? Firing excess state "workers"? Giving the people's hard earned money back to the people? Ending immigration, which adds nearly two million more unemployed to the country every year?

OWS is a movement of the Far Left, for the Far Left - not for American working people, who want an end to immigration, crony capitalism, crony (Obamunist) socialism, union featherbedding, and government waste. Doing that would get the economy to pick up steam, and get the unemployed back to work.

[-] 1 points by HRyan (24) 2 years ago

How about ending all those fun wars that cost more than all those expenses combined?

[-] 1 points by kmoe (4) 2 years ago

Bingo

[-] 1 points by sqrltyler (207) 2 years ago

You obviously still believe there's a difference between the democrats and the republicans. Policy, not rhetoric, tells a different story...

Soft money owns our entire government, and has dictated the policies that have destroyed our economy. The two party system exists to keep us divided. It's a farce of democracy, as both "sides" are wholly owned by the 1%.

This movement is not aligned with either the left or the right, as both "sides" are just political bribe takers. You believe what the media tells you, and that media is owned by the same entities that have bought our government.

We are fighting against plutocracy. We are fighting to get our representative government back.

Get all soft money out of politics. End The K Street Lobby. Reinstate The Glass Steagall Act.

Do you not agree?

The seeds of our independence were planted in 1773, because our voice was not being represented.

That is why we are protesting all across our nation.

[-] -1 points by Silverbullet (-1) 2 years ago

War, poverty, corporate domination...this shit's got to go! - and it could. We can set us all free by declaring all the worlds resources to the common heritage of all the worlds people. This protest is good, but it would no longer be necessary if we got rid of money itself and focus on resources only, while agreeing to the given fact, that they could never belong to anybody in particular but to humanity as a whole. Its good to speak to and inform people about problems, but its far better to even come up and think about solutions. Politicians can not offer those, because they simply don't know about them. They understand everything about politics and power, so how should they come up with scientific solutions they are not capable of. So they just repeat what they are told by those who financed their campaigns... As long as there is money, there is inequality. As long as resources are owned by some or even countries, there will be war by which some will try to get what they don't have. Anyway, OWS is a good thing and I wished, there would be more people here in Germany being as brave as you folks and speak up against global enslavement! www.thevenusproject.com Silverbullet - TVPactivism, germany

[-] -2 points by JLivermore (-5) from Jersey City, NJ 2 years ago

Pretty sure those people, like most of your protestors, are not the 99%, but come from the top 10% of wealth in this country and are more or less protesting their own privileged backgrounds. Go home tonight, call your parents up, apologize, and say "thank you."

[-] 2 points by diggs (3) 2 years ago

@JLivermore It's time to wake up my friend, you are getting screwed too. You can hate, but we will still fight for you...

[-] 2 points by owsSLC (2) from Parsippany-Troy Hills, NJ 2 years ago

Yes, I'm sure the people on the streets are all daughters and sons of wall street bankers and hedge fund managers. Congratulations: you got us.

I look like what many would assume is a middle-class, suburban white boy, but my family is barely getting by: stop making assumptions and passing judgements based appearance.

[-] 1 points by aaronparr (612) 2 years ago

Join up then and balance the scales.

[-] -1 points by JLivermore (-5) from Je