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

A victory for the 99% in Ohio

Posted 2 years ago on Nov. 9, 2011, 2:56 p.m. EST by OccupyWallSt

Stop the War on Workers

It is a better day for the 99% in Ohio. Yesterday on Tuesday, November 8, Ohio voters overwhelmingly Repealed Senate Bill 5. The bill, just passed by the Ohio legislature in March, removed the ability of public employees to engage in one of the most fundamental rights known to working people — collective bargaining.

Occupy Cincinnati was active in this struggle. From Occupy Cincinnati:

"Ohio voters sent Governor John Kasich a clear message about restricting public union rights and denying their right to strike. SB5, the bill he initiated last spring, was struck down by a 60% to 39% margin. We, the people have spoken. This movement is not going away."

Jackie DiSalvo, a member of Occupy Wall Street's Labor working group said:

"Occupy Cincinnati was among the thousands of people fighting for the referendum. Proposition 2 was supported by Americans for Prosperity, heavily funded by right wing billionaire, David Koch, and Senate Bill 5 was designed by ALEC, the Koch funded American Legislative Exchange Council, which brings together legislators with the 1%. At the same time, we have been motivated by struggles like the fights to defend labor rights in Ohio."

639 Comments

639 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 24 points by sqrltyler (207) 2 years ago

The misinformed think Unions are what ails our nation. Unions only make up 16% of the workforce.

Teachers, fire fighters and policemen haven't outsourced our jobs, tax breaks for companies outsourcing have. Bad trade agreements, that allow companies to import their products for nothing have.

Our middle class was built on union labor, and those union members had money to put back into our economy. Henry Ford had it right, by always making sure his workers made enough to be able to buy his vehicles.

When we allow the government to take away the rights of any of us, we are giving them up for ourselves.

Global corporations are paying nothing in taxes, and getting subsidies with our tax dollars. Public sector unions are a drop in the hat compared to this scam.

Our bloated military outspends China 8 to1. If you want to cut spending, look no further then right here.

The corporate media frames this argument for the benefit of the 1%, who won't be happy until our standard of living is brought down to third world standards.

You can only squeeze us for so long...

[-] 2 points by aahpat (1407) 2 years ago

You raise a great point that I have not been able to get people to think about. Companies and Wall Street should have a fiduciary responsibility to invest in the long term growth of America. Not just the short term capital gains of quarterly profits. Henry Ford recognized this and paid his workers accordingly. Intel today is the same way. They pay their people well and include them in the product decision processes. They also have most of their engineering and production workforce in America and believe that investing in America is important to their growth. Last year Intel started a $3.5 billion venture fund to find new innovations that would create jobs in America.

If companies would stop listening to Wall Street bankers who only care about short term capital gains and start listening to their market which is middle-class American consumers who want long term job security and upward mobility that long term corporate growth provides America would start to grow again.

[-] 1 points by JamesS89118 (646) from Las Vegas, NV 2 years ago

Well typed, but still placing to much trust in Capitalists to be wise, just, invested. The reality is the Capitalist must maximize profit.

The solution could be a sales tax on financial instruments. The example I use is; I buy a sock and pay 8.5% sales tax. The same must be applied to capital transactions.

While there are many good reasons for this method of taxing the best one for this example is the reduction in trading. Specifically, this makes speculative and hit-n-run actions more expensive and encourages longer term investments.

BTW, taxing financial instruments does not raise citizen/consumer or small business prices.

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

"The reality is the Capitalist must maximize profit."

Companies have survived before while taking care of their employees and still made big profits. Making profits at the expense of everyone except for those at the top of the company is bullshit, and no companies needs to do that to survive.

Companies like Trader Joe's and Whole Foods pay their employees much more than their retailer counterparts, and they give them way better benefits and treat them much better. What does this produce? It produces MUCH happier and more dedicated employees, happier customers (because they get treated well when they shop their stores), and in turn MORE profits.

The idea that a company has to screw everyone except for those running the company in order to make profits is bullshit. If their idea is to squeeze every dime and nickel they can just to satisfy their greed and egos, then they deserve to go down.

I'm sick and tired of hearing that companies need to maximize profits at all costs. And some wonder why people are against capitalism.

[-] 2 points by PatriotMissiles (37) 2 years ago

You bring up an excellent point of ego. It is true, many of these companies operate to pinch every penny out of their employees and customers so that they can drive better cars, make the next Fortune 500 list, or afford big yachts. Another issue is the fact that the world may not be able to operate on the continued economic growth theory for much longer. There are too many people, fewer and fewer resources, and no areas of the world left to explore. Wages have been dropping for decades and the price of oil continues to rise. Thus, real growth dried up years ago and was replaced with phantom financial services, government contracts, and "stimulus" projects and bailouts. Take these items away and there isn't much going on in the economy. As the greedy elite continue on their plunder mission they only bring more resistance against themselves as they further the desperation of the people. The big shots, companies, and institutions are so corrupt that they have become their own worst enemy as their policies and mindset will turn everyone against them when the total and final economic crash happens. Perhaps things can improve from that point forward. It's unfortunate to think that things have to reach the breaking point to improve, but it just seems the power is too concentrated to make adjustments in time to avoid the inevitable.

[-] 2 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 2 years ago

The Supreme Court ruled either int he 80's or 90's that the board and CEO can be brought to trial (Criminal and civil) for not pursuing only the profit of shareholders.

They are legally bound and can face prison time and loss of their private assets if they don't only look out for profit.

Government is mandating that they do this or be punished. Who is to blame for this?

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

Then that needs to be overturned. That explains why companies started laying off (firing) people back then for nothing other than to make more money. That trend started back then and continues. Before that, it didn't happen..... blanket lay-offs of thousands of employees just to make more money.

No wonder things are so fucked up.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

It should be overturned if it was true, but it isn't, at least not in the way Febs seems to mean it.

A CEO can use the corporation's money for funding all sorts of charities and good works because he/she can always argue that it enhances the reputation of the company, thereby increasing positive consumer views of the company. In other words, there is tremendous latitude under the heading of marketing. What that CEO can't do is siphon company money to a secret apartment for a mistress, nor anything that would intentionally harm the company's bottom line. As long as the CEO serves the company's interest without a conflict of interest (such as short selling his stocks to make a profit at the expense of the company's value) he is safe from prosecution.

To be sure, the law might appear to put pressure on a CEO of a manufacturing plant to move overseas, but there are compelling profit-oriented reasons for not doing so as well, and refusing such a move is deemed, legally, a judgement call, not a violation of fiduciary responsibility.

What's more, a CEO of a corporation can actually intentionally minimize the profit of shareholders without violating the law. For example, if I want to start a T-shirt company whose sole purpose is make money to be used for, say fighting malaria in Africa, I can do so, as long as the shareholders know that this is the goal of the company. As long as there is disclosure, the legal obligation is met.

[-] 1 points by MiMi1026 (937) from Springfield, VA 2 years ago

Agreed!

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Just a quick correction: Whole Foods has fought a bitter anti-union campaign for nearly a decade. They have among the worst benefits (very high deductible health car plan) and the nastiest most arbitrary management you will ever see in a supermarket. They recently raised wages for their employees only because they were under pressure to unionize and it was a way to try to hold the union at bay.

Whole Foods was also subject to a boycott a couple of years ago. John Mackey, the company's founder and CEO, did everything within his power to scuttle Obama's health care plan, going so far as to write an Op-Ed piece in the Wall Street Journal in which he he stated: "A careful reading of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right to health care, food or shelter. That's because there isn't any," He opens the article by quoting Margaret thatcher on Socialism, as if the plan falls under that category. Here is a link to that scurrilous piece of drivel:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html

Whole Foods is utterly piggish. It is not an example of a company that values its workers.

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

Or it's customers. They regularly engage in deceptive business tactics to make "bulk corporate products" appear to be locally grown and manufacturerd.

[-] -2 points by LoneStar5 (9) 2 years ago

Like you....Most Communist are against Capitalism.

[-] 2 points by Joe4more (165) from Cranston, RI 2 years ago

I see, you're an antagonist. Our for-profit health care insurance corporations in this country are squeezing the life out of us to maximize profits for shareholders. Obama tried to reform health care but was fought every step of the way. The Republicans couldn't oppose him fast enough, not too mention the deals and lobbying money that went to both party's. We the people ended up with a lame watered down health care bill that hasn't reduced rates at all. You must like paying around $14k/year for a family plan so your corporate buddies can maximize their profits. Unions and the ows movement are the last bastion of hope for the middle class and working poor.

[-] -3 points by LoneStar5 (9) 2 years ago

"Unions and the ows movement are the last bastion of hope for the middle class and working poor" LMAO...If the Unions and OWS are our only hope...Well we are really fucked then.

[-] 2 points by Joe4more (165) from Cranston, RI 2 years ago

Like I said, you're an antagonist. Why don't you go troll the right wing wacko sites, sounds like they're your type!

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

Yes, LoneStar5, that is rather the point. We are fucked up because Unions and OWS are pretty much our only hope. Look at what they are up against -- intrenched moneyed interests.

If the definition of an "honest" politician is that an honest politician stays bought, let's hope some politicians can be "dishonest" enough to be persuaded by We the People to vote in the People's interest, instead of according to the latest campaign contribution.

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 2 years ago

A lot of folks in Washington and on Wall Street are talking about a transaction tax to reduce speculation.

I would like to see market tracking ETF's banned. And some constraints put onto high frequency trading tactics that leave the responsible investor looking like a deer in the headlights.

The ETF's in particular piss me off. They are the core concept of Vanguard investments. Buy blindly buying a whole market like the S&P-500 the ETF manipulates individual investors and pools like union funds to invest in the bad stocks in the S&P along with the good stocks. this puts less money into the good stocks while falsely propping up failing companies. This fools other investors into thinking that the screwed up companies are worth investing in. But as good companies get less capital the economy too gets less capital in more productive places. the entire economy is diminished.

[-] 1 points by shoesandtables (20) 2 years ago

*A video showing the "Wealth Gap" in the U.S. --- Seeing it visually makes it clearer. --- Here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7tmZv1o5Ac

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

Hear!Hear!

[-] 1 points by MiMi1026 (937) from Springfield, VA 2 years ago

Exactly! We the People have awaken.No more slumber. Unite.

[-] 1 points by Thisisthetime (200) from Kahlotus, WA 2 years ago

Thank you. I agree with you completely.

[-] 1 points by shoesandtables (20) 2 years ago

**A video showing the "Wealth Gap" in the U.S.

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7tmZv1o5Ac

[-] 1 points by nickhowdy (1104) 2 years ago

12%

[-] 1 points by SocratesPhilosophy (231) 2 years ago

How are union bosses/leaders different then CEOs?

[-] 2 points by Hardworkingteacher (10) from Bronx, NY 2 years ago

Union leaders spend days, nights and weekends.protecting the rights and benefits of their hard- working and 99 percenter members from constant attack. The 1 % control the media op- ed pages (Bloomberg, Murdoch etc.) and are constantly trying to weaken or break unions, particularly in tough economic times. If we can't succeed in getting the 1% to pay more, it will be our salaries, pensions and health care that will go. I appreciate my union leaders.

[-] 2 points by nickhowdy (1104) 2 years ago

They support the working class..Other then that, they get quite a smaller salary...Next question?

[-] -1 points by SocratesPhilosophy (231) 2 years ago

Marty Beil, executive director of American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME )Council 24 SEPAC, made $161,847 in 2008 according to the organization’s Form 990. That’s considerably more than the $144,423 a year Scott Walker made as Wisconsin’s Governor.

[-] 3 points by vitriolck (69) 2 years ago

Does walker's number include the value of the golf trips and flights in private jets he gets for doing the bidding of the Koch Bros? Compare Marty Bell to their wealth and see how ridiculous this line of reasoning is.

[-] 3 points by socialmedic (178) 2 years ago

It would be much cheaper to export Walker to the South of Brazil to join the rest of his expatriated Nazi family.

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

Exactly.

[-] 1 points by SocratesPhilosophy (231) 2 years ago

At some point did I say the Koch brothers weren't bad people?

[-] 3 points by sqrltyler (207) 2 years ago

Socrates, you're comparing Marty Bell's wage to that of a puppet politician. How about comparing his wages to that of The Koch brothers, or the CEO of GE, or the entire boardroom at Goldman Sachs?

To think that union influence even compares to the influence multinational corporations have on our government is insane.

Like I stated before, I want ALL MONEY OUT OF POLITICS, and that includes the pittance that unions provide.

[-] 2 points by mesinger (26) 2 years ago

hear hear .....:)

[-] 1 points by SocratesPhilosophy (231) 2 years ago

scroll down

[-] 2 points by nickhowdy (1104) 2 years ago

Well I think Scott Walker deserves JACK SHIT for trying his best to destroy the middle class..

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

Right on!!!

[-] 0 points by nickhowdy (1104) 2 years ago

Nice try....

[-] -1 points by SocratesPhilosophy (231) 2 years ago

So much for intelligent debate...

Do you always curse when you try to make a point?

[-] 2 points by socialmedic (178) 2 years ago

I was engaged in the arguments of this debate, but when I came across YOU I wanted a divorce. If Socrates knew you did not know that you did not know nothing he would roll in his grave at your abuse of his name. So where did you find it, off the side of some horror monster video game? Here is a fact that even KARL MARX understood that apparently is totally beyond you. Most people will work well if they are adequately compensated. That means Health care, a home, adequate means of transportation food and clothing for themselves and their kids and some sort of diversion. Marx understood that most people are not out seeking to conquer and upend the world. Along with that he noted that if you take single women and work them tirelessly with no time off to their death ... that is immoral. What a bastard that Marx. Next to EVERY Republican in America Karl Marx looks like a SAINT. THAT is the ROOT of America's fear of communism. The very fact that this jewish communist had MORE compassion for the suffering of others than any of the dweebs who pretended to follow Christ. Kurt Vonnegut wrote that "curse words" as you call them, never hurt anybody ... it is the LIES that people tell that hurt people. The Repubican's lies have hurt BILLIONS of people. And so , without further adieu, I say * YOU!

[-] 1 points by SocratesPhilosophy (231) 2 years ago

We have already established CEOs are bad, how are union bosses better just because they say they look out for you? If the Krotch Brothers start saying it will you believe them too?

On August 9, Ernest Milewski, former president of United Food and Commercial Workers, Northeast District Council, pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania to one count of embezzling union funds and one count of embezzling assets from a union-sponsored health care benefit program.

On August 5, Cynthia Collier, former secretary-treasurer of United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners Local 2177, was charged in Morgan County, Indiana, Circuit/Superior Court with theft of union funds in an unspecified amount.

On September 21, Diana Frey, until recently the president of an independent local government workers union, Cincinnati Organized and Dedicated Employees (CODE), pleaded guilty in federal court to wire fraud.

On August 4, Eddie De Hoyos, former district vice president for the American Postal Workers Union, Texas State Association, was ordered in the 187th District Court for Bexar County, Texas to serve up to 180 days in prison, five years of probation and 150 hours of community service for theft from the McAllen, Tex.-based labor organization.

On August 3, Leonard Carman, former financial secretary of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1142 in Norfolk, was indicted in Circuit Court for the City of Norfolk, Virginia for embezzlement.

So just because these people didn't take millions they aren't corrupt? The idea people work just to get by is absurd, we work to get ahead to take care of our families and secure our futures not the future of your lazy neighbor and your union bosses are no different they secure their futures on the backs of the workers.

"I'm not a marxist" ~Karl Marx

Interesting how he wouldn't call himself a marxist.

At what point did I say the Republicans weren't trying to screw everybody? And I don't believe the democrats are any better.

[-] 1 points by nonsense (11) 2 years ago

Swearing is awesome. If you look at what is happening with these greedy pigs on Wall Street and you don't say "Fuck these fucking fucks" there is something wrong with you. I would say you have anger issues.

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

I "love" how those who have a "problem" with those of us who swear don't have a problem with the REAL people who are problems in our society!!!!

[-] 1 points by SocratesPhilosophy (231) 2 years ago

Emotion has no place in decision making.

[-] 2 points by MadProfit (312) 2 years ago

You are wrong. Emphasising the thinking function at the expense of the feeling function is Schizoid behaviour and is the main reason we think the machinery and slaughter of war has happened. It cuts off feelings of compassion and empathy which are crucial to decision making. - using the feeling function at the expense of the thinking function on the other hand just makes for kneejerk reactions, hatred, and irrationality - there MUST MUST MUST be a balance of both. Think with your heart and feel with your mind.

[-] 1 points by nickhowdy (1104) 2 years ago

Ans#1 :The intelligence stopped when you opened your mouth..

[-] 1 points by nickhowdy (1104) 2 years ago

Ans#2: Not all the time..I took a "Writing Dynamically" course from TenebrousT

http://www.youtube.com/user/tenebroust

[-] 1 points by nickhowdy (1104) 2 years ago

Next....

[-] 1 points by mesinger (26) 2 years ago

Your right Socrates you lost that debate about 4 posts back ... now its add hominus attack time ... isnt it?

[-] -1 points by SocratesPhilosophy (231) 2 years ago

It's not about what you think, this is about the truth and union bosses are no different then CEOs.

[-] 2 points by vitriolck (69) 2 years ago

Here's the difference, you desperate bean counter you. The union bosses, even those listed, who I'll admit should probably do with significantly less, have positions that facilitate raising the wages of those they represent, securing them benefits and ensuring that their legal rights are observed. A CEO's job is to get himself an obscene level of wealth (how about compare the CEO of the largest company which employs members of the above unions to respective union boss, ooh, that might not look so good.) a golden parachute and try his best to take all of those things away from the worker.

[-] 1 points by nickhowdy (1104) 2 years ago

Yes and the migratory patterns of the African sallow as opposed to the European swallow would indicate the correctness of your position..

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

"How are union bosses/leaders different then CEOs?"

This is the question you asked. Why did you bring up Scott Walker's salary, because he isn't a CEO at the moment, if you hadn't noticed?

CEOs make MILLIONS upon MILLIONS (if not BILLIONS) per year. $161,847 isn't a huge amount of money. Lawyers make WAY MORE than that.

[-] 1 points by SocratesPhilosophy (231) 2 years ago

And how much do the workers you claim to defend make?

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

"And how much do the workers you claim to defend make?"

Which workers are you talking about?

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

You ignored answering my question.

[-] 1 points by mesinger (26) 2 years ago

so whats the point Scott Walker also gets to hang out on Koch Brother Junkets and take political contributions ...he also appnts his chronnies to insider posistions Walker hasnt created any jobs and that was a campaign promise right?

But at least Marty Beil finished College he deserves more ...

[-] 1 points by SocratesPhilosophy (231) 2 years ago

The point is if union bosses care so much about the workers why are the getting paid more then politicians?

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

Your comparison is so weak. The union boss you cited and Scott Walker make COMPARABLE salaries.

In the first place, you asked how a union boss is any different from a CEO, and then you brought up Scott Walker.... so please stick with your original comparison.

Also, people are using the Koch bros. as an example of how much CEOs can make. That IS the point.

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 2 years ago
[-] 0 points by SocratesPhilosophy (231) 2 years ago

Reported by the U.S. Department of Labor

  1. G. William Hunter Executive Director NBA Players Association Salary: $2,185,446

  2. Eugene Upshaw Executive Director NFL Players Association Salary: $2,064,526

  3. Donald M. Fehr Executive Director MLB Players Association Salary: $1,000,000

  4. Jimmy Warren Financial Treasurer Steelworkers and AFL-CIO Salary: $825,262

  5. Gregory J. Hessinger Chief Executive Officer Screen Actors Guild Salary: $803,399

  6. Alan Eisenberg Executive Director Actors and Artists, AFL- CIO Branch Salary: $720,743

  7. Jay Roth National Executive Director Directors Guild of America Salary: $686,673

  8. Don Hunsucker President and CEO United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 1288 Salary: $679,949

  9. John McLean Executive Director Writers Guild, West Headquarters Salary: $650,402

  10. Gerald McEntee President State, County & Municipal Workers Salary: $629,291

These guy get paid way more then they are worth and if they care so much about the working class why don't they get paid like the working class? If they were giving back to the union as much as they were taking it wouldn't be an issue, unions in the past were about the people now it's a political beast that needs to be put down.

don't confuse what I say as defending CEOs because most are douche bags what I am saying is union bosses don't give a crap about the people.

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

The 500 CEOs of the Fortune 500 took home 3.3 BILLION in 2003. Do you think you could put together a list of 500 union execs over even 1M each? You only found 3 for your list... And of those, none represent real unions.

And that's not even touching the hedge fund parasites that individually extract billions each year from our financial system. Yeah, union bosses are the problem.

False equivalencies rule.

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

THEY can't see that, though.... because they are so blinded by their right wing propaganda puppet string pullers.

[-] 1 points by nonsense (11) 2 years ago

Exactly correct. Great point.

[-] 2 points by mesinger (26) 2 years ago

The first three are paid for by corporations that make far more exploiting players with advertising as for the others they make less than a million dollars as for the Koch Brothers they are worth 25 BILLION a piece so what are you saying? cause last I checked 50,000,000,000 is a lot more zeros than 1,000,000 ,,,,, and 629,000 doesnt even pay for a Koch brother toilet ....

[-] 1 points by MadProfit (312) 2 years ago

Reported pay is not the point - my own Grandfather runs a company where he makes just as much as the employees and then gives himself a huge non-taxable bonus at the end of the year. That's what all these fat-cats have done with OUR money given to them to put back into the economy. THAT's why they need to either be prosecuted or burn in hell.

[-] 1 points by LoneStar3 (45) 2 years ago

You know you are talking to a bunch of blind sheep don't you?

[-] 2 points by SocratesPhilosophy (231) 2 years ago

It's okay, if I'm wrong I will learn something if I'm right they will learn something.

[-] 1 points by nonsense (11) 2 years ago

How do you know what they are worth? First off its pretty stupid to pretend the unions for actors and professional athletes are the same as unions for the working man but since you don't like unions you will do anything to make a point. You claim Billy Hunter isn't worth his paycheck yet the average salary for a member of his union is a little over $5,000,000. I think every single person on Earth would be very happy to pay Billy Hunter's salary if they were going to average a $5,000,000 paycheck. Also, all 10 of the people you mentioned are not working class, they are white collar. The 10 union leaders on that list are much more similar to CEOs in terms of education, skills, and job description. Highly skilled workers deserve high wages. All of these leaders have proved their skills time and time again hence they are deserving of their high wages. This is the opposite of what is happening on Wall Street since even the stupidest CEOs who do a terrible job have extremely high salaries. Incompetent Wall Street CEOs paid themselves millions in bonuses when they still owed TARP money. Try to think things through once in a while. Unions are on your side.

[-] 1 points by SocratesPhilosophy (231) 2 years ago

I didn't say I don't like union workers only union bosses thay are as corrupt as any politicians.

[-] 1 points by nonsense (11) 2 years ago

The union bosses are union workers. Occupy Wall Street really started steam rolling once the union bosses listened to their constituents and made sure the whole organization got behind Occupy Wall Street. Not very many politicians do that.

[-] 1 points by SocratesPhilosophy (231) 2 years ago

The bosses are not the workers, have you seen what they drive? what kind of car do you have?

And when have you seen a union boss on the line busting his ass like everyone else?

So union bosses "made sure" everyone supported OWS? How exactly did they do this? They are starting to sound more and more like mob bosses.

Obama did exactly that and now wants to bail out the banks again.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Union leaders are elected by the membership. That alone separates them from the ranks of CEOs.

If a union leader makes $600K for representing millions of workers who make, on average, $60K, that's 10x more. (And many leaders have indeed come up through the ranks, starting out "busting his ass" on the line like everyone else.) CEOs today are often making 200-300 times the salary of average workers. And it has been pointed out, most of the union leaders you cited as examples of equivalency to CEOs are actually making far LESS than the average athlete or movie star they work for. You are arguing from false equivalency. And I suspect you know it (which makes what you're doing not simply a mistake, but an intentionally unethical act.)

You also state a pure falsehood: union leaders have not "made sure" everyone supports OWS, certainly not by coercion. Not one worker can be shown to have been coerced to march alongside any OWSer on any day for any reason. You are clearly, intentionally distorting the substance of Nonesense's post, which was obviously about leadership listening to the workers. Your assertion speaks not to any fact, but to your own a priori animus toward unions. It is what your citation of atypical union salaries, cited specifically for the purpose of distortion speaks to as well.

You have an absolute right to oppose OWS. Using intentional distortion in an attempt to convince others does not help your cause.

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

Your argument is very weak, because of what many of us have pointed out.... but you refuse to see it.

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

They are VOTED for.

Duuhhh

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

Yep!

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

Hi, everyone. My blog has now been updated. Check it out :) http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/ I specially hope you read The Society We Should Strive For

I´m now almost done with my new article "The Transition Phase: The Road to Freedom". I will definatly post it on my blog soon, but maybe also here on this site.

greetings and solidarity sff

[-] 1 points by CoExist (178) 2 years ago

This is great stuff. I send you my intent on this road to freedom.

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

Thanks :) If everything goes as planned, the article will be published on my blog (and maybe also at ows forum) saturday or sunday.

sff

[-] 1 points by CoExist (178) 2 years ago

The video on your blog, do you have a separate link to that? It explains very clearly this new system you speak of. This could be sent around.

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

Sure. I found it while searching for videos about direct democracy and libertarian socialism. Here´s the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vu8J_UKKa-c

btw: also check out the videos in my blogpost "Chomsky explains Libertarian Socialism"

Lots of good stuff there, by the greatest philosopher of all times:)

[-] 1 points by CoExist (178) 2 years ago

Thanks, the video looks allot like Representative Democracy. Is there a big difference between Direct or is this just a play on words?

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

If you listen to the videos "The Relevance of Anarcho-Syndicalism"(in 5 parts) and "Motmakt Noam Chomsky in Oslo 2011" here, Chomsky explains this rather well. Direct democracy is about people being actively engaged in running their affairs, like their workplaces and communities, instead of electing politicians once every 2nd year to run things (very poorly) full time.

"The Relevance of Anarcho-Syndicalism" can also be read here :)

[-] 0 points by HarryCrew07 (433) 2 years ago

Funny enough, here's a Henry Ford quote from 1922: "It is well enough that people of this nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."

Ford's original principle only worked as long as people still needed cars and other products. Once everyone had bought one, no one needed them to be produced anymore and things started to collapse. Now we have a production sector which creates 80% of all our commodities with the intention that they will need to be replaced in 6 months or less.

[-] 1 points by Hamlet2086 (33) 2 years ago

Ford knew that the system that organized things was the key to making what some called the American Dream work. All the pieces involved had to align. Planning, standards, and rules were required to implement it.

He had incoming parts crates required to meet rigid standards. Even his suppliers did not know why: he intended to use portions of the crates themselves as parts in the Ford vehicles to be built.

Ford originally wanted to help the "common man" in the United States prosper, because he saw his own success and theirs were partnered along a certain pathway toward success. Slick as ever, we'll all get from point A to point B. Ford builds cars, workers build cars, workers get paid, workers buy Fords, Ford gets rich. Everybody wins.

As in any interesting story, however, the plot thickened.

In Henry Ford's world, fear set in, due to the Lindbergh kidnapping. Afraid his own child would be taken, he turned to "security" agents, in fact: thugs. Times changed. Ford decided the workers were the enemy, "perverted" into wanting too much of the pie, so his "security" people then became a force to literally beat his workers, as unionization set in. So much for Plan A and everybody winning.

Aye, there's the rub: my greed is good, your greed, not so much.

Balance is the key in the system. If a pool table is not on the level, the balls basically will tend to roll to one corner.

Money rolls in a similar fashion. Think the table is level these days or not?

[-] 0 points by onemoe (78) 2 years ago

I agree with a lot that you say here but unions have caused some issues that you may not be aware of. It is the union that prevents the USPS from being profitable. The deals they have regarding pensions and layoffs keep the service from sliming down cause the union says oh no you cant lay anyone off. They also keep wages so high in some industries they cause factories to be moved due to labor costs and the fact that it is just a hassle to deal with the unions. B Ball is a great example you have a bunch of ball players who already make a bunch of money for doing what they love (lucky lucky lucky) and yet where is B-ball season? Unions have become as corrupt as the entities they are supposed to protect workers from. I believe in their rights but do they believe in mine? I have seen people badgered into joining unions. I have seen the union take money from people and get not a lot back for it. I have seen union workers get aggressive toward people trying to cross their line. You know while they strike other people have to work they do not respect that. Unions blaaah. You can join one if you like but I won't.

[-] 6 points by Satyr000 (86) 2 years ago

Its important to remember that not all unions are bad. People tend to generalize way to much. I use to be pretty negative when it came to unions. After being laid off and having to work in a grocery store, I have seen how much good the right union can do. Simply put the non-union employees where I work get treated like crap and the company will screw them over to save a buck.

Before joining the union I worked 5 seventy hour weeks after being hired on as part time. I was told by my boss that I would be getting full time hours from then on. What I was not told is company policy stated that you have to work full time for six weeks in order to get permanent full time. What should have been my sixth week of full time I had my hours cut down to 20. Once I found out that my boss pretty much used me I called the union, joined the next week and they forced my boss to give me full time. Its things like that, that make companies like wal-mart fight agents being unionized. They know they won't be able to get away with half the crap they pull.

[-] 3 points by MakeThisWork (33) from New York, NY 2 years ago

The USPS is profitable. They are not required to by federal law, but they do. And that surplus is taken back by the federal government. The only support they recieve from the federal government is around $96 million to pay for governmental usage (mail-in ballots and other services) out of a budget of $45 billion. If I have my math right, that comes out to .2% of the USPS operating costs.

From About.com:

"Despite this virtual monopoly worth some $45 billion a year, the law does not require that the Postal Service make a profit -- only break even. Still, the US Postal Service has averaged a profit of over $1 billion per year in each of the last five years."

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/consumerawareness/a/uspsabout.htm

Just remember: Unions are what brought you the weekend. Unions are what brought you the 40 hour workweek and the very concept of "overtime". Are all of them perfect? No. But they are what keeps companies from doing whatever the hell they want to their employees.

[EDIT: I apologize, after more searching, it looks like the dateless article I was quoting is quite out of date. However, what SwissMiss below says about the 2006 bill is true. Who has to fund a pension 75 years ahead? They were profitable until that law was passed.]

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

IT IS NOT THE UNIONS that prevent the USPS from being profitable. It's a bullshit bill that was passed in 2006, under Bush 43, that is doing that.

Please look into the facts. Unions have NOTHING to do with the USPS. The USPS actually makes HUGE profits on its own, but the bill that was passed requires the USPS to pay the federal government hoards of money to make sure that its employees are covered for healthcare 75 years IN ADVANCE.... so that means it is paying the federal government for people who DON'T EVEN WORK THERE YET!!!!

"Cummings noted that this payment is obligated by a 2006 bill that requires USPS to make accelerated annual payments to fully fund its healthcare program, and said this is a higher hurdle than private sector companies."

NO OTHER COMPANY ON THE PLANET IS REQUIRED TO DO THAT.

And instead of taking that bill away, Republicans want to make cuts to the USPS. Their goal is to PRIVATIZE EVERYTHING, so they and their cronies can get even RICHER!!!!!

"Under the 2006 Postal Accountability Enhancement Act, the U.S. Postal Service is currently required to make accelerated annual payments to fully fund its anticipated retiree health care costs. That mandate creates an enormous cash-flow crunch and makes the postal service less competitive. The postal service has already paid more than $42 billion to the U.S. Treasury toward its employees’future healthcare costs. “The truth is that in addition to a decline in first-class mail volume, part of the reason that the Postal Service is experiencing huge financial losses is that previous Congresses imposed costly mandates that no other federal agency must meet, “ said Mr. Clay. “Our bill will ensure that the Postal Service and Congress have sufficient time to work together on comprehensive legislation to improve the Postal Service’s long-term viability.”"

http://postalemployeenetwork.com/news/2011/09/congress-will-consider-steps-to-restore-usps-profitability-while-maintaining-universal-mail-service/

It's H.R. 6407.

[-] 2 points by thelastman (51) from Tyler, TX 2 years ago

Exactly! The USPS is struggling because of a direct legislative attack on behalf of private interests that want our national mail service privatized. Thank you for postings this.

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

You're welcome, and than you!

[-] 0 points by tsizzle (73) from De Pere, WI 2 years ago

is having a national mail service necessary anymore? all I get is catalogs and a few bills that I could easily get without someone mailing to me.

[-] 1 points by Peacedriver (23) 2 years ago

The job loss would be devastating to our country... we are already on the brink.

[-] 1 points by thelastman (51) from Tyler, TX 2 years ago

Yes! Not everyone has a computer or regular access to one. The people who have hinted that the USPS is somehow a useless service because of junk mail might as well argue that we should abolish email because of spam.

[-] 0 points by tsizzle (73) from De Pere, WI 2 years ago

spam doesn't destroy the forests, email has filters to eliminate spam at the click of a button...there is absolutely nothing one gets in the mail that cannot be deliovered to them electronically...in 5-10 years, computers, as we know them, will be obsolete. Email will be all delivered to you through tablets,new tech, etc.

[-] 1 points by thelastman (51) from Tyler, TX 2 years ago

Okay, I am right there with you in regards to environmental concerns. However, you must not be fully aware of the environmental and human impact of the electronics industry itself. If the USPS becomes obsolete ten years down the road then I agree, lets talk about dissolving it then. In the meantime forcing it out of business with absurdly unfair legislation because corporate interests want to privatize it should be strongly resisted.

[-] 0 points by tsizzle (73) from De Pere, WI 2 years ago

of course i am, but you can't have it all. where would you put it? The USPS is already obsolete. How often d0 you put something in a mailbox? if you send a package, how often do you go to the post office? you probably don't at all because UPS and Fedex are really good at what they do? The federal govt fought tooth and nail to kill fedex in the 60's because they knew competing with a private enterprise to deliver bulk goods would be a death knell. They lost then, then they chose to remain a dinosaur, and they have failed again, for good.

[-] 1 points by thelastman (51) from Tyler, TX 2 years ago

I use the postal service quite often actually. I rarely use UPS or Fedex when I can avoid it. But then again I have this weird belief that if I participate and pay into a government, then it should provide me with the services I require to live "the good life" as the Greeks would say.

If the USPS were really as obsolete as your hyperbolic comments suggest why are legislators forced to try to kill it with unfair legislation?

[-] 0 points by tsizzle (73) from De Pere, WI 2 years ago

so, in your worldview America becomes more prosperous by "paying" into government than paying into private enterprise..Good luck

[-] 1 points by thelastman (51) from Tyler, TX 2 years ago

It actually has nothing to do with my "world view." It's what political scholars call the horizontal social contract. Our government was originally based upon a limited form of such a contract (limited due to the tacit and overt assumptions that women, the poor, and slaves would be excluded. But they were trying - hell, one finds similar foibles in Aristotle).

In a truly democratic state (which America is not - currently...) We have a direct influence in the government and there exists an apparatus (direct involvement) whereby we ensure that our wealth is intelligently used to improve our lives and living conditions. I am simply suggesting a return to a system based firmly in the classical liberal tradition: rule partly by the free (i.e. the poor and middle class, Aristotle's definition of democracy), and partly by the few (i.e. wealthy and/or most qualified, what Aristotle would call Oligarchy or Aristocracy). We might continue along with Aristotle's terminology and call this government by "polity," that is, by a sort of "middle group" of citizens. We must renew the horizontal social contract, get the average citizen involved again, and democratically restructure all institutions (public and private) that significantly impact the public good.

Dismissing such ideas in favor of the naive fantasy that "private enterprise" and the so-called "invisible hand" of the "free market" is in any way capable of doing anything other than mindlessly accumulating wealth is how we got in the mess we're in. I have news for you: I am not the idealist here, you are. 250+ years of evidence indicates that no amount of luck will ever make your fantasy a reality.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

Amen, glad to see more people dispell these neocon myths about the USPS.

In truth, they lie and mislead because they WANT the USPS to fail, just so one of their corporate buddies can step in and provide the Postal service at a higher price. Thus, once again, they can enrich themselves at the publics expense.

These people are evil, and must be stopped.

[-] 0 points by onemoe (78) 2 years ago

Actually I have facts. The post master wants to lay off about 120K postal workers but cannot due to some bullshit agreement with the union. He also cannot alter their healthcare benefits for the same reason. And it's not surprising to me that they would impose a higher standard on the USPS since all government agencies operate outside the normal sphere of the practical. Fed employees enjoy about 35 to 40% better wages than the same jobs in the private sector and have the best health care going. I was looking for a politician that would say hey thats not right we need to make an adjustment but it never happened.

[-] 3 points by thelastman (51) from Tyler, TX 2 years ago

I call the national minimum wage way "outside the normal sphere of the practical" Thanks to that unbelievably low standard we have people working hard 40+ hours a week that don't even make enough to be above the poverty line, to afford insurance, or to send their children to good schools. The staff that cleans the building at my university is such a group of underpaid workers. A couple of them that I know personally work two other jobs but have to ride a bicycle or the bus to work since they can't afford a car or car insurance. That is what isn't right. But you want to take the few good jobs away too? Unbelievable! It's time for a nationally mandated living wage.

[-] 2 points by onemoe (78) 2 years ago

no I don't want to take the good jobs away. I just don't want the fed to pay an RN who would make 60K in the private sector 75K just because it's our tax money they are getting paid with. And in the private sector they also increased deductibles to make insurance more affordable. This never happened with fed employees. I'm not talking about your brigade of broom pushers. I have known for a long time minimum wage is woefully inadequate. The general consensus has always been that it is not supposed to be a living wage but a wage that would motivate you to go to school. At least that's what a lot of people say "don't raise it it will hurt business let those people get an education and get better jobs" well the issue is the jobs that are getting added are mostly minimum wage jobs. And yea you would need like three people in the house working or you could not afford a house anywhere you would actually want to live. You are kind of a jack wagon to have made the leap in logic that you did from reading my post. You do know the fed pays better than minimum wage right?

[-] 1 points by thelastman (51) from Tyler, TX 2 years ago

I do know that and I applaud them for it. I also realize that the minimum wage is not supposed to be a living wage. I made no leap in logic. From your original post: "I was looking for a politician that would say hey thats not right we need to make an adjustment but it never happened." I assumed you meant an adjustment to the benefits and wages of federal employees. Hence my post pointing out that what really needs adjusting is the average private sector wage and benefits (hint: adjust = more pay and adequate benefits). If you also meant the latter, I apologize for the misunderstanding. If you meant the former, then you have an odd set of values to say the least.

One additional point. I would gladly and proudly pay more taxes so that an RN can make 15K more a year. They deserve it. I live in Texas, where our tax dollars are used to subsidize already rich corporations (esp. oil companies & banks) who pollute, exploit, and have direct negative effects on global stability. They don't need or deserve it. Simple as that. There is plenty of money to go round. So what that it is our tax money that she's getting paid with. That is really only semantics anyway. In a country like ours, with a fiat money system, the government has to spend (e.g. paying the nurse) or there would be nothing to tax!

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

"It's time for a nationally mandated living wage."

I totally agree. No one can make a living off of $7 and some change an hour. It's OK for high school students but isn't OK for anyone else..... except maybe a retiree who is just bored and wants something to do.

[-] 0 points by LoneStar5 (9) 2 years ago

Do you even have a job? My guess is that you are a welfare case and thats why you are on here all day....And the way you got bent about me asking if you was Black....My guess is that is the case to...You might as well drive (If you own a car) or take the bus to downtown Detriot and hang out with the rest of your filthy occupy friends

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

And what happens if employers cannot afford to pay this wage?

I think of minimum wage laws from an inverse point of view: They are laws making it illegal for people to work. They prevent people with no skills from entering the work force and starting on an upward mobility path.

[-] 1 points by thelastman (51) from Tyler, TX 2 years ago

If an employer can't afford to pay its full-time employees enough to live above poverty, then that shouldn't be a sustainable business venture. It should be allowed to go out of business. No economic policy should be considered in a vacuum. For something like a living wage to work, we will need large scale economic reform.

As to your second point, perhaps you could elaborate? I really can't see how such an "inverse point of view" can be justified. Increasingly higher levels of training, coupled with greater inequality and stagnant and, in many cases, decreasing wages over the last couple of decades would, in my mind, indicate that our current system suffers from an alarming dirth of "upward mobility" paths.

Personally, I am not interested in "upward mobility" whatever that is supposed to mean. I simply want to learn a useful skill (in my case hopefully teaching mathematics to budding engineers and scientists), find a stable job that pays me enough to live modestly and provide for my family, and get on with living my life and contributing to my community. Individuals who aren't content to simply live don't, as many like to argue, "fuel growth" or "create jobs." Rather, they are a drain on the system just as surely as those who lack any motivation and "live off of welfare" or whatever it is that they are supposed to do to earn decent people's fear and loathing.

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

Think about how totalitarian your view is. We have an employer and an employee - two free individuals - who want to enter into a private contract. the employer's business will create enough money to pay the employee what the employee thinks is enough money to take the job. YOU or your elitist representatives, however, find this does not meet your personal threshold for a viable business, so you will consign BOTH of them to poverty (or welfare) rather than allowing them to exercise their individual rights to association and the pursuit of happiness.

[-] 1 points by thelastman (51) from Tyler, TX 2 years ago

If you think that allowing individual citizens to control their own labor, lives, and communites is totalitarian then you obviously don't understand what totalitarianism is. It also doesn't seem like you really understand the purpose of labor. Like all other species, we "labor" to survive - in the west this is usually construed as "comfortably survive." Capitalism has reoriented this foci to the aimless and limitless accumulation of money and capital. We are told that prosperity and stability is the goal - this is now quite transparently false. In this reorienting process we as a society have forced masses of people into poverty. If we weigh the costs and benefits involved it should become crystal clear that the current system is ethically indefensible.

It's interesting that you accuse me of elitism. Depending on what you mean by that, I might just agree with you. An elitism that is based upon actual merit and which nevertheless endeavors to raise the general level of humanity is the opposite of the decadent elitism we currently suffer under. If I am in fact an elitist I am this type and proud of it. No matter. Let's talk about elitism for a bit.

The wealthy have a greater voice in governing our society than ordinary citizens. Whether they somehow deserved it or not is an argument we could have, but I think the answer is pretty clear if you accept some fairly uncontroversial ethical norms. The latter are effectively unable to enact their will when it goes against the interests of the former. That's called plutocracy. Which (along with theocracy) is the possibly the most decadent (in Nietzschean terms) form of elitism possible (perhaps excluding a monarchy) because it operates under the demonstrably false assumption that wealth or property (or in the case of theocracy righteousness and god's favor) impart elite status.

This has absolutely nothing to do with "me or my elitist representatives" (not exactly sure who the hell you are referring to there) or any arbitrary "personal threshold." I/they might have. I would hope that you are smart enough to realize this.

What you might not be mindful of is that the belief in a "free market," along with any self-correcting forces inherent therein, is an exceedingly difficult one to defend - now more than ever. It is the most dangerous of modern superstitions. In my not so humble opinion it is high time the human race grew up and out of such unscientific fairy tales.

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

OK. So you want to be a totalitarian with "unconvetional ethical norms". I got it. And somehow those norms mean that preventing two people from entering a private contract is equivalent to "allowing individual citizens to control their own labor, lives, and communites". I think a guy named Orwell already beat you to it.

[-] 1 points by thelastman (51) from Tyler, TX 2 years ago

For some reason I am unable to reply below so I will do so here.

Totalitarian (from the OED online) - of or relating to a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state

There are many means of introducing individuals into the work force that do not involve underpaying them to take rather meaningless, dead-end, service sector jobs. Trade school and apprenticeship during the final years of high school sounds like an intelligent plan to me. There are others.

Legally prohibiting the employer/employee relationship is not necessarily required, although I believe this relationship could easily become obsolete given the right conditions. I consider myself a student of Gandhi and like him I dislike top-down, state-centered reform efforts. I believe that it should be avoided wherever possible. Such "dictatorial" change is rarely lasting or effective. What we want is to educate and empower workers at the so positive changes can come about organically at a local level.

There are many employee owned and democratically operated companies and factories that have been wildly successful. This is a good start that does not involve harshly punishing "private contracts" between employees and employers. Such contracts are, in my opinion often very exploitative and, by virtue of creating unsustainable and unstable economic and political structure, do a disservice to both parties. So I think they should be disincentivised through education and empowerment of the individuals involved - not through authoritarian legislation. Does that make any sense?

I realize that I started out talking about a "nationally mandated living wage." I am only partly changing my tune. I used that phrase rhetorically because it was the quickest way to get the point across. There is a great deal of ambiguity in "nationally mandated" from a policy standpoint. How this is brought about should be thoughtfully considered. That it should happen at all I am hoping we can all agree on.

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

Nope, it does not make sense. You are trying to have it every which way. Utopian schemes are inherently non-democratic. They require that someone enforce the "consensus" opinion. If not enforced, the whole scheme falls apart. If enforced, utopia becomes hell. It doesn't matter if you have trade schools, etc. What matters if you are willing to use FORCE to PREVENT free people from entering into a private contract. It is a binary question.

[-] 1 points by thelastman (51) from Tyler, TX 2 years ago

No I do not wish to "be a totalitarian" in any sense of the word. What I would and do advocate is democratic (in the purest sense), decentralized, libertarian socialism.

I am not really sure why you put quotes around "unconvetional ethical norms" as I never used that phrase. I implied that "if you accept some fairly uncontroversial ethical norms" it should become clear that our present authoritarian plutocratic state is unethical. As to the rest of your comments, I must confess I have no clue as to what you are on about.

[-] 1 points by Cincybones (1) from Cincinnati, OH 2 years ago

@FreeMarkets seems to think that passing laws constitutes totalitarianism. Sounds like he's the "unconvetional" one

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

Yes, I read it wrong.

I'm trying to understand your core concept of freedom by taking a single case study that would affect almost everyone (at least for their first job). To be clear, you think that a democracy should be able to PROHIBIT (make illegal, punish with fine or imprisonment) an agreement between two individuals as to terms of employment. If the labor rate does not meet the requirements set by the "democracy", then the contract cannot be entered. Is this correct?

If so, how is that NOT totalitarian?

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

If what your saying is true about the layoffs, IT IS DUE TO THE BILL that is bankrupting the USPS. What's the REAL problem here?

[-] 2 points by nimbus22 (106) from Chaska, MN 2 years ago

.......Well if the USPS was publicly funded and non-profit still, like it is supposed to be, we wouldn't have to worry about it being profitable or failing. Maybe the failing part still since the republicans would probably try and steal all their funding for some deluded half measure..........

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

It ISN'T failing. What's hurting it is a bill.... H.R. 6407.... that was passed in 2006. Please read up on this instead of consuming right wing talking points. The USPS is NOT in trouble because of itself.

[-] 0 points by audiman (90) 2 years ago

The unions still take a portion of your dues and give them to politics. I thought OWS was against that? Corporations give to politics. You hate that. When you add up all the money that unions give, it adds up in the millions. And the workers have no say in the matter. Now that is a scam.

[-] 4 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

What a load of IGNORANT crap. Unions are democratic. If a member doesn't like how union dues are spent, he is free to VOTE on new leadership, or run union office.

Paying dues is like paying taxes, in exchange for being a member of a DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM, just like our country.

And so yes union members, just like everyone else can also vote with their feet.

In other words, if you think it's unfair to pay taxes here, to maintain our system, then.... GET THE FUCK OUT.... last I checked people aren't FORCED to stay employed at a UNION SHOP.... but boy do they line up to get in one.

[-] 3 points by DonQuixot (231) 2 years ago

Well said, Debndan, to which we may add the the besto social systems in history are those in nations with the highest union membership, Scandinavian countries.

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

EXACTLY!!!!! The countries with the WORST working conditions, the HIGHEST unemployment, the LOWEST PAY, etc. are countries with NO or LITTLE union representation.

[-] 2 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

Very, very true

[-] 2 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

AMen

[-] 0 points by audiman (90) 2 years ago

Yup, a guy could quit his job but a union still should not skim off the top of dues and give to a canidate that he does not back. That is just wrong. And two wrongs don't make it right. But it's Ok, the unions are on their way out. Soon they will not have much power at all. Look what they have done to the post office. Soon the PO unions will lose everything and 120,000 workers that deliver tons of junk mail will be fired. That is what the unions have brought us. Cool!

[-] 1 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 2 years ago

The unions have been shrinking for over thirty years. Now (at last) maybe they're fighting back.

[-] 1 points by audiman (90) 2 years ago

It's too late. The pension system is dead. It will be replaced with a 401k system. After that, no need for unions

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

401k system.... tied to Wall St, of course.... more money for the crooks.

[-] 1 points by audiman (90) 2 years ago

You can't say more money for the crooks when Wall Street is all of us. Every invester, every one with a 401k is part of it. If you say they are the crooks, then we are the crooks.

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

What's unfair is when government pass laws forcing workers to join unions.

[-] 2 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

For the life of me, I can not remember at any time anyone was forced to work at a union shop?

if you know of a place please let me know, never even heard of one.

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

You are twisting words. There are entire states where you can be forced to join a union in order to work for a "union shop". That's just crap. It's called crony capitalism, where a private entity (the union) lobbies the government for favors.

[-] 2 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

Ahhh, now there is the crux of the matter.

'They' are 'forced' when 'they' choose where to work.

Darn it, that's a good point. now if only the government could only put an end to me being 'forced' to eat sugar, when all I want is a regular coke.

The injustice of it all

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

Do you have a problem with corporations lobbying the government for favors? You seem to only mention unions but fail to accuse corporations that do it.

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

I don't like lobbying in any form. I would reduce the power and scope of government so that lobbying was a worthless endeavor.

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

Agreed.

[-] 3 points by mesinger (26) 2 years ago

Tax the rich at 90 percent put the money into infrastructure cut millitary spending 75 percent we still have enough to protect our country ... renewable cheap energy electric and solar and hydro theres no need to barbque dinsaur bones anymore this planet could be a Nirvana instead the 1% prefer a prison where they are the wardens ... do this and Unions will be as obselete as the 1% they fight ...

[-] 0 points by audiman (90) 2 years ago

Tax the rich at 90% and there will not be a reason to make money. Folks will just simply pull out of America and set of shop in other places in the world. They already have. Google and intell already have because it costs them 35% to operate in America. In other places, it can only cost 14%.

[-] 2 points by socialmedic (178) 1 year ago

They aready do that when taxes are cheap. So let them. Bye bye. Those are their cosen countries, Deport them there. THIS country is for people who want to pay our population for their labor.

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

Um.... yeah, like they DIDN'T when the tax rate on the highest income earners was 90%, right?

[Deleted]

[-] 3 points by nimbus22 (106) from Chaska, MN 2 years ago

this is not true.

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

U.S. citizens who work and live abroad STILL pay U.S. income taxes. It doesn't matter what their residency status is. It's about citizenship and is not about residency.

"U.S. Citizens and Resident Aliens Abroad

If you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien, the rules for filing income, estate, and gift tax returns and paying estimated tax are generally the same whether you are in the United States or abroad. Your worldwide income is subject to U.S. income tax, regardless of where you reside."

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/international/article/0,,id=97324,00.html

Your theory is completely wrong.

[-] 2 points by sqrltyler (207) 2 years ago

How much clearer do I have to be? I've repeatedly said I want ALL money out of politics, and that includes unions.

The comparison between corporate donations and union donations is ridiculous. Union donations pale in comparison to those of multinational corporations.

In our current horrid system, unions are the only ones left who are trying to fight for the middle class, because individually, we can only donate $2,500. Compare that to the millions these corporations can afford, and you'll understand why this puppet government doesn't represent us.

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

The right wing puppets won't listen, though.... because they have to try and find something to pin on the left..... even if it is dishonest.

[-] 0 points by bronxj (150) 2 years ago

Actually, neither corporations or unions are allowed to directly contribute. Both may may establish PACs. Corporate and labor PACs raise voluntary contributions from a restricted class of individuals and use those funds to support federal candidates and political committees.Some of the top 20 all time "donors" between 1989 and 2012 were unions.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A

Public sector unions are at a particular advantage as there is no one bargaining on the other side of the negotiating table on behalf of taxpayers. Although I do not agree with eliminating collective bargaining rights for public unions I do realize the issue is not so black and white and I do support ratification of public employee contracts by voter referendum.

[-] 1 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 2 years ago

The workers expect their union leaders to produce results for them. The union leaders use dues money to fight against anti-unionism. This is in the interests of the workers. Some workers though want a free ride. Fick that! Gotta pay dues.

[-] 1 points by audiman (90) 2 years ago

Again, they take a portion of your dues and give to big politics. That is just what Ows is against. You can't have it both ways. You sure do not want the rich to give to politics. I read it here everyday. But it is OK for unions? This is why the news is pulling away from you folks.

[-] 2 points by thelastman (51) from Tyler, TX 2 years ago

"This is why the news is pulling away from you folks." Oh, is that right? Sounds like the "news" has got you all confused. Supposed union corruption is not the issue here. Overpaid union employees hurting our economy and competitiveness is not the issue either. The issue is ensuring that we have a work force with the rights necessary to take control of their own workplaces and communities. That's called democracy. To (mis)quote <a href="http://xkcd.com/54/">xkcd</a>: "Democracy. It works, bitches."

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

The news is pulling away? Really? Just because you think it is or because you're against OWS doesn't mean the news is pulling away or that Occupy is failing. Last I heard, the Occupy movements are GROWING around the WORLD.

[-] 1 points by Decoy4924 (44) 2 years ago

Though flawed for now unions are necessary they like many other things need reform. You are correct lobbying in any form is wrong and needs to be stopped. Currently my union has done many positive things for me and other employees but many political decisions it makes I do not agree with so I make a point of confronting my union regularly about this. If the workers in union make there opinions known then lobbying might stop.

[-] 1 points by audiman (90) 2 years ago

You have good points but they will never stop the lobby thing. There are too many benifits to lose. I got out of my union but it was very hard. Had to see a bunch of special folks to do it. In other words it was easy getting in but kind of like trying to get out of Hotel Calfornia!

[-] 1 points by Decoy4924 (44) 2 years ago

It may be difficult, almost impossible to stop lobbying but with enough dedicated people we can do it. At least I hope we can. Im sorry to hear your union gave you so many issues that is exactly what a union shouldn't do. Thank you for your insight on unions it help give me a more well rounded opinion.

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Sez who "you can't have it both ways?" You God? As long as politics is played the way it is unions have no choice but to get in the game.

[-] 1 points by audiman (90) 2 years ago

It's too late. Going to a 401K system, no need for them anymore. All big cities and states will go to 401K

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 2 years ago

I do agree things are bad and workers' pensions will be stolen unless something pretty drastic happens.

[-] 1 points by audiman (90) 2 years ago

No, the old style pension is/will go away. We can no longer afford them Every large city/state will go to a 401k style. All of these cities and states have no money. They are belly up. Public sector unions will all losr their power. The days of the golden handshake are over. There have been too many backroom deals in the last 60 years. Now, finally, it is over. There is no hope for the old style pension.

[-] 1 points by audiman (90) 2 years ago

No worker of any kind should be forced to join a union.

[-] 3 points by Occupytheimf (134) 2 years ago

No 99% should b forced to contribute to inherently corrupt croneycapitalism

[-] 0 points by Dio1313 (69) 2 years ago

Is that the only big word you know?

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 2 years ago

All workers are free to seek employment that they prefer. If someone wants to freeload, screw that! Pay your dues like everyone else or shuffle oh to Buffalo!

[-] 1 points by audiman (90) 2 years ago

Paying dues are one thing but giving a portion to rich folks is another. Why should a worker give to liberals if he is a conservitive? It will all change soon. Already has in some states. Post office is next to lose. Can't wait!

[-] 0 points by StevenRoyal (490) from Dania Beach, FL 2 years ago

Union membership is down to 11.9%, down from 12.3% a year earlier. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm

[-] -3 points by FreeMarkets (272) 2 years ago

It took the dinosaurs time to completely die off as well

[-] 1 points by StevenRoyal (490) from Dania Beach, FL 2 years ago

No. Actually it was pretty much sudden.

[-] 0 points by Hardworkingteacher (10) from Bronx, NY 2 years ago

Well said!

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by MikeYD (7) from Alameda, CA 2 years ago

Leach. Congratulations! You and your pals are a major contributing factor to the decline of America.How does it feel to be a huge part of the problem?

[-] 3 points by Jonas541 (72) 2 years ago

I don't know how does it feel to be an asshole mike?

[-] 1 points by LoneStar3 (45) 2 years ago

Same as being a dickhead ....Right Jonas?

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

Oh, MikeyD..... you're back. Lucky us!!!!! Why is your "Y" capitalized now?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by socialmedic (178) 2 years ago

End the SLAVERY of Student loan DEBT Now!

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by Farleymowat (415) 2 years ago

I agree with some of your points, but the government is the thing bringing us to third world standards. Corporations oppress us only because government is in bed with them, allowing us to be shit on. We get squeezed by government on one end, and corporations on the other. I can choose which corporations I buy from, but I cannot choose my rulers, except by my vote. Sad, isn't it?

[-] 6 points by Toynbee (656) from Savannah, GA 2 years ago

You are flat wrong!

Society needs BOTH (1) a free market capital system and (2) government.

Your beef isn't with the purposes and functions of government.

Your beef is with the way government has become dysfunctional and corrupted by the free-market capitalist private sector.

Lobbyists are the big problem.

Revolving door between government and the private corporations is another big problem.

Keep government and the private sector separate.

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

We need regulations for the capital system. Other than that, I agree with what you're saying.

[-] 2 points by Toynbee (656) from Savannah, GA 2 years ago

I agree. That's what I was trying to say. We need strong regulations on the capital market system. We also need strong ethics regulations on the government side. I don't mean letting the legislators police themselves. We need some sort of independent body that will look at any and all ethics issues, and have the power to take swift action when ethical lines are crossed.

Above all, we need to end the revolving door between Wall Street / corporate America and the halls of Congress & White House.... and the Supreme Court!

Ethics. Ethics. Ethics.

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

Too much regulation is one of the main reasons that small companies have been replaced by big corporations. The cost of compliance has gotten so prohibitive that small companies can't afford to comply and must therefore sell out to the big boys. This is particularly evident in the banking industry. Government regulations have become so overburdening that only those banks with large legal departments can keep up. The capital requirements imposed by the FDIC are unsustainable for small community banks, and they are forced (ironically by the FDIC) to close their doors. The FDIC (ironically) then sells the assets of the small banks to whom... the big banks. Deregulate and let businesses get back to work growing the economy and hiring the people occupying Wall Street.

[-] 3 points by Toynbee (656) from Savannah, GA 2 years ago

There are ways to treat small mom and pop banks and businesses differently.

For banking in general we need to reinstate Glass-Steagall Act. I has performed well.

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

Agreed. Glass-Steagall is what kept things from going under after the Great Depression until it got repealed.... so.....

[-] 1 points by barb (835) 2 years ago

That was planned too in advance for big corporations to get rid of the little guy.

[-] 1 points by onemoe (78) 2 years ago

here here!

[-] 5 points by socialmedic (178) 2 years ago

FALSE!!!!!!! NO Wall Street is bringing us to third world standards. BEFORE REAGAN USA HELD A TRADITIONAL DISTINCTION BETWEEN BUSINESS AND GOVERNMENT. When I was a Child , JFK died when I was three, until Reagan, this overt obliteration of lines between both business and religion and government was TABU.!!!! TODAY you live an illusion, you think you choose your corporations ... you think you are doing well by Steve Jobs because he has (had) a nice product, he started in a garage ... but now his company is guilty of human rights offenses common to most companies operating their manufacturing in China. I am 53 years old and I have NOT had a choice of candidate in my adult life .... my entire adult voting life has been poisoned from Ronald Reagan onward, and I have nothing but fascism vs fascism to choose from, BECAUSE OF CORPORATIONS. GET THE DIRTY FILTHY CORPORATE PAWS OFF MY GOVERNMENT!!! And maybe, for once in my long waiting life I will have a choice, not only as to the workers I chose to oversee the matters of public life, but as to the products I chose to serve my private life and WHERE they come from!

[-] 2 points by ThatOneGuy (51) 2 years ago

agreed

[-] 1 points by kennyrw (92) from Salem, OR 2 years ago

I guess I read history and you didn't. Corporations have been part of government forever. I don't think you added correctly my 3rd birthday was November 22, 1963 (born in 1960) I will be 51 in a couple of weeks. If you are 53 I missed a couple of years somewhere.

I don't think you lived through the Reagan administration, at least as an working adult, or maybe you a Union person who wants to change history. There is a reason he won re-election with such a landslide. Life was good I feel like I am living through a second Carter administration now what a complete disaster!

[-] 1 points by socialmedic (178) 2 years ago

Correct, because I know the subtitles on Faux news are false, falsity is the abuse of history, what you call history I don't read. I prefer instead to derive my history from original documents libraries and from trusted sources on their interpretation. Tomas Jefferson himself distrusted the corporation and feared that too much power would fall into too few hands, as it has in the present day. When Reagan was running for office, I was studying sociology in college, preparing myself to be a well-informed voter. Everything BAD that has happened in this country as a result of the nation following Reagan's economics was predicted by sociologists in that time. Thanks to Reagan and his idiot followers, one of my first participations in the electoral process was poisoned, I could not believe that so many people in America were so stupid. It has colored as has my entire adult life, burdened with fighting the stupidity ever since. Because MY parents were not rich, I was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth. I WORKED from AGE 16 onwards. And as a child I WORKED very hard for my parents with no pay. So don't sit there on your high horse and tell ME about the value of labor. I worked through college and I have worked and worked and worked with very little reward. And because of that I have slaved away at understanding my condition in life. Because the resurrection of an obsolete of right wing politics, the doors of freedom were slammed on me forever from my youth. So I read and read and read. Nothing could have been more effective in driving me to the writings of Karl Marx, of the expatriated Jews and other victims of Nazi Germany and even to the present day Atheists like Christopher Hitchens ... as strongly as the contemporary fanatical fascist far right wing of America did. I will never have the life of the pursuit of life liberty and happiness that was guaranteed my by my birth in this nation. I have all but lost any hope in human beings. But hopefully I will have touched someone somewhere as those victims of other times have given me solace.

[-] 1 points by futher (35) 2 years ago

Corporations have not been a part of government forever. There are no provisions in the US Constitution for Charters of corporations.(they left it to the states) After 1780, the states chartered banks for 3 years, then the charter renewal depended on whether or not the corporation was of benefit to the people of the state. Other corporations were chartered for 5 years, like the Erie Canal corporation. Up until the crisis of 1860 tight reigns were held on corporations in America, because of their experience with corporations chartered by King George III. (who controlled his House of Lords) One was the target of the original Founding Rebels. The tea in the original Tea Party of 1775(ish) was owned by The British East India Company - an exclusive charter - a corporation. It was the exclusive advantages conveyed by the charters that the first generation of rebels had a problem with, because individuals were dis-advantaged. ReadTed Nace for the gory details.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by clarity (20) 2 years ago

I agree the potential candidates could be equally be bad.

What if the 99% wish certain reforms, then voting for a person means a vote in favour of the reform; hence the reforms will be enacted in the voting booth and will be ready to be signed when the government is sworn in.

Hence politicans cannot do anything else but keep their promises(new euh?) and there will be a speedy implementation of reform, no chance for a congress deadlock; if the incumbent members obstruct this reform, their seats are up for grabs based upon the same principle for this new voting system.

Then only will Occupy Voting Booths by the 99% be effective and will motivate the voter by letting him/her know that their vote counts and their vote will ensure reform.

Furthermore, the system must be reformed

1) to ensure that candidates have a fixed maximum term in office.

2) that money should not be wasted in campaigning, that a fixed and equal amount of money be available for campaigning this will ensure that money does not buy votes, and there is democracy not plutocracy.

3) the campaign must make its accounts transparent to the public. There is real hope that money can be got out of politics.

[-] 0 points by Farleymowat (415) 2 years ago

You have it backwards, dude. Government has fucked us. If you don't like a company, don't buy from them. What is so hard about that? Grow a garden. Piss on the corporations. Get some goats and spin some wool. Make your own way. Get off the pity pot.

[-] 3 points by MadProfit (312) 2 years ago

Wrong. Corporations like Koch brothers are so large and global that boycotts are ineffective. You're living in the past. Those who can't accept that Corporations and Government have both screwed you are simply partisan slaves. Free your mind and attack the evil in both of them.

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

Exactly!!! Corporations control politics, plain and simple. Bother government AND corporations are at fault. They are in bed together. Those who can't see that are living in a lie.

[-] 2 points by socialmedic (178) 2 years ago

Furthermore because the American Banking Industry caused the global economic meltdown, NOBODY trusts America. The Koch name is as bad as the words Chinese made.

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

The Koch name is as bad as Nazi.

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

"Corporations like Koch brothers are so large and global that boycotts are ineffective."

I hate to be a dick, because I also dislike Koch brothers and corporate influence in politics. But... Koch brothers is not a corporation. I believe "Koch Industries" is the largest privately owned company in the country. But it's just not a corporation.

[-] 1 points by MadProfit (312) 2 years ago

You are completely correct, I should have said "the blanket companies owned by the Koch brothers" - apologies. Basically, they are so large in the various things they own, that it would take every single person on the planet to not buy something that came from them to hurt them and even if that COULD be coordinated (the Occupy movement is worldwide, so why not?) they sit on so much hoarded money that they can just wait out any such boycott while people are denied things they might actually need. I have always believed in the power of boycott, and still do - but for the monsters like Koch, Cargill, and Monsanto I have to figure out other ways to make them play fairly. Thanks for pointing out my mistake - I am interested in accurate facts, unlike a lot of people who seem to be posting here to be a disruptive influence.

[-] 1 points by socialmedic (178) 1 year ago

What other ways? We are interested in all ways here.

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

If we wanted to hit Koch brothers business, we would stop buying Dixie cups and I think pretty much every name brand paper towel and toilet paper. Also, it'd be hard but we'd have to figure out every packaging company they own and differentiate brands that use them from brands that don't.

[-] 1 points by socialmedic (178) 2 years ago

wrong Koch did not own St James in St. tropez a few years ago ... a French company who produces exclusive fashions for yachting. If Monaco produces a fashion week based on the Koch Brothers I can not imagine the GAG response. You err if you think ALL rich people buy Koch Bros trash or are responsible for it. Why let some nouveau rich garbage rule your world?

[-] 1 points by socialmedic (178) 2 years ago

EMPATHY is obviously not a word in your vocabulary. The world is all black and white to you, either pity the poor or worship the celebrity who robs you blind. When the corporations finally succeed in turning the USA into China and you are competing with the other 6.7 billion people on the planet for a 20 cent a day job, so that you can afford to live in a house with no roof and a corner for a toilet, don't come crying to me. You want government to stop fucking you then stop putting Republicans into public office. Otherwise you are just asking for it.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by kennyrw (92) from Salem, OR 2 years ago

I don't agree with your language, but your idea is great.

[-] 1 points by socialmedic (178) 2 years ago

Your choices of what company to buy from have been limited by COMPANIES, not the government. The companies I have to buy from FUCKED the companies I want to buy from. You are totally BOUGht by corporate America .... I was buying from Portugal before Spain and American moved in selling Spain and CHINA. I have been living in rags for nearly a decade because I dont want to buy anything from anybody. Lucked out in France for a few french made things to tide me over.

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

Exactly. What do we see out there when we need to go shopping? Most businesses (retail stores) out there ARE corporations. What happened to the local five-and-dimes, the local pharmacies, the local hardware stores, the local restaurants, etc.? Almost ALL have been squeezed out and killed BY corporations.

I feel lucky that I live in an area where there are a lot of privately-owned, small business restaurants.... mom-and-pop shops. But, that's not the case in a lot of other areas. As for stores, hardware stores, pharmacies, etc., almost ALL are HUGE corporations.... Lowe's, Manards, Home Depot, CVS, Walgreens, Rite-Aid, and the retail chains.

[-] 5 points by sqrltyler (207) 2 years ago

If our government wasn't owned and operated by multinational corporations and banks, we might have a chance. Our vote is meaningless when we are forced to choose between the puppet pretending to lean left, and the puppet pretending to lean right.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Farleymowat (415) 2 years ago

I see your point, but in reverse too. Government allows this. Vote out the whole damn bunch. Again and again and again and again. Take away all benefits from government, that is to say they must serve with no compensation, retirement etc. And Obama care? Why did they exemptmt hemselves? Because it is a shitty piece of legislation.

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

We have to do a lot more than to just "vote out the whole damn bunch". We MUST change the rules AND enforce them.

That is what this movement is about. It affects EVERYTHING that this movement is trying to accomplish.

[-] 0 points by Farleymowat (415) 2 years ago

If you want to "change the rules", that is fine. Their is a process known as amending the constitution. Any other way is wrong, and such a movement will be put down. A handful of protesters demanding God only knows what, must respect the rule of law and if not, it is an illegitimate child.

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

I'm talking about changing laws (and regulation where it needs to be).... HELLO!!!!! Did I mention the Constitution?

[-] -1 points by Farleymowat (415) 2 years ago

No, I did Missy. And just what is this movement trying to accomplish? Do you know? Does anyone know? I think not, other than the desire to take away people's freedom to profit. Oh, you said regulations. Just what regulations does your gang at the park propose?

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

I know. I've read it several times over and over again. It's not hard to figure out.

You're trolling.... "I think not, other than the desire to take away people's freedom to profit. Oh, you said regulations. Just what regulations does your gang at the park propose?"

For one, Glass-Steagall needs to be reinstated.

And please don't call me Missy. It's condescending.

[-] 0 points by Farleymowat (415) 2 years ago

Sorry swissy. No condescension intended

[-] -1 points by Farleymowat (415) 2 years ago

We have a constitution and it needs to be enforced. A government that let's illegals flow into our country, into "sanctuary cities". Where is the rule of law? Arizona wants to protect itself and the federal government won't let it enforce immigration law? What kind of mental patients has our government become? Greedy for an easy vote to keep themselves in power for generations to come. It is madness.

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

"Arizona wants to protect itself and the federal government won't let it enforce immigration law?"

You mean racism, don't you.... because that's what its latest law is?

[-] 1 points by sqrltyler (207) 2 years ago

Voting them out over and over again only assures more of the same, and actually, it would get worse and worse in my opinion.

The benefits they've voted themselves are insane.

As for the heath care bill, it's garbage, because it was written by the heath care industry.

[-] 1 points by barb (835) 2 years ago

No, it wasn't it was to support the insurance companies with more profit.

[-] 1 points by socialmedic (178) 2 years ago

I disagree, I say the right made the onslaught .. vote out the right and let the left be themselves for once and if they fuck up then ... well, I would look into a constitutional monarchy with limited powers.

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

There's a lot of people trying their damnedest to get people not to vote. You will hear their b.s. over and over and over and over and over and over and over again until Election Day is through. The right wing knows that it can never, ever win an honest majority. In reality, on its own ideology, it can never really win more than like 5 or 10% of votes. So they are always shape-shifting, always seizing on wedge issues, trojan horses, smear campaigns, 180-s in their campaigns, always having to hide behind something else and change their tune because their tune sucks. They are always so insecure that American people will keep buying their b.s. that, simultaneously, they always have to try every way possible of eliminating their detractors by attrition. All this is actually a good sign that people's vote DOES matter. Whatever your belief, whatever vote you think will best solve the problem, just VOTE it.

[-] 0 points by Farleymowat (415) 2 years ago

The left had a super majority for Obamas first two years and what good did it do us?now he says he will bypass congress to get what he wants done. That is called tyranny. He must be replaced in the next election along with a wipeout of all the ones that exempted themselves from obamacare. Force a phony bill on us, and then, exempt yourself from the bill? Yea right. You're fired, how about that?

[-] 3 points by sassafrass (197) 2 years ago

That "except by my vote" is the oh-so-crucial bit. In unregulated corporations, you don't get a vote. Unregulated corporations are the only law, unto themselves, and are accountable to no one. We didn't elect them, we cant elect them out. They can enslave us and there will not even be a court to turn to or a legal process through which to struggle for rights. The government (at least any kind of reasonably okay democratic one in a peaceful civil society not ruled by a lone monarch or dictator) is not the enemy, though it may be imperfect and at times make awful decisions. When all in charge of it are doing their jobs, the government is the only thing stopping the corporations from being the third-world dictators. When those in government are not doing their jobs, we vote them out and we push for legal change.

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

Where are these so-called unregulated corporations? I'd like to go work for one. The company I work for (70 employees) spent over 200,000 dollars in the past 18 months complying with government regulations. We are a software development company, for crying out loud! Get the government out of the way so we can all get back to work!

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

They are the ones that caused the financial meltdown and housing bubble crashes. You see, it matters what companies do as to how much they do or don't get regulated.

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

Where are these so-called unregulated corporations? I'd like to go work for one. The company I work for (70 employees) spent over 200,000 dollars in the past 18 months complying with government regulations. We are a software development company, for crying out loud! Get the government out of the way so we can all get back to work!

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

Yes!! We MUST change AND enforce those rules!!

[-] 0 points by Farleymowat (415) 2 years ago

Agreed. Vote them out over and over, until they get it right.

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

exactly, which is why it's IMPORTANT to vote in the primaries.

This is where our democracy is bought and paid for.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Squeezed is a good way of looking at it. But can we really "choose" the corporations that we do business with? How many choices do we have? Walmart or Sams Club? Not much of a choice. GE? We do business with them practically every second because they are into everything. Not to mention the banks. Chase or Citi? Even if I move my checking account, I have investments and funds that are running through these places. I just ran across this stat in an article - The Six Largest Banks’ Share of GDP = 64%, Up from 17% in 1995.

I don't know that much about Anti-Trust laws, but wasn't there supposed to be some kind of rules against monopolies? What happened with that?? Whatever percieved benefits was supposed to come from BIG corporations, it has now been outweighed by a greater cost to society.

As far as government squeezing us from the other side - We have very little choices there even with our vote. The political machines do the choosing for us. We might have a slight influence in picking the winner, but so much of that is driven money as well. Government is a corrupt den of vultures feeding off of special interest money. The political process is so distorted and perverse, it is no wonder this country is in a shambles of itself.

Solution: Strengthen Anti Trust regulations. Re-enact Glass Stegall and break up the Wall Street banks. And Reform Campaign Finance, by overturning Citizens United. Simple enough to fathom. Not so simple to implement.
The 1% are not going to like it very much.

[-] -1 points by jdoggma (25) 2 years ago

There is nothing wrong with unions in private companies when membership is voluntary. Public sector unions pour dues money into electing officials that will agree to whatever the union wants. There is nobody bargaining on behalf of the taxpayer. Even FDR said that public sector unions should not be allowed because of the obvious corruption that would result.

[-] 2 points by sqrltyler (207) 2 years ago

Unions pay money to try and support candidates who will help them make a better life for their members. The taxpayers should have bargaining power, from their representatives, and with their votes. The union hating corporations have way more money then the unions. They use their money to try and lower wages and benefits, while maintaining near tax exempt status.

Unions have been crushed over the last 30 years, and our collective wages have steadily decreased, while CEOs are making more than ever.

Look, I will not stand by and watch our middle class get completely destroyed. We need to stand up for whatever rights any of us have left.

My core issue is getting all money out of politics. We will never have a government of the people. for the people, until we accomplish this goal.

[-] 3 points by socialmedic (178) 2 years ago

Before Reagan USA had a traditional (post WWII) distinction between business and government. "Government" was the historical substitute for royalty for collecting funds to do things that required massive capital, without having to appeal to oppressive powers to do those things. Those intent on absolute privatization HATE this idea. Jefferson and founders HATED religion confounded with government, and for that alone they would have sent Reagan to hell. The core issue is not getting ALL money out of politics but all business. When I was born, business was business, a church was a church and a school was a school and government was government. School is not a church and church is not a school, and if it is I will run in and DEMAND atheism be taught at church the way religion demands creationism be taught at school. Government is not a business it is a regulating body. Business is not a regulating body. WE will not have a country or a government until we tell the republicans to shut up and we restore the country and its people to its appropriate roles.

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

Right on!!!!

[-] 2 points by socialmedic (178) 2 years ago

Wow a positive comment. I love you SwissMIss.

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

Thanks! ;)

[-] 1 points by sqrltyler (207) 2 years ago

I agree with a great deal of what you've said, but please don't buy into the Dem vs Rep lie. If you look in actual policy, not rhetoric, there is little difference between them. Neither side works works for us my friend. We can't afford their favor.

[-] 2 points by socialmedic (178) 1 year ago

I don't buy into the Dem vs Rep lie because it is not a lie. I am related to a very high profile political figure in recent American history who was a democrat. I read his books and I know for a fact that HE is nothing like the Republicans of the last 30 years. To say that there is no difference to ME is an insult. What is a fact is that Corporate world decided to take over the US government and since Reagan the Republicans have been doing this no matter what the cost or who they hurt. You had better wake up to that fact. See this documentary: http://www.hulu.com/watch/417228 Park Avenue and Koch Brothers Exposed, and The Corporation all documentaries who talk about what is really happening and name the names of the people directly involved in this political and economic coup.

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

Both sides are guilty, but the Republicans win the award for being the nastiest and the craziest of all.

[-] 1 points by jdoggma (25) 2 years ago

Unions in the public sector have not been crushed. Public sector unions are growing. Private sector unions have in many cases put their companies at such a disadvantage that the company goes down (union with it) or has to relocate away from union influence. Unions typically want to force membership and disallow non union workers. Understand that I am not saying that the concept of a union is bad, but when they get laws passed that restrict the freedoms of others, well that is bad.

As for getting money out of politics, would it not be more practical and constitutional to clean up our politics and hold elected officials to the same standard as the voters? Do you not think union money should influence politics? How do you propose stopping that?

[-] 4 points by sqrltyler (207) 2 years ago

Unions in the public sector are under attack, or we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I do not buy the argument that private sector unions were forcing companies to fail. Corporations simply crafted policy, through their puppet government, that allowed them to get away with outsourcing their labor. You only need to see the ratio of CEO pay to worker wages to understand how that's worked out for the boardroom.

I don't see how we can hold our elected officials accountable, when they require massive funding in order to get elected. They all end up working for the entities that gave them that money, and not we the people.

Electing new puppets every serves no purpose. All politicians are forced to dance for massive corporate backing, and when in office, that's who they serve.

For example: The Koch brothers have spent over $100 million influencing our political system. Why should they be permitted to wield that much power over our republic?

I don't think ANY money should influence politics, including unions.

When you and I can only donate $2,500 to a political campaign, and multinational corporations can donate millions, we have no voice.

[-] 2 points by socialmedic (178) 2 years ago

I do not agree that money elects people. The right wing spends BILLIONS on its baloney and since the early 80's I've bought NONE of it. MY VOTE has no price, as is required of my citizenship. At this point the Right Wing has behave SO atrociously they could HAND ME a TRILLION dollars for a vote and I would spit in their face. I for one will NEVER reward this behavior. Marketing politics is DEAD. So long as it lives, it is WE who are dying.

[-] 1 points by jdoggma (25) 2 years ago

Do you know that FDR was against public unions?

Google "FDR against public unions" for some good explanations on why.

I like your statement "I don't think ANY money should influence politics, including unions." That is something worth going after. How about a $2500 limit on everybody, with only citizens allowed to donate with public disclosure of all campaign finances and the politician themselves included to prevent only the rich from getting into office? Then there is the problem of media exposure which is all that the cash is used for anyway...... How to stop a lack of balance there?

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

"How about a $2500 limit on everybody, with only citizens allowed to donate with public disclosure of all campaign finances and the politician themselves included to prevent only the rich from getting into office? Then there is the problem of media exposure which is all that the cash is used for anyway...... How to stop a lack of balance there?"

Agreed... but I like sqrltyler's number better ($100), so that EVERYONE could afford to contribute.

[-] 1 points by sqrltyler (207) 2 years ago

I'm all about having only citizens being allowed to donate to political campaigns, though I think the number should be lower, like $100, to give the entire population, regardless of means, the ability to contribute equally.

I believe that any candidate who gets a required amount of signatures, should get free and equal airtime on every network.

As far as media influence, that's a much trickier question, as our first amendment protects free speech.

I have not found a great answer to this problem yet, but I'm looking for one...

[-] 1 points by socialmedic (178) 1 year ago

I have never donated a single dollar to any campaign. My vote is not for sale, nor would I attempt to buy any other's. I hate it when my party has nothing to say in my inbox but how much money the creeps of the universe are spending. Their nonsense has no effect on me so why alienate me? If they spend themselves blind I don't give a shit. In fact I hope the so called "liberal media" gets rich spewing their lies. I go to the polls next week hoping Obama does more of the pipeline thing. On that day he heard the voice of the people. It is damn hard to do what you are doing when the right is trying to buy you and nobody is paying attention. Let's keep a president we have half a hope of keeping honest. We have no other choice.

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

He wasn't against them completely, but he believed in some limits, like no-strike clauses.


The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government. [. . .]

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that “under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government.”


[-] 0 points by jdoggma (25) 2 years ago

this is what FDR said: FDR wrote:

“All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.”

“Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that ‘under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government.’”
[-] 3 points by mesinger (26) 2 years ago

FDR also wrote a workers bill of rights but you fail to mention that you also fail to mention that FDR taxed the rich ... my question is ...How much do the Koch Brothers and Citizens for Prosperity pay you to sit around and spam the channel ...tell them its not working ...

[-] 0 points by jdoggma (25) 2 years ago

The problem with government unions is that there is really nobody representing the taxpayer who pays their salaries and benefits. The politician who got elected with union money does not care too much about that. This is equivalent to OWS's complaint about corporate money influencing politics.

It is a bit hard for me to think of any non-unionized government employees working not getting " fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy". Do you know of some examples?

google "teachers strike in Wisconsin" - is this not really a strike?

[-] 2 points by socialmedic (178) 2 years ago

if the private sector union can not be substantiated that means it is "competing" with the economies of slavery which may not be illegal in other countries but which is wholly unacceptable in ours. Any American who stands between the working wage of America in favor of outsourced labor is indeed endorsing slavery.

[-] 1 points by jdoggma (25) 2 years ago

"Any American who stands between the working wage of America in favor of outsourced labor is indeed endorsing slavery." - this is false unless we are competing against slave labor. Many of our jobs are outsourced to India, right? They do not have slave labor now, do they?

[-] 2 points by socialmedic (178) 1 year ago

A year later and I see you are still not volunteering to support your family on Indian or Chinese wages. Let me define slavery for you: slavery = working for nothing, zero. No wonder you idiots support rape. No woman in her right and intelligent mind could be blackmailed into having your degenerate children. Akin is your candidate is he not?

[-] 1 points by socialmedic (178) 2 years ago

If you worked for their wages what would you call it? You could have demanded heavy taxes on those imports long ago so as to discourage the practice. In any case, Just because THEY practice slavey does not mean we have to. Today we realize the costs are heavy. So why be stupid and keep buying it?????

[-] 1 points by socialmedic (178) 1 year ago

Do the Koch Brothers have children? The Union boys want to know.

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

Unions vote for Democrats, because Dems much more represent the working/middle class. They don't vote for "officials that will agree to whatever the union wants".

[-] 1 points by MadProfit (312) 2 years ago

Corruption in the Corporations! Corruption in the Unions! Corruption in government! Corruption in the Police force! Wake the f^&k up and smell the mother-f&*cking cofee! THEY. ARE. ALL. FULL. OF . CORRUPTION. Get off your partisan highhorses and realise you are ALL being screwed if you fall into the 99%.

[-] 1 points by jdoggma (25) 2 years ago

Not sure I'm on a partisan high horse, but you are right about corruption. Honesty and integrity seem to be pretty rare across the board - people; you can't trust them so you better limit their power.

[-] 1 points by socialmedic (178) 2 years ago

That is like saying a government by the people and for the people is only allowed in private life. WTF?

[-] 1 points by jdoggma (25) 2 years ago

No, I do not think that. Here is what FDR said:FDR wrote:

FDR wrote:

“All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.” “Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that ‘under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government.’”

[-] 1 points by mesinger (26) 2 years ago

FDR also wrote a workers bill of rights but you fail to mention that you also fail to mention that FDR taxed the rich ... my question is ...How much do the Koch Brothers and Citizens for Prosperity pay you to sit around and spam the channel ...tell them its not working ...

[-] 1 points by jdoggma (25) 2 years ago

Yes FDR was pretty much a communist and you are correct. I was merely pointing out that even he had reservations with respect to government employee unions.

you seem pretty paranoid. - As for the Koch brothers, well I would like to get paid for blogging here but, no I have a real job. I doubt anyone of any persuasion actually takes what is going on here too seriously. Seems there are only a handful of people discussing anything.

[-] 1 points by socialmedic (178) 2 years ago

A quotation without its source information is rather, not a quotation. Care to provide the book, the publisher the DATE and the page number. Thank you.

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 2 years ago

"Whatever the union wants" is higher pay, better benefits and working conditions for the workers. The lower you push the pay of one group of workers, the lower all workers pay goes.

[-] 1 points by jdoggma (25) 2 years ago

problem is when the taxpayers can't afford everything the union wants but the union bought officials give it to them anyway. Everything starts to fall apart at that point. That is what happened in Greece...

[-] 1 points by socialmedic (178) 2 years ago

the top 1% can afford it,

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 2 years ago

http://roarmag.org/2011/06/greek-debt-crisis-international-media/ The anti-Greece campaign of the international media By Jérôme E. Roos On June 21, 2011 Prejudice against Greece has taken on grotesque proportions. Seriously, the Greeks work harder than anyone else — stop blaming them!

Written by Ingeborg Beugel for NRC Handelsblad, translation by Jérôme Roos

There’s only one word that adequately describes the majority of Dutch media reports on Greece right now: a witch hunt. Of all the arrogant stupidity, full of gut feelings of Dutch superiority, De Telegraaf takes the cake. ”Boom, kick them out of the eurozone. Our citizens no longer want to pay for these wasteful Greeks,” was this newspaper’s headline on May 19, following the results of a Telegraaf survey of over 11,000 participants. Or what about the following headline, on May 13th: “Again, billions of euros thrown into a bottomless pit.” Apparently this kind of nonsense works. By now, 58 percent of Dutch people are opposed to ‘giving’ even a penny to Greece.

For what it’s worth, the average Greek retirement age is nearly 65. Some Greeks that I know who take up their retirement funds early, usually receive between 200 and 600 per month. At that point, sitting on your ass is not even an option. These people have to immediately find employment elsewhere, usually more than one job. After the first round of cuts last year, a high school teacher now earns an average of 800 euros per month. 500 euros of this goes to rent and other fixed costs. You’re left with 300 euros to live off. As a teacher, you simply can’t start a family. And what do you do if you’re a kindergarten teacher or a hostess with a salary of 650 euros per month? A Greek widow (my 94-year old neighbor on Hydra) lives off 400 euros a month. That’s not even enough for her diapers and medicine. She manages to pull through under appalling conditions thanks to her family and neighbors. I don’t know any Dutch person working three jobs to make ends meet, but I do know dozens of Greeks who work three jobs just to survive. Yes, there are Greeks benefiting from high and early retirement. They are an exception, not the rule. By the way: on Hydra, there’s a retired Dutch teacher, a carefree baby boomer, who retired at her fiftieth, never having to work again and enjoying Greece for the rest of her life without any financial worries. Not a single Greek colleague of hers could do that.

According to the latest Eurostat statistics, the Greeks work 40.6 hours a week, most of all 27 EU member states. That says nothing about productivity and efficiency — which is lower — but it does say something about the alleged laziness of the Greeks. According to OECD figures of 2009, the Greeks are the only ones among western countries who exceed the line of two thousand working hours per year: Greece, 2119 per year; Australia 1690; Belgium 1550; Netherlands 1378. That the average Dutch people in the street, or average Dutch journalists are ignorant, fail to inform themselves, and utter the most insulting remarks, doesn’t surprise me given our social climate, but if politicians and notables express themselves in the same way, it’s time to ring the alarm bell.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 4 points by rocket88 (6) 2 years ago

Come on Mike, this is a canned argument packaged by people like the Koch Brothers, Rupert Murdoch's media empire, Fox news, etc. Think for yourself and use your own eyes. Do you really think that bus drivers, school cafeteria workers, crossing guards, clerical workers, road crews, postal delivery workers, etc. constitute an "elite"? Do you really think they control elections? Fact is, most municipal workers (excluding police, fire and maybe teachers, which is a separate issue) are low income workers -- in NYC, 100,000 members of DC 37 average less than $30,000 per year. Did you know that in New York State it is against the law (the Taylor Laws) for public employees to strike? At most, public unions can seek arbitration. They are toothless, and the right wing wants to remove what few rights they have left. Public workers are the serfs of the modern state.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by mesinger (26) 2 years ago

Riddle me this Mike ...our Govt WORKS for corporations...when corporations and Govt combine forces and dictate to the 99% thats Facism ... Hitlers opening moves were to control the media and abbolish unions so your for Hitler right?

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

EXACTLY!!!!

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by socialmedic (178) 2 years ago

The Unions in the private sector were decimated by Reagan. I guess the message THEN was WORK, just don't work for a LIVING. Same old cow patties, new day.

[-] 2 points by sassafrass (197) 2 years ago

Nevermind that all of us taxpayers get the benefit of the work of the educators, cops, firemen in our community... and that most people are glad to pay for their services with the $10 or whatever it costs per month out of our paychecks to make sure the streets aren't on fire and the public over-run with idiots or murderers.

[-] 1 points by jdoggma (25) 2 years ago

As for "educators", many have become more like socialist indoctrinators. They do not have to answer to the parents of the kids. How can a person that is being payed by the taxpayers (against the will of many of them) objectively teach about a political view that is not sympathetic to them?

What logic is it that a person should have to pay for their neighbor's kids to go to school anyway?

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

So, your'e against paying teachers their salaries? Where do you propose then that their salaries come from.... corporations? Oh, yeah, that's ALREADY happening within charter schools!

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

The risk you take in life is that somewhere out there somebody might say something to you, or to your kids, that you don't agree with. That's where you as the parent take the time to initiate further discussions with your child on issues important to you. Meanwhile, the teachers are teaching our kids how to speak language competently, how to discern fact from fiction, understand the world we live in by learning about history, economics and science. But I guess you don't think such things are valuable enough to society to chip in a few bucks for. Guess you'd rather be surrounded by morons. (Maybe you really would.)

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

And when I had government class in high school, social studies in elementary, and poli-sci in college, I don't remember ONE teacher speaking about their political beliefs. I remember being taught about how our political system works, the different parts of it, about issues in society, etc.

Saying that teachers are forcing their political views on their students is flat out bullshit. And I went to 4 different public school systems while growing up.

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

And one more answer to you: Per your logic, why should taxpayers have to pay for someone else's kid to NOT go to public school? I personally don't think that the few who can afford to send their kids to private school, or the few who homeschool, are a big enough population to fret about... but then i also don't presume to be judge and jury of what other people do, in general, and figure it all pretty much evens out well enough when everybody pays their fair share.

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

Yes, and for people like me who have no kids and who own a house, I still have to pay taxes that go to public schools.... but I don't have a problem with that, because we have to pay for things somehow.... and I went to public school, so someone had to pay for that to happen.

As you said, it all evens out somehow.

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

Right, OK. Again, you present NO logical debate on this site.

[-] 3 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

woohoo, we did IT!! We told kasick what we thought of his neocon legislation

crash and burn.

But what Kasick DOESN'T realize yet is that the next step is to recall HIM as governor!!!

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

I "love" how two-faced he is.... trying to take away collective bargaining rights of workers, and then now saying "the people have spoken". Why in the hell did he try it in the first place, as if he didn't think the workers would be pissed off by it????

[-] 2 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

Oh, I know, and his two-facedness runs deeper than people realize.

The only reason public pensions were in trouble here in Ohio anyhow was that first Kasicks neocon buddies siphoned funds away from it 7-8 years ago, because 'they' said it was over funded.

Then his buddies let Kasick MANAGE the pension funds while he worked for leahman brothers. And he lost hundreds of millions from that fund, because he's inept. But he himself walked away with MILLIONS.

Then he becomes governor, and blames the teachers, cops, and fire fighters.

He really really has no shame. But because he attacked honest hardworking people, his own lies and corruption have come to light, and now we are working to repeal HIM.

People really do reap what they sow.

[-] 2 points by nimbus22 (106) from Chaska, MN 2 years ago

Unions are awesome. I was in a union for 3.5 years. I'm not anymore because I changed jobs. I made 12.50 w/ benefits. The one nonunion store worker with same job made 7.50 w/ no benefits. Do the math. Amazing how all the stores stayed in business and still made great profits. Enough so that they bought-out another company and became even bigger. Amazing! The stores had union workers and still were very profitable. WOW! Who would have thought?

[-] 2 points by julianzs (147) 2 years ago

Absolute right to your labor and collective protection of that right is the root power of our democracy. The power is what separates us from slavery and serfdom that were based on forfeiting that very right.

[-] 2 points by hemelrick (9) 2 years ago

There is a huge difference between institutions providing a service and institutions for profit. For profit institutions have as their only goal to make profit at any expense, cutting workers and services is their main priority. But also cutting worker's pensions, and benefits and also customer service and customer benefits. Such is not the case with a for service institution working to provide a service and not a profit.

Those who argue about competition fail to engage the question as to why should we compete if we can cooperate? And the second is: If completion lowers the price of goods and services then how can this be good for capitalism?

We need to return all industry that was privatized since the 1912 to the control of the democracy, of the people. In the past the US government provided many services and still does quite efficiently when it is not underfunded. Reaganomics dictate that public institutions must be privatized now look at the mega disaster this creates with our economy and what has happened since the 1980's.

Cooperation is far more efficient than competition.

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

Right on!

[-] 2 points by MGwynn (8) from Schertz, TX 2 years ago

Good for them...keep it going. Plenty more states violating the rights of people via GOP agenda...such as trying to make birth control illegal (MS), 17 current states who've passed legislation that directly challenges Roe v. Wade, not to mention all the red states trying to redistrict to assure Republican victory by stripping away the rights of minority voters (through various other means, as well). Keep going!

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

Wow.... there's at least ONE intelligent person in Texas!!!! (that was a tongue-in-cheek comment, BTW, for you trolls on here).

[-] 1 points by MGwynn (8) from Schertz, TX 2 years ago

Lol..there's a few of us here. Unfortunately, we seem to be in the minority.

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

Yeah, it seems that's the case. I'm kind of glad I never ended up moving there!

[-] 2 points by occupyfirenze (2) 2 years ago

support from #occupyfirenze (Florence,Italy) http://www.occupyfirenze.org - We will camp the 11.11.11 - the global revolution is growing !!!!!

have a look to our invitation-to-camp video...http://www.youtube.com/user/occupyfirenze

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

GO, OccupyFirenze!!!!! Welcome!!

[-] 2 points by LoneStar4 (5) 2 years ago

Booted and most my comments gone....6th time

[-] 2 points by jayp74 (195) 2 years ago

By defeating this issue, the cost of employing public workers will rise. This will be supported by higher taxes at the state or local level. Or, more public employees will be laid off.

This was never about the workers. Issue 2 would have removed the rule where those public employees not wishing to participate in the union have to pay a fee to the union instead. It's all about unions wanting more money to gain more political power. Power to pay the six figure salaries of the union bosses and executives. Isn't this supposedly the kind of thing OWS is opposed to? Wake up!

[-] 5 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

People cannot enjoy the protections, pensions, salaries, health care, bargaining power, etc. of the union if they don't pay into the system. Unions cannot do their job of effectively protecting their members if they can't afford a Xerox machine or hire an attorney because those they fight for won't pay their dues. The union was democratically elected to represent the workers. The majority won. Just like the country itself, one can't opt out of its laws because your side didn't win.

This was union busting through the back door, an attempt to bleed them dry of resources. It was transparent and obvious.

You also seem to forget that unions, public and private, created the middle class in this country. Far from making everyone poorer, it made tens of millions of people richer. Wages and benefits went into decline for both union and non-union workers alike when unions began to be decimated and membership declined. With much less powerful unions, employers didn't have to compete for workers as hard. Everyone's paycheck has suffered as a result.

[-] 1 points by JProffitt71 (222) from Colorado Springs, CO 2 years ago

Notice how this person elaborates and explains specifically why this was a good move, instead of making firm assertions while remaining at bay with vague ideas. That is productive discussion.

Thank you.

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Thank you, JProffitt. That was a very kind thing to say.

Truth is, I have begun to lose it with some repeat offenders on these fora. Their rehashing of right wing dogma without substantiating facts to back them up or the most basic understanding of economics or history is wearing thin.

It's not the ignorance I have trouble with, (we all had to start somewhere) it's the sustained droning of WILLFUL ignorance, clear attempts to distort and obfuscate, and incessant repetition of previously discredited notions that piss me off.

And it's their going out of their way to come to this site, one that generously invites open discussion for the sake of positive forward progress, to post nothing but insults and disparaging remarks about the movement.

This is my request to those folks: If you don't like the movement, stay away. Nobody os forcing you to participate. If you do like it, add something constructive. If you disagree with a stance or tactic, suggest an alternative.

I have no doubt this request will fall on deaf ears. After all, what do these bozos think they are accomplishing, other than puffing up their egos, by coming to a site dedicated to supporting the movement and insulting it? Will the movement crumble as a result? Of course not. The goal of these trolls is simply getting one's rocks off. And frankly, I'm fed up with them.

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

They'll have some sort of typical troll comment to your post.... I'm sure.

[-] 2 points by gestopomilly (497) 2 years ago

no we are opposed to the ceo eliminating jobs to increase their 7 figure salaries.

[-] -1 points by jayp74 (195) 2 years ago

A CEO has a fiduciary responsibility to increase the company's bottom line. If the competition is lowering costs by eliminating or outsourcing jobs, the CEO must do the same else they would be fired or the company will be out of business. It's called capitalism. It may sound cruel to some, but it's the only proven system.

[-] 2 points by gestopomilly (497) 2 years ago

and this responsibility stops when it concerns the loss of money to the ceo? or the shareholders? you are not thinking right. so the price of a stock goes from 100 to 50 so what. that is more important to your equation than a persons job?

[-] 0 points by jayp74 (195) 2 years ago

Again, not to sound cruel, but a worker is a commodity to a company.

Look, a corporation's sole reason for existence isn't to employ people. Employment is a consequence, a means to an end. The company exists to make money and give a return to the shareholders and investors - the ones that risked the capital to create the company or to keep it going. If you take away the return to investors, they will take their money off the table. No money, no company, no jobs.

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

In other words, it's to perpetuate greed.

[-] 0 points by jayp74 (195) 2 years ago

You know, I'm sick of seeing the word "greed" thrown around everywhere there is mention of a company or profits being made. Get real.

There are companies of all sizes, from 2 to 200,000. By the numbers, the vast majority of companies are small and medium-sized and run by very hard working, decent people who want to make a better life for themselves and their families.

Yes, greed exists. It often goes hand-in-hand with the very powerful who find themselves at the top of some of the world's largest companies. Some set out to be greedy, others get addicted once they find themselves in powerful positions. This is wrong, but it's not true in all companies.

I work for a small company and everyone works extremely hard, including the executive managment team. Without them, we wouldn't have a company. We also wouldn't have a company without private investors. You know, those greedy people that invest in companies, grow the economy and grow employment.

What's your plan to put people to work?

[-] 1 points by vitriolck (69) 2 years ago

I am going to take your comment and put it in my time machine to 1900...

"Look, a coal company is a business, not a charity. Don't you see, if we pay you the WHOLE $1.25 for eight hours work instead of twelve and the government tells us we can't pay your son six cents an hour then we'll be out of business and there won't be any jobs." See what side you're on? Of course it was bullshit then. The coal companies did fine for several years after that. They started to decline when oil overtook coal as a fuel source. And unions had nothing to do with that.

[-] 0 points by jayp74 (195) 2 years ago

Look, unions had their place in the early 1900s. Companies were sweatshops and conspired with other companies to set prices and wages. The workers were screwed and, rightfully, they joined a union and fought back.

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

And unions continue to have their place, because if there were no unions, this SAME bullshit would start happening AGAIN. Since profits are the ONLY THING that CEOs care about, what will stop them from screwing people again???

[-] 1 points by gestopomilly (497) 2 years ago

until the next guy.. willing to take less from the profits and put them into the comp any and those jobs.. starts the company over. no one loses. except that particular group of management.

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

I guess you are wrong, since 60% of the people voted to defeat it.

[-] 1 points by JProffitt71 (222) from Colorado Springs, CO 2 years ago

I wouldn't use pure majority as evidence that something is right, it has required a majority of voices in senate to corrupt this system so thoroughly. However there has to be a range of logical reasons to support the repeal of this bill; as epa1nter said, unions can't operate effectively without money, and are as responsible as ever for maintenance of the middle class.

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

Yep, I agree. The fact that the majority of the people who were most affected by that bill voted it down says something.

[-] 1 points by jdoggma (25) 2 years ago

you have no way of knowing what % of the voters were government employees. I worked for the government and they gave us time off to vote. Private industry typically requires that you vote on your own time, not the taxpayer's

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

I didn't say anything about what percentage were government employees, did I? And what does it matter? 60% of the people, regardless of who they work for, voted it down!!!

"Private industry typically requires that you vote on your own time, not the taxpayer's."

That isn't true of most/many companies. Most DO give you time off to go and vote, even if it's a couple of hours. My company allows us to take a whole day off to vote, and it's NOT part of a union. I've even had retail/restaurant employers that give their employees paid time off to go and vote.

[-] 1 points by vitriolck (69) 2 years ago

Actually, that might be what your non-union employer told you, but in most states companies are required to give you extra time off if the polls aren't open for at least a couple of hours outside of your regular shift. I know, you'd prefer if working people couldn't vote at all.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by jdoggma (25) 2 years ago

jayp74 is right absolutely, and as for your statement, do you really think that whether an issue is right or wrong can be decided by voting?

I think you don't want to think about the truth in what was said - "It's all about unions wanting more money to gain more political power" - note that all workers are FORCED to pay dues - even if they don't want to be in the union

[-] -1 points by LoneStar3 (45) 2 years ago

Hummm....What is the unemployment rate there in Michigan Missy?...Yep them Unions help there don't they..

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

The high unemployment around the country has been caused by the housing bubble crash and the recession.

"The reordering of the nation’s economic fortunes can be seen in the Brookings analysis, which found that many auto-producing metropolitan areas in the Great Lakes states are seeing modest gains in manufacturing that are helping them recover from their deep slump, while Sun Belt and Western states with sharp drops in home values are still suffering. The areas that have been hurt the least since the recession, the study said, rely on government, education or energy production. Places that were less buoyed by the housing bubble were less harmed when it burst."

Notice that the areas that were hurt the less rely on government, education, or energy production. Jeez.... government production and education and energy actually helped?? The areas where the housing bubble was less of a factor were not as affected as areas where the housing bubble crashed hard!

"In Pennsylvania, the analysis found, the Pittsburgh area — which is heavily reliant on education and health care — is weathering the downturn better than the Philadelphia area. In New York, areas around long-struggling upstate cities like Buffalo and Rochester are recovering faster by some measures than the New York City metropolitan area. And the rate of recovery in Rust Belt areas around Youngstown and Akron, two Ohio cities that were hit hard, has outpaced that of former boomtowns like Colorado Springs and Tucson."

Oh, but this is from a left-leaning paper, so none of it is true!!!!

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/27/us/unrelenting-downturn-is-redrawing-americas-economic-map.html?pagewanted=all

[-] 1 points by LoneStar3 (45) 2 years ago

Hummm...Not many Unions here in Houston...Guess what...Lots of jobs...Can't find one here then there is something wrong with you

[-] 2 points by Occupytheimf (134) 2 years ago

Whats wrong is living in houston

[-] 1 points by LoneStar3 (45) 2 years ago

Nothing wrong at all...Land is flat but other then that...Nothing.....Oh...And where do you live that is so great?

[-] 1 points by vitriolck (69) 2 years ago

Yeah, flat land and the worst air quality in the nation. How many of those jobs have any benefits, job security, pay a living wage, are full time etc. etc.

[-] 1 points by mesinger (26) 2 years ago

How many people living in trailers and shacks bet theres more than Zucatti Park it must already look occupied

[-] 0 points by jdoggma (25) 2 years ago

"The high unemployment around the country has been caused by the housing bubble crash and the recession." - that is correct, but unions have caused their own localized problems. They are not what I would call a big problem, except in the public sector where there is seldom a counterbalancing force.

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

Correlation is not causation.

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

Really? Yeah, OK.

[-] 1 points by SocratesPhilosophy (231) 2 years ago

Correlation: A mutual relationship or connection between two or more things.

Causation: The action of causing something.

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

Yes, I know that. The fact of the matter is that what happened under Bush 43's watch (or lack there of).... the housing bubble and it's crash and the recession.... are what caused the unemployment rates throughout the country to skyrocket. Just look at the statistics.

Oh, and we have to add invading Iraq and Afghanistan to the mix.... because they certainly were part of the cause as well.

[-] 2 points by SocratesPhilosophy (231) 2 years ago

If we are talking debt then yes there's a shit-ton of debt under Bush, but you cannot deny the fact Obama is spending like it's going outta style.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/USDebt.png

So pick a side if you wish, it really doesn't matter because neither side cares about you.

How exactly did Bush cause the housing bubble crash?

In 1998, Clinton signed the bill removing regulations from the sub prime housing market ( Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act ) It repealed part of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933, removing barriers in the market among banking companies, securities companies and insurance companies that prohibited any one institution from acting as any combination of an investment bank, a commercial bank, and an insurance company. With the passage of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, commercial banks, investment banks, securities firms, and insurance companies were allowed to consolidate. The administration then told banks to loan to low income purchasers and banks under the threat of discrimination lawsuits from HUD made the loans to avoid litigation. Fannie and Freddie bundled the weak or poor securities with AAA securities and sold them as AAA bundles. Frank-Dodd benefited from deals through lenders and used political power to defend and protect Fannie and Freddie from being investigated by Congress and the Bush administration. The result is now the historic crash of our entire financial system.

Okay unemployment...

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

Again duh Bush made mistakes but here are the numbers, the unemployment is a direct result of the housing crash, the problem is Obama isn't making it better he is just putting us further into debt.

The wars cost a lot but we could of saved how much if Obama would have pulled out the troops in 09 like he said he would instead of waiting until we reached the expiration of the Bush agreement? ( Iraq Status of Forces Agreement )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80%93Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement

My advice is stop thinking any politician cares about any of us, it's all about prolonging their political career so they can keep getting the payoffs.

[-] 2 points by mesinger (26) 2 years ago

So I guess your voting for Cain ...? Heres a tip most people at OWS dont care much for Obama and they care even less for the GOP ...but that doesnt compute at Citizens fo Prosperity now does it?

[-] 1 points by SocratesPhilosophy (231) 2 years ago

What exactly does this have to do with my statement and did you misunderstand the part about all politicians are just trying to prolong their career?

"but that doesnt compute at Citizens fo Prosperity now does it?"

What are you trying to say? You can look up everything I have said and verify it yourself for accuracy, I was disputing what SwissMiss had said and have not been shown to be wrong as of yet.

[-] 1 points by SocratesPhilosophy (231) 2 years ago

No the GOP pisses me off also

[-] 1 points by jdoggma (25) 2 years ago

You did not call anyone names or try to demonize anyone (except politicians and they deserve it -lol)

You must be a troll.

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

Very nice summary.

[-] 0 points by MadProfit (312) 2 years ago

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

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

Better a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy

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

Michigan's unemployment rate before the Bush 43 years was below the national average and was below 4%. It started to clime steadily during the Bush 43 years and increased hugely from the beginning of 2008 through the beginning of 2009.

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&met_y=unemployment_rate&idim=state:ST260000&fdim_y=seasonality:S&dl=en&hl=en&q=michigan+unemployment

As you will notice from this graph, unemployment in Michigan was very high during the reign of Republican presidents (Bush 41 and Reagan), and it was very low during Clinton's entire reign and then shot up during Bush 43's reign, as I already stated.

So, if the unions are at fault for Michigan's unemployment rate, why is it high during the reign of Republican presidents, and why is it low or why has it decreased during the reign of Democrats? It has gone down since Obama has been in office.

"Correlation is not causation."

Do you still hold that opinion? Do you see all of this as mere conincidence?

[-] 1 points by jdoggma (25) 2 years ago

the reason the unemployment rate is lower now is because people have been leaving Michigan like it was diseased.

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

And you have proof of that?

[-] 1 points by LoneStar3 (45) 2 years ago

And they keep coming to Texas...Hummm

[-] 1 points by mesinger (26) 2 years ago

cause theres plenty of room for trailers and shacks no one notices and since you cant afford winter cloths you dont have to worry about freezing to death

[-] 0 points by jdoggma (25) 2 years ago

and Georgia. I have new neighbors from MI - both teachers, and they have a bunch of MI buds, and they are mostly teachers. I think they are basically good people, but the ones that I have talked to are all pro-union...

[-] 0 points by Howard (25) 2 years ago

I've no doubt. Do you know what kind of outsized benefits that teachers receive? Are you aware that in Wisconsin they are retiring at full benefits, then with a wink from their school systems being rehired at full salary in their old positions- earning a full salary, plus full retirement benefits, plus they don't have to pay for health care anymore because they are getting it through their pension.

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

I have friends who are teachers in Michigan (one is my boss's wife), and they are being hit hard by your buddy Rick Snyder. One is going to quit teaching after this year, because the requirements for teaching in public schools here compared to what you get in return in a lot of school systems just isn't worth it anymore. Snyder was so eager to cut funding to public education here, while his kids attend private school. He doesn't give a shit about anyone but he and his cronies and his kin.

[-] 1 points by rocket88 (6) 2 years ago

Teachers pay has increased in recent years, but is still within a standard deviation of median income. What's changed is that teachers are being scapegoated for the failures of the school system, which in turn is being blamed by both liberals and conservatives for our economic problems ("we have to educate our children better to compete in the global economy"). The documentary "Waiting for Superman" is a good example of this scapegoating propaganda. Charter schools and other private market reforms like "merit pay" and "teaching to the test" all serve to weaken teacher's unions and weaken teachers' control over the teaching process itself. The real source of our nation's educational crisis is poverty as anyone who has actually worked in a school will tell you. So the same hedge fund managers who fund anti-teacher propaganda and charter schools and who caused the financial crisis are ultimately responsible for our nation's educational crisis too.

[-] 1 points by jdoggma (25) 2 years ago

Yes, I understand that in some areas it is very bad. It amounts to theft. A society can not survive long when people go to the voting booth for a pay raise. They should go to the voting booth to preserve their freedom and the freedom of the other citizens.

[-] 0 points by LoneStar3 (45) 2 years ago

That’s the northern way I guess...I can speak for myself and let my work show the results..I have seen what Unions can do to a company and the loss of jobs resulting in their take over in companies here in Houston...I guess I will never understand

[-] 2 points by nonsense (11) 2 years ago

Texas has one of the highest rates of children living in poverty. Texas has one of highest rates of children without health insurance. Texas wages are below the national average. Texas poverty rate is above the national average. Texas is below the national average in homeownership rates and adults with a college degree. That's what being hostile towards unions gets you. I bunch of mistreated poor people that can't ever achieve the American dream because they can't afford college or a house.

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

But they keep voting Republican, because they think that somehow that helps them.... when it hasn't at all.

I have relatives who live in rural Michigan, and they vote Republican. They vote Republican, because my grandpa was a farmer who voted Republican. Instead of thinking about the issues, what's going on NOW, and then making educated decisions based on that, they'd rather vote the same way for the sake of tradition. I'm sure Republicans were very different back when my grandpa bought his farm in the 1940s. Republicans are monsters (as a whole) now.... but they keep voting Republican.... and NONE of them are religious in the least, so they don't share those beliefs with them at all.

If I asked any of them why they vote Republican..... naming just one specific reason why they do and how Republicans have helped them directly, I can guarantee NONE would be able to give me an answer. NONE follow politics in the least, and therefore they know nothing about it.

There is a reason I'm very liberal socially, and even though I'm independent, I tend to vote Democrat (and sometimes for one of the other parties that barely get noticed) and NOT for any right wing candidates. The right wing doesn't represent my values, beliefs, ideas, etc. in any way, shape, or form, and the Tea Party candidates are about as evil and ignorant as they come.

I haven't seen ONE THING the right wing has done to help EVERYONE. Rather, they are all about giving corporations more rights and power, and they want to tell people how to live their lives instead of focusing on ISSUES. Where in the hell are THEIR ideas for creating MORE JOBS???

I HAVEN'T heard of one yet!!!

Instead, they focus on trying to pass bullshit bills telling women what they can and can't do with their uteri, that women have no right to use birth control, that gay people can't be happy and legally get married like heterosexuals, etc. They're so full of shit.

[-] 1 points by nonsense (11) 2 years ago

I love how these Christian conservatives use the Bible to justify every little bit of their hateful philosophy but don't pay attention to the parts that talk about helping the poor. If they are so literal in their belief in the Bible and that's why its ok to hate gays, why haven't they sold all their possessions so they can get into heaven? That piece of advice appears just as often as the gay bashing stuff yet none of them follow it for some reason. Any time I hear one of those scum bag right wingers use the Bible to justify their hate it just makes me sick.

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

I totally agree. It's all about convenience for them and their beliefs. They only tout those parts which help them and which can invoke hate to push their greedy and selfish agendas. They're such hypocrites. I call them bullshit artists. They're no different than cheap, loud-mouthed used car salespeople, IMO.

They make so many contradictions, it isn't funny.

[-] 1 points by jdoggma (25) 2 years ago

Unions can be pretty nasty too. I was in Detroit for a show and when we started to take pack up our stuff, threatening union thugs told us that only they were allowed to do that...

[-] 1 points by LoneStar3 (45) 2 years ago

Thats about right...

[-] 1 points by vitriolck (69) 2 years ago

You are all full of it. These horrible unions also collect dues so that their members can have health and welfare funds, scholarships for their kids, job re-training etc. Of course in a right to work state like Texas they can lay off people in retaliation for union organizing, so that might be one way a union "causes" job loss. Really though if you actually knew any history instead of relying on your biased personal observations you'd see that where union jobs were eliminated by companies it was because free trade deals sent the work to third world countries. Would you like to be paid less than what a chinese worker is paid to do your job in china? Probably not, but if your attitude prevails then that is what you will be doing. Its the companies greed, not the unions support of the workers.

[-] 0 points by gestopomilly (497) 2 years ago

the unemployment is cause by the corporations thinking they deserve all the money and therefore when the money slows down.. they want to keep what they are use to and eliminate jobs instead of accepting less money nothing to do with unions

[-] 1 points by LoneStar3 (45) 2 years ago

UH HUH...then you woke up

[-] 2 points by vitriolck (69) 2 years ago

ohh snap!! Have another one of those shitty lone star beers.

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

That certainly is part of it.

[-] 1 points by MadProfit (312) 2 years ago

Scott Walker came into office with a surplus of state budget money. He then used his position to cut taxes for his rich corporate friends. Since no tax money from those corporations went back into the state coffers, the resulting "depletion emergency" was a sham, constructed that way, and supported by Walker's friends the Koch Brothers. This was used as an EXCUSE to cut workers' rights - which then acts as precedent for other cases to cut the rights of workers, which is what happened in the last general election - every single person who gained a position in the right-wing, did exactly the same thing and tried to get rid of workers' rights. This is not about budgets - the money can be generated from taxing the rich, which is what they don't want - it is about WAR.

[-] 0 points by Howard (25) 2 years ago

This is a total lie and this person is an idiot. There is not enough wealth among the wealthy to make up for the debt. Soon enough we'll need to confiscate money lower and lower down the scale. If you make 40,000 per year and think the person who makes 20 won't demand some of your filthy lucre you are wrong. Once you go down the path of stealing from others there is always someone with less than you who will be happy to steal from you Mr. Madly Uniformed.

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

"This is a total lie and this person is an idiot."

No, this is a FACT, so look it up.

[-] 1 points by vitriolck (69) 2 years ago

No, Madprofit has it entirely correct. Marginal tax rates (I could explain how they work to you if you want) were in the sixty to seventy percent range for exactly the thirty years of the twentieth century with the highest GDP growth per year and the lowest levels of inequality. (Oh, and the highest rates of unionization in the private sector) Your assessment of the situation seems to be based on a line from a Margaret Thatcher speech and I'd be willing to bet you didn't even know that.

[-] 2 points by MadProfit (312) 2 years ago

Howard - you have stopped yourself from any credibility by the use of ad hominem. Nice try. 3 percent of a million is just over 3 times 20 percent of 40,000. So for a margin of larger wealth you get more gain than from a fifth of the average worker's pay. Go screw around with someone who can't do math. If you can't contribute to the country which affords you the ability to make your riches then get the hell out and see if you can do it somewhere else. Ungrateful.

[-] 1 points by mesinger (26) 2 years ago

Excellent ....:)

[-] 0 points by LoneStar3 (45) 2 years ago

You have to remember that Union Workers are not the brightest people...They are right in line with the OWS

[-] 6 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Have you conducted IQ tests on public workers or are privy to such data?

Are teachers - public union workers who are required to hold Master Degrees, and often have PhD's - less bright than someone like you? How do you know?

And if that's true, perhaps you should avoid getting your next flu shot, crossing a bridge, driving on a road, listening to a weather forecast, drinking water from your tap, turning on a light in your house, or allowing your children to attend school. After all, it is Public Union workers who supplied all of these things or ensured your ability to use them safely.

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

<Slap!>

[-] 1 points by LoneStar3 (45) 2 years ago

One last thing...Before we go out....Are you Black?

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

Wow.... you are a racist, too (go figure, being part of the Tea Party and all).

What in the hell does being black have to do with ANY of this??? That is blatant fucking racism.... asking that question!!!! That thought/question NEVER even occurred to me at ANY TIME on this site while posting and reading other people's comments.

[-] 1 points by LoneStar3 (45) 2 years ago

Damn women....I just asked...So are you?

[-] 1 points by LoneStar3 (45) 2 years ago

Say what you will...We have seen the results of the Unions..You cannot deny it.

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

You nailed it. This came out OPPOSITE the way the core principles of OWS would have guided it: This feeds MORE money into crony-capitalist actvities. Too bad most people can't make the few logical steps required to see this.

[-] 4 points by JProffitt71 (222) from Colorado Springs, CO 2 years ago

Help the god damned movement stay informed then. You obviously support the underlying values behind OWS else you wouldn't be vehemently bitching about its contradiction here, so engage in the discussions and prevent people from pursuing bad agendas, the mic is open!

Either that or stop being a little troll, attacking societies attempt to finally address your numerous grievances.

Edit: I am becoming very frustrated by people who nit pick at this movement – EVERY – STEP – of the way, while contributing absolutely nothing except noise and high blood pressure. It's beyond childish. The movement is designed so people can cooperate and finally make some informed decisions instead of racing to beat the others down while everything falls apart like we have been for the past few decades. Get in there, or be quiet! Either one will literally benefit the world.

[-] 3 points by cristinasupes (145) 2 years ago

Here Here! Excess competition is one of the things that got us in this mess. Having to be the best, have the best house, best clothes, best car, most money. It didn't matter who you had to step on to get all those things. My back hurts from all those people who stepped on my back. So instead of arguing and trolling, let's come up with solutions, discussions and support each other.

[-] 1 points by jdoggma (25) 2 years ago

Competition has given us the best lives in history. Nature allows for all creatures to compete and the result is that everything improves. OWS (hopefully) is an example of new ideas being allowed to compete against established ones, is it not? Nature is not always kind, but people can be. They can not however, be forced to be kind. Any any attempt to do so will fail and make them less kind.

[-] 3 points by cristinasupes (145) 2 years ago

I can agree. That's why I use the term excess. I think that one can achieve success without having to hurt others.

[-] 2 points by jdoggma (25) 2 years ago

right on

[-] 1 points by jayp74 (195) 2 years ago

I support FreeMarkets, and we are not nit picking.

The key contribution here is that the unions are just like the corporations in that they want more money and power to attain the goals of the leadership (the 1% if you will) within the union. The point FreeMarkets is making that OWS, by aligning itself with the union, is embracing an activity it seems to be against. That's all.

[-] 1 points by vitriolck (69) 2 years ago

No. Most of us understand how unions are fundamentally different from corporations, because we are not brainwashed by Chamber of Commerce talking points. A union isn't run for profit, the officials right up to the top are elected by all of the members. Some union officials have high salaries, that is a problem. The solution would be for other union members to vote them out and restructure the way officials are paid. Unions have supported some bad things, (racism in the early days, the vietnam war etc.) but through their membership they have changed for the better. A corporation on the other hand, exists solely to concentrate wealth in the hands of a small number of unelected entirely self-interested individuals who care about nothing but their own money and power.

[-] 1 points by JProffitt71 (222) from Colorado Springs, CO 2 years ago

Okay. That I can get behind. I'll admit I feel bad for going off on freemarkets too, I am just frustrated at the lack of discussion. Since I haven't actually opened much of a discussion myself, how about this: The question for me becomes how do we keep unions powerful enough to support the working class but honest enough to avoid becoming corrupt opportunists themselves at the top? We can't just get rid of them because of corruption among leaders, just like we can't get rid of businesses. They both serve vital functions when they're working correctly.

[-] 2 points by jayp74 (195) 2 years ago

To keep unions honest, the unions need to have truly anonymous elections for their leaders on at least a yearly basis. Members should be able to nominate anyone for leadership. I'm not in a union, but from what I've heard, the nomination process is usually rigged. I could be wrong, but I've heard that story from more than one source.

[-] 3 points by vitriolck (69) 2 years ago

I have been a union member for ten years, and what you're saying is BS. The elections for officials are by secret ballot. Most hold elections for high officials every four years or so and for lower level people whenever a vacancy needs to be filled or the members call for an election. Also, most unions have recall procedures in place and thus are probably more democratic in a structural sense than the US gov't is (I know that's not saying much) Don't try to portray yourself as the balanced "reasonable" one when all of your information is propaganda and you don't have either statistics, documentary evidence or even personal experience to back it up.

[-] 0 points by jayp74 (195) 2 years ago

As I said, I could be wrong. It is the nomination process that I have heard is corrupt. Maybe not in your union, but I have heard that from several sources over the years.

[-] 1 points by JProffitt71 (222) from Colorado Springs, CO 2 years ago

That sounds completely reasonable, I am of the mind that OWS should be able to strive towards both of these goals: Give unions more power (or maintain their power) and reform their politics. I haven't seen any action towards the latter, but I would support, and feel there are very few who would oppose, pressing a more transparent system upon unions.

Part of the issue I think is the medias tendency to paint with buckets. Just as the OWS has often been construed as anti-capitalism, any efforts to change how unions operate could be viewed as anti-union. That would seriously impede the movements momentum, even if it isn't true.

I believe the way forward is to focus on changing the national political system. If OWS can reform how representatives operate in congress, then it would set the expectations for all democratic institutions (as well as empower citizens to act on their discontent and change systems they don't like). That too seems like a naive goal, but it can be accomplished in little steps, such as reforming campaigning, and there are organizations developed toward that end that only need popular support. For an example, google "Be Your Government", I don't want to link directly because that looks too much like spam here.

Edit: Sounds like not all unions are bad anyhow.

[-] 0 points by jayp74 (195) 2 years ago

Focusing on the national political system is what I've been saying OWS should do for some time now. The politicians and select corporations are conspiring to further each other's agendas. The people and the workers are useful idiots to them.

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

And that is one of the number one goals of OWS.

[-] 1 points by SocratesPhilosophy (231) 2 years ago

(O_O) There is a list of goals?

Can we get a copy of those OWS goals in chronological order?

[-] 1 points by JProffitt71 (222) from Colorado Springs, CO 2 years ago

Then that makes us, and therefore some part of OWS, in agreement (except I don't consider people/workers idiots, but I recognize your rhetoric). Let's find ways to make it happen ^_^

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

FreeMarkets, raines, and LoneStar3 have done plenty of trolling on this site. They have a huge history of it.

[-] 0 points by jayp74 (195) 2 years ago

What is trolling exactly? Seriously, I've seen the term used often but don't really understand what that means.

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

It's in the dictionary and in wiki...

"Slang Dictionary troll definition n.an ugly person; a grouchy person. : Gee, that dame is a real troll. What's her problem? n.an internet user who sends inflammatory or provocative messages designed to elicit negative responses or start a flame-war. (As a fisherman trolls for an unsuspecting fish.) : Don't answer those silly messages. Some troll is just looking for an argument. n.a message s"

[-] 0 points by jayp74 (195) 2 years ago

Thank you.

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

my pleasure

[-] 1 points by jdoggma (25) 2 years ago

trolling seems to be pointing out the emperor's lack of clothes. In this case, making logical observations and/or arguments that are different from socialist ones.

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

No, you are wrong. It is FACT that FreeMarkets, LoneStar3, raines, and others are on here to troll instead of to offer solutions.

All you have to do is read their posts under other articles, and you will see it VERY clearly.

Oh, and MikeYD is another one.

[-] 1 points by vitriolck (69) 2 years ago

when are you going to start "making logical observations" so far you've just been spouting demonstrably false reactionary talking points, making vague assertions about how "competition has brought us" like a totally awesome world, and hurling (lame) ad hominem insults at people who, you know, actually agree with what the website you are logged onto is about. I think that is widely seen as "trolling"

[-] 1 points by jdoggma (25) 2 years ago

For an example of competition in an economy compared with lack of competition in an economy, compare people's quality of life in the old Soviet Union with the US during the same period. I think you will observe that the US had a much higher standard of living. Do you agree?

So that observation is demonstrably true, right?

I do think we have a totally awesome world, but I think it could be even better.

Who did I insult and how did I insult them?

[-] 2 points by vitriolck (69) 2 years ago

You've insulted union members with just about everything you've said. And I am one, so I'm insulted. Yes, the United States had a higher standard of living than the Soviet Union. That's probably about the only argument you can win with the whole competition v. not competition angle. The U.S. has competition among private health insurers. Canada does not. Which country has better health care overall? Nothing happens without some competition, some cooperation, some personal initiative, some humility, whatever. So what, so unions are bad, so regulating and taxing businesses is Soviet style competition crushing?

[-] 1 points by jdoggma (25) 2 years ago

Specifically, what have I said that is insulting to union members?

I did not say unions are bad. I said unions are bad only when they take away people's rights. I am actually considering joining the musician's union...

The US has many regulations preventing competition between insurance companies actually; read http://www.ncpa.org/healthcare/interstate-competition-in-the-individual-health-insurance-marketplace - for a sampler.

I don't know for sure where healthcare is better because I am not an expert, but this article makes me think that it may be the US. http://www.freep.com/article/20090820/BUSINESS06/908200420/Canadians-visit-U-S-get-health-care I am sure there are pluses and minuses on both sides.

Business was regulated and taxed in the US for as long as the Soviet Union was in existence, but one country allowed quite a bit of capitalist freedom, the other was modeled on socialist ideals.

[-] 2 points by vitriolck (69) 2 years ago

You accused us of going to the voting booth for a pay raise. I think that's fairly insulting. Well, you go to the voting booth for a tax cut for people who could buy your ass a thousand times. The fact that you assume that the closed shop is "taking away people's rights" is insulting. You're advocating the bosses "right" to pay sub living wages with no benefits they and then their "right" to bring in scabs and thugs when the workers join together to fight for what they're owed. Don't try to sound all balanced now when you've been shitting on what OWS stands for in every comment so far.

[-] 2 points by vitriolck (69) 2 years ago

Hmmm. The US is ranked below costa rica in overall health outcomes. We also have one of the highest infant mortality rates in the developed world. I don't see how the Detroit Free Press article supports your point. Did you even read it? Canadians can use the facilities in the US hospitals because their national health plan covers it. If an uninsured American wanted the angioplasty the Canadian is getting in Detroit, he would have to pay 38,000 dollars for it. And yes, business was regulated and taxed in the US for as long as the soviet union was in existence, but since then, as it has been regulated and taxed less...the overall standard of living of the population has been declining. Again, I was the one arguing for taxing and regulating the American capitalist system. So thank you for conceding.

[-] 1 points by jdoggma (25) 2 years ago

vitriolck, You say there has been less regulation on US business since the fall of the Soviet Union? You are sadly misinformed. Try to start a business and try to have employees. You will learn a lot. Over regulation and onerous tax rules have made it nearly impossible to start a business and employ people.

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

As a reply to vitriolck's two replies.... of which I agree with... under this one of mine (because I'm not able to reply directly), NO AMERICAN INSURANCE POLICY is accepted in ANY OTHER COUNTRY.... while other countries partner with each other, so that when their citizens travel to other countries that they have a partnership with, their health care WORKS THERE AS WELL.

I know this from first-hand experience when I was in Australia last year and was on a tour with people from other countries (I was the only American on the tour)..... Hungary, Australia, Italy, Germany, France, etc. (I forget the other countries), and we were talking about health care.

NONE OF THEM COULD BELIEVE HOW COMPLETELY DYSFUNCTIONAL THE SYSTEM HERE IN THE U.S. IS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Did you know, jdoggma, that the U.S. has a MUCH HIGHER unemployment rate as a nation than MANY, MANY "third-world" nations do?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_unemployment_rate

Sort the list in terms of Unemployment %, and then see where we are and who has LOWER rates of unemployment. I bet you will be VERY surprised!!

Here's another list that says about the same thing...

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/07/14/world.comparison.unemployment/index.html

Another example....

http://chartsbin.com/view/553

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

I supported the one original goal of eradicating crony capitalism. That lasted about a nanosecond, and now the anarchist loons have taken control. So bitch I must.

[-] 2 points by vitriolck (69) 2 years ago

Capitalism is a system for cronies. Not saying it can be entirely done away with, as some would, but its tendencies to amass wealth in the hands of a few and cause any destruction that makes those few richer need to be mitigated. If you think its only the government that "makes" capitalism have negative impacts you are willfully ignoring half of the equation.

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

Which is what I've told him numerous times under many of his other posts under other articles, but he continues to refute it and then insults me and continues to troll.

I do find it very ironic that he says he's against crony capitalism and was with OWS until the "anarchists" took over.... yet he wants COMPLETE freedom in the markets. That, in and of itself, leads directly to crony capitalism.

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

Woot, woot, woot!!!

And there was VICTORY in Mississippi, Kentucky, Michigan, Arizona, and Maine!!!!

[-] 1 points by FoxturdActionFigure (11) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

According to the Maricopa County Elections office. Pearce, was defeated by Jerry Lewis, a Republican...

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

Yes, I know.... but Pearce is more evil.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Pearce is a Republican, too. He was the author of the disgraceful immigration law that made Arizona the laughingstock of the country. That he is being replaced by another Republican is no surprise: AZ is a decidedly red state. But Lewis, so far, appears to be far less extremist than the person he replaces. Though that's not saying much, it is a victory nonetheless.

Hooray!

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

Yes, that's exactly my point!!

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 2 years ago

Omnia vincit amor! LOVE your work! The world is watching! Woooooot! Carpe diem! Wooooooooooooooo!

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

lol nice way to attention whore,.. The repeal going through was a sure thing well before any OWSer even thought to say "boo" Nice (You know the sun will rise tomorrow because right now I'm sacrificing a cheeto to it so I'm just going to assume credit for that.)

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

people need to be able to bargain in groups

[-] 1 points by sexymom69 (1) 2 years ago

hi.. bye :) ;D

[Removed]

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

Wow - there has been so many mixed messages given to us over the years about this issue. It is really good to see that the movement is making people take notice of the sneaking undercurrent of laws that just keep piling up against us.

[-] 1 points by jaimeordonezvictoria (4) 2 years ago

I have extrapolated this from three recent NPR news casts. I believe that the 99% Occupy Movement should capitalize on this recipe of three existing wrongs that appear to be among (if not) "the" major contributors to this tragedy that we are all protesting:

Imagine (1) a transparent Congress who is not allowed to withhold the names of companies who financially support their campaigns, while (2) abolishing the 501c4 non-profit "campaign contribution" organization tax code loopholes (that they hide their crime behind,) and (3) repeal Corporate Person-hood, and you will have America back. Period. These are the three legislated policies that formulated this disaster.... It's called "conspiracy," and conspiracy is illegal in this country.

I believe that if you investigate these extrapolations, you will have a story that needs to go viral. — Reform Congress = Reform the 1%!!

Hey,... the 99% Occupation Movement is constantly being criticized for not having a goal and set of requirements. Why not these three?? Why not you??

I am sending this out everywhere, even the White House. Please pass it on. I think NPR has given us clues.

Jaime Ordonez Victoria

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

Once again an example of the failure of OWS to do anything to truly progress the movement to the source in DC. These foolish assemblies in NYC have done nothing but taint you position and rapidly lose support. Nov 6th, you had the opportunity to promote "Occupy the White House" but chose to secretly support "stop the pipeline while working with the DNC and (I've since discovered) the National Democractic Socilist Party. This is why you are falling apart at the General Assembly level, and continue to attract the Black Bloc Anarchists.. Stop this foolishness in NYC now, and Amass at the White House to Occupy the White House..Occupy the peoples house and Congress. OWH. That is what the majority of the Occupy movement is calling for, and now seems to be landing on "deaf ears" as this Nov. 17th operation will prove. This is your end..Your self-destruction. GO TO WASHINGTON..The Capitol Police will not steal your tents and Generators. OWH..Take your demands to the source. The President supports you and wants you there now. OWH Now!!!

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

I struggle with supporting the people who are reacting violently to the peaceful protests. In way way SB5's defeat is a victory but on the other does it serve as fuel to the state workers supporting the interest of the 1%?

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

I struggle with supporting the people who are reacting violently to the peaceful protests. In way way SB5's defeat is a victory but on the other does it serve as fuel to the state workers supporting the interest of the 1%?

[-] 1 points by MarcKnight (8) 2 years ago

Where does America need to begin? Below are some suggestions…

 We must begin with changing our foreign trade policies, in order to effectively bring manufacturing back into the United States. Americans need jobs, and this can only happen when major manufactures are forced to return to the U.S. We must minimize the products that will be allowed into the United States. By placing tariffs on all imported goods and through implementing tax penalties for American based companies who manufacture overseas; In return we will be able to save the American economy from this turbulent path of economic chaos.

 The next we need pass legislation holding politicians responsible for their actions as governmental representatives. To enact strict campaign ethical guide lines; making it illegal for politicians to make statements or insinuations without substantial evidence to validate their claims. This will aid in forcing politicians to stay focused on the issues instead trying to discredit each other. Plus how can you have an ethical society when your elected officials act like foolish and unruly children.

 To pass constitutional Amendment limiting the terms of all elected and appointed officials. This will seriously help in limiting the abuse of power in Washington. Changing both Senators and congressmen to 5 year terms and limiting their reign to two terms total in any combination.

 Pass legislation limiting who can be appointed to governmental committees and the appointment of citizen review boards to confirm all appointments to aid in limiting possible abuses of power. For Example: The citizen review board should be made of individuals who are of good ethical standing and their terms should not exceed three years as board members; in order so that the working class is effectively represented in Washington. They should be chosen by members of their communities within their respective states and their names should be placed in lottery type of appointment system to aid against any possible tampering.

 The next is to limit the ways special interest groups operate in Washington. We must limit their ability to sway legislation and their ability to acquire tax payer dollars through grants for their own greedy ventures.

 We must limit the power of Wall Street over our Financial and commodity markets. Categorize its activity as a legal form of gambling; thereby limiting its ability to affect the worlds economical markets.

 We must reevaluate the role of the Federal Reserve and remove its power. The American government must take back full control over its currency; removing the ability of the private Federal Reserve banks to manipulate the markets for their own personal gain.

 We must return the power of Washington to the people. We the people have the power. Only through unification, standing united as one voice can we succeed in reclaiming our government from the hands of this corrupt, elitist form of rule which has slowly engulfed our great nation over the past century.

There is much that must be done. But, only by working together, standing as one force, and forcing through legislation that will in return save America from this economical path of self-destruction she is on.

The time is now, so either stand and be willing to fight; or go hide in the shadows like a frightened child. It is up to you. What path will you take?

[-] 1 points by MarcKnight (8) 2 years ago

Continuously, it is being impressed by certain politicians that more global trade is the answer. Current passed legislation will allow more imports from India into the U.S. without any import taxes being imposed on the goods. Meanwhile China, India charge American manufactures and sellers high import taxes for shipping goods into China and India. This is a double standard, which gives no economic benefit to U.S. Manufactures who wish to import to those countries. Recently it has been stated by certain politicians that we need to open more trade with south American companies; allowing them to more freely import into the United States without the hindrance of import taxes (tariffs) being imposed; and in return this will allow American Manufactures to sell goods to those South American Nations, thereby creating more American jobs. While this concept on the surface seems like a nice idea; the biggest problem which arises is when you look at the income levels of South American workers, as well as those of China and India; workers from these countries make approximately $25.00 to $60.00 per week and most of them barely are able to feed their families as it is. SO, how are they ever going to afford buying high priced American goods? They can’t, which makes it an impractical concept. Just because something sounds good on the surface, does not mean it will work. The only way for this to work is if American workers will give up there company benefits and will except approximately $1.00 per hour for their labor; thereby giving up any rights we have as workers. This is where America is headed if we do not stand together and stop this madness of greed that preys upon our great nation.

The world was not ready for open global trade when it began, and it is time for the error of “Free Global Trade” as we know it to end. We must take a step back, in order to save America. America, like other nations needs to first be able to regulate its self, politically and economically before open global trade can even be a consideration. This will not cause the economy to plummet more; in fact by limiting global trade it will in return force U.S. Companies to re-open factories in the U.S. This will result in immediate job creation, which America so desperately needs. There by allowing us to begin the rebuilding process of America’s economy and infrastructure. Other nations will do fine; they will survive as long as they focus on building up their own countries from within as well. Trade will still occur, but under a controlled, balanced atmosphere, in order to create a more effective world economical balance. The ones who will suffer the most from this are the Global Banks and Wall Street; for it will mark the beginning of the end of their economical reign.

[-] 1 points by MarcKnight (8) 2 years ago

As Wall Street and Federal Reserve Banks are the Satins (Lucifer’s) of the U.S. Economy; China Global Manufacturing is Antichrist of the world; it poisons its own rivers, its own people with its industrial revolution; plaguing its people health with industrial toxins. Like America, China continues to enslave its people into low paying, slave labor work environments; while China’s elite wealth continues to grow dramatically off the backs of its economical enslaved masses. The industrial plague of China has spread its industrial curse to Africa, South America, poisoning their cultures with slave manufacturing, while slowly rapping those countries of natural environmental resources; leaving only dangerous toxins and economic despair in its wake.

Workers in China average between $0.20 (twenty cents) to $0.55 (fifty five cents) hour. The average monthly wage in China is approximately $100.00 a month. China seriously limits any goods from other countries from being sold in China. Most of what is allowed into china is for manufacturing use only. China is a primarily self-sufficient country; it manufactures its own goods and sells them to its own people. This is similar to how America was from 1950 to 1971 in the height of America’s industrial age; where the American people truly had the opportunity to prosper with the companies they worked for. In 1971 President Nixon changed all that when he helped make the U.S. Currency the dominant trade currency throughout the world and at the same time removed the American currency completely off the gold standard. There by giving the U.S. Currency no material value except what people placed upon it, or perhaps what the government may estimate its value to be. Nixon’s actions and agreements with various foreign nations resulted in opening the doors for the trade and economic catastrophe which we are plagued with today.

Trade with China is currently one of the greatest hindrances on the American economy. Approximately 80% of America’s consumer goods come from China. This has in return resulted in the decline of the American economic structure. Chinas pillaging campaign on America forges on; taking more money out of America then it puts in. This must come to an end in order for America to survive. Otherwise American workers will eventually find themselves begging for work, for their mere existence; enslaved to a Global Corporate form of “New World Order” way of life. China continues to import toxic, poisonous goods into America; that is sold to unsuspecting innocent American consumers. From children toys, food products, building materials, to industrial equipment, etc. These products are not only hazardous to our health, but are a detriment to our environment. Their reminisce fill our landfills, poisoning our air, soil and water ways. Asian Carp plague America’s rivers, destroying American natural fishery habitats. Chinas wealthy are slowly buying up America, from mineral mines, major shipping ports, shopping centers, investing in and controlling major corporations, to buying up United States Debt. Chinese and Russian Organized Crime Syndicates flood America and European countries with illegal immigrants, knock off goods, drugs, and prostitution. It is now suspected that Chinese Syndicates are now printing the highest quality of counterfeit American currency ever seen in American history and filtering it into the American economy. Aiding in the devaluation of the American dollar. China has the American economy by the throat and is slowly choking her, till nothing is left. China is the worst plague on America, followed by the former Soviet Union, and Mexico, etc. One would have to wonder why China is propagating “Economical Terrorism” on America and the world. Perhaps China’s leaders feel there can only be one true economic superpower, and they are determined to see that China reigns supreme in the end. This would explain their actions over the past two decades.

[-] 1 points by MarcKnight (8) 2 years ago

Written by: Marcus D. Knight

For the single voices in America and the world who think that no one is listening; but when in fact there are many of us who feel the same...

The sad fact is; “America is a new form of dictatorship which hides behind the allusion of a democracy, a free republic. For when elected and appointed officials can sit in their position of office for unlimited periods of time gaining more governmental power the longer they remain in office, abuses of power will certainly occur, and if left unregulated, it will eventually lead to the demise of the country itself and its people. Eventually leading the country into an elitist form of rule, if left unchallenged; slowly diminishing the rights, liberties of the people, to the point that the people will become enslaved to the will of those who are entrusted the power.

While freedom is a right given under the law of God and Creation, it is not a right always given freely by humankind. There will always be those who spiritual essence and very being become engulfed by the gluttony of power and wealth. These individuals will seek to obtain their power and wealth by any means, focusing primarily on the fear, servitude and ignorance of others.

For the questions you must ask yourself; Am I a slave to my own fears, and are these fears so great, that I will stand by and do nothing; allowing myself to become enslaved to those who seek to control my very existence? Shall I let them enslave and poison my family with their sadistic, self-centered ideals? Or, will I stand with conviction, suppressing my fears and hesitations; defending the virtues of goodness, of what is right; protecting those who cannot or will not out of fear speak for themselves, defending the freedoms and rights we all hold so dear?

It is better die free, fighting for what is right, for our beliefs, for the fundamental rights of all human beings. Giving our life, our death a purpose, a meaning that we can be proud of and content with; then to give up our freedom, in order to inevitably die as slaves, in servitude, groveling to the whims and perversions of the select few. Thereby giving one’s life, no purpose, no real meaning whatsoever.

Tyranny did not die in the American Revolution; it is an ongoing battle that will never end until we the people decide to end its reign. In order to stamp out tyranny we must stomp out the ideals of greed in society and in ourselves. We must regulate our governments; limit the terms of reign of our political and judicial representatives. Destroy the essence of Wall Street’s power to manipulate the value of currencies and commodities; hindering its ability to maneuver its representatives into positions of governmental power within our governments. We must place Wall Street in its proper place as a legalized form of gambling, the world’s largest casino enterprise. Then, we must remove the power of the Federal Reserve from the hands of the world banks to end this reign of economical tyranny which keeps being enforced upon us like a plague. While the banks profit off our suffering and discreetly impress their wishes politically to create new forms of unified world currencies and markets, in order so that they may have the financial controlling power over all nations. We the people are the ones who are made to suffer and die.

Wall Street and the Federal Reserve promote the concept of Global Trade; while this is a nice concept in theory, it is not a practical one. While the World Banks and Wall Street rake in a large portions of wealth from this mystical concept. It is the people of the various nations involved in global trade that suffer. America has lost her industrial and manufacturing base, leaving her stripped and bleeding. Her economy has been raped and her people were misled into a fantasy idealistic belief of never ending growth and prosperity, which never really actually existed in the first place, except on paper. It was all built on an illusions promoted by Wall Street, Federal Reserve Banks, and those with powerful political influence with the primary goal to increase their wealth and political or social standings.

[-] 1 points by OneMansOpinion (76) 2 years ago

What ails the nation is blind consumerism. Not purchasing without regard but being blind to where the goods are made.... Jobs.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-war-with-america-was-won-before-the-first-shot/

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

“A dozen cookies are put down in front of a CEO, a union member and a Tea Partier. The CEO takes 11. Then he says to the Tea Partier, ‘That union guy wants yours.’ ”

Jennifer Brunner, former Ohio Secretary of State

[-] 1 points by MiMi1026 (937) from Springfield, VA 2 years ago

We have just begun to fight. There are more Victories in sight!

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

Quite enjoyable reading. As a group, your all over the board, for unions, against unions, capitalism is good, capitalism is bad, bankers are the culprits, corporations are the culprits, politian’s are owned, stock holders are suckers, not sure where you stand or what your point is. Love it though, that's what America is. The fact that the rich have gained the advantage, in a world where the all mighty dollar rules, should be kudu’s to them and shame on you for crying like little baby's for getting beat. Unions make only 16% of the labor force and yet they build middle class America, give me a break, doing the math, that means either 83% of America is better than middle class (1% Rich enough to control everyone else + 16% middle class=better than) or 83% are lower class, whichever it is, still doesn’t make sense. And Henry Ford, if he was so simplistic to the working class, why was he slapped with an Anti-trust and forced to shut down his railroad? No, he knew that if his workers could afford a car, he'd sell more cars, thus more profit. I could feed off these inputs forever. Come on, you’re asking them for the same thing you despise them for, profits. I dare you to tell me you paycheck or quality of life is not profit. To think that I was seriously interested in joining this movement, now befuddles me. Get your shit together and you will prosper.

[-] 1 points by GeorgeMichaelBluth (402) from Arlington, VA 2 years ago

So we agree with unions raising workers wages, so we can agree to stop whining when jobs go overseas? Or do we want it both ways?

[-] 1 points by rufust1 (15) 2 years ago

You're done Kasich. You, your duped Republican Tea- Bagger supporters, and your billionaire Krotch brother's - "Americans For Prosperity" financiers like - Wal-Mart, Exxon-Mobile, etc. The people of Ohio gathered over a million signatures and have voted to throw your corrupt legislation OUT! And guess what? - YOU'RE NEXT PAL!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdKtTFSM8RU

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Thanks again for this post. We must speak truth and drown out the trolls. Everybody in this movement must take a moment to post here and drown out the trolls taking over this website. This site bears the OWS name, and is seen by millions around the world. We must own it!

[-] 1 points by antileach (4) 2 years ago

I belong to a union and not by choice. I can't work unless I belong to the union in which I'm forced to pay union dues. The union is forcing legalized extortion on me. It's time to remove this blight on our work force.

[-] 1 points by antileach (4) 2 years ago

I belong to a union and not by choice. I can't work unless I belong to the union in which I'm forced to pay union dues. The union is forcing legalized extortion on me. It's time to remove this blight on our work force.

[-] 1 points by antileach (4) 2 years ago

I belong to a union and not by choice. I can't work unless I belong to that union so I am forced to pay union dues or a can't work. It is legalized extortion. It's time to get rid of this blight on our work force.

[-] 1 points by antileach (4) 2 years ago

I belong to a union and not by choice. I can't work unless I belong to that union so I am forced to pay union dues or a can't work. It is legalized extortion. It's time to get rid of this blight on our work force.

[-] 1 points by alexrai (851) 2 years ago

Employers who treat workers like crap, get the unions they deserve. Unions are an important balancing in free market economies. If you treat your employees like people, pay them decent wages... well you don't have to worry about a union, now do you? But without unions, every employer would have to treat their employees like crap (like the other guy) just to remain competitive.

Being in a Union is like being in a democracy that actually functions; you vote for your leaders, and if they don't work hard and make decisions which benefit their membership, they don't last long. I say "democracy that actually functions" because elected union officials do not customarily take kickbacks from company officials, like American politicians do.

[-] 1 points by nichole (525) 2 years ago

Congrats Ohio!!! I'm happy to see that the people have been helped by Cincinnati's Occupation -- that is what this is all about, isn't it?

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

this constitutes a victory?how so ? I say that's TOTAL bullshit. please explain why/how i'm wrong....... this to me sadly says nothing more than"old school politicos co-opting headlines inside of OWS website. FUCK YOU!!! please, explain what I'm not getting. this is very fucking disappointing and somehow not a surprise....... help me out here. thx.

[-] 1 points by Danimal98367 (188) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

So it is a victory for the 99% to ensure people we pay through our tax dollars have wage+benefit packages that can only be affordable by taxing the rest of us more and more.

Got it. OWS = Bailout Pensions

Seriously, though, Public Unions are theft and immoral. The union elects public officials and then gets to sit down with the official to negotiate wages and benefits that will be paid for by the tax payers. As a tax payer, why do I not get to vote on the public union benefit package that I am forced to pay for? No, I'm told to shut up and pay up.

[-] 1 points by dls101 (27) 2 years ago

Many electoral victories! Here in Maine we won a victory for Democracy. We re-instated same day voter registration which had been taken away from us. This law had been working well for 38 years but as part of the Republican agenda to limit voting the law was repealed. Now we got it back! This is What Democracy Looks Like!!!!!

[-] 1 points by TheScreamingHead (239) 2 years ago

Ohio is awesome

http://tinyurl.com/7nguows

[-] 1 points by Boby123 (1) 2 years ago

People, it’s waking up time ! angels-light.org

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

What happened on Wall Street a decade ago last September 11th?

Just about everybody on this planet knows the answer to that question. But more people know about Heidi the cross-eyed opossum dying in a German zoo on the 28th of September 2011 than they know about the total collapse (basically threw the path of greatest resistance) of the 47 story WTC7 in under 7 seconds that same day at 5:20 pm!

The occupy movement is set up all around the world. How many people understand it? Can we count on the mainstream media to explain it? How many people know about the Bretton Woods system for instance, or President Richard Nixon’s unilateral order of the cancellation of the direct convertibility of the United States dollar to gold, known as the Nixon Shock, or what the Glass Steagall Act was and how it's abolition in 1999 favoured the infamous 1% of the world population… and so on and so forth?

I am convinced that the entire world occupy movement should channel all efforts towards establishing a thorough, in-depth and unbiased forensic investigation into the September 11th 2001 event that the same 1% has benefitted from because it is a much simpler thing to understand and it would be targeting not only that 1% but also would destroy their greatest ally's (corporate media) credibility, plus it might prevent another such orchestrated event from being used again. Otherwise, Iran is poised to possibly become the next patsy (Oswald) and the occupy movement will quickly become history.

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 2 years ago

When the idiot now Gov. John Kasich was in the Congress in 1999 he voted for S-900 the bill that repealed Glass-Steagall and caused the financial collapse of America. The man is a danger to America.

House Roll Call Vote on S-900, Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1999/roll570.xml

Senate Roll Call Vote on S-900, Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00354

People who voted for S-900 who are STILL in the Congress can be found at: The Congress that Crashed America http://home.ptd.net/~aahpat/aandc/congcrash.html

[-] 1 points by audiman (90) 2 years ago

It really is not a victory. Not al all. All it means is thousands of State workers will be fired. You folks just do not have a brain. Thr Post Office just won a huge victory on pay and bebifits a few months ago. Soon 120,000 will be fired. All they do is deliver a ton of junk mail.

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

They deliver what they're hired to deliver.... the same as FedEx, UPS, DHL, etc. Your statement is illogical.

The USPS has been screwed over by Congress and Bush 43, who passed H.R. 6407. Look it up.

[-] 1 points by audiman (90) 2 years ago

I never get junk mail from FedEx. Ever. It is over for the Post Office. Why should we pay these folks to deliver tons of junk mail? That is illogical. With the very best healthcar to boot. Much better than regular Federal employees.

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

You never get junk mail from FedEx because it would cost companies too much to send their shit mail that way. The post office is cheaper, so that's why they do it. The post office, as I've already stated, sends stuff they're hired to send, as long as it's not dangerous material.

Your argument is illogical. The reason it's in the mess it's in is because of H.R. 6407, a bill that was passed in 2006. Look it up, instead of because such a dumb ass.

[-] 1 points by audiman (90) 2 years ago

OK, I read it. PO is still too fat and needs to go away. I don't care who made it that way. They still need to cut 120,000 jobs. They still deliver tons of junk mail a day like they are told to. Just because of HR 6407 it still is wrong to keep it around. FED ex will do better.

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

I have been telling everybody I can (since 2005) that we must all focus on WTC 7 until it's established worldwide that it came down thanks to some kind of methodical, well planned and prepared demolition technique or techniques. The « Occupy Wall Street » movement is, as far as I'm concerned, an introduction to a worldwide, grand scale « What really brought down building 7 campaign ».

I consider the September 11th 2001 false flag operation, as horrible as it was, to be the greatest possibility for humanity's salvation. To establish the truth as to what really took place that day and who really is involved and why and why our watch dogs (our so-called journalists) didn't sniff out the greatest scoop of the new millennium is to begin to build a much better world!

Establishing worldwide interest for the truth about building 7 and the events of that day so as to obtain a real investigation is, in my humble opinion, a much clearer and easier campaign to explain to the public and basically targets the same problems and peoples as does the « Occupy Wall Street » campaign. Ignoring elementary laws of physics in regards to building 7 is easier to explain and comprehend than the way the world economy works to enslave 99% of it's occupants.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27660) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Activism works. Take part yourself. Here is an open channel for the 99%

Create sign and send petitions. The more inputs we have the better. http://occupywallst.org/forum/create-sign-and-send-petitions/

A site to submit issues have them collected, collated and submitted. www.lobbydemocracy.com

[-] 1 points by rufust1 (15) 2 years ago

Free talk live - http://www.freetalklive.com/
is a fascist site that has nothing to do with free speech. I put up a post yesterday about this student loan scam - http://www.studentloanjustice.org/ and explained how this fraud was made possible due to the removal of government banking regulations that is - less government and showing that contrary to their "no government " philosophy, how in some circumstances government is a good thing that protects the people from big corporations and they banned me from the site without any explanation! These people are NOT about free speech at all! They are just another corporate co-opted media site, designed to dupe the public into removing corporate regulations. They are just more corporate controlled media!

[-] 2 points by rufust1 (15) 2 years ago

I used no profanity or anything abrasive in the post, just stating my own opinion about things. Also, right after a post I made there last week my computer started detecting virus threats! These people should be investigated and kicked off the internet!

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

here are the people that should be in jail for creating the financial collapse, or was involved in it and gained financially using the government to commit crimes which created the atmosphere for all this to happen; Hank Paulson passed laws so that he and his cronies could do what they did. Timothy Geitner - worked for the fed in NY and helped paulson create these laws that ruined main street. Ben Bernankie- lied and lied and lied about the condition of the housing mortgage market, had special rules made for the criminals on wall st. Barrack Obama- 28 of the Goldman Sachs traders are now working in the White house helping he to steal money for the 2012 white run. How could any human report to be on track to raise 1 billion dollars for their campaign but very few people are donating money to the man. He is stealing it from the stimulus money that was supposed to help Americans out in this hard time. Stop defending a political party on either side they both are nothing more than the best of the best Con artist. That's who gets to Washington, if you can't see that Obama is a criminal and should be in jail than you are simply brain washed and it is sad, you were programed to believe in false truths. Obama cares about no one, or no party, so get over it and don't allow him to use you.

[-] 1 points by Dio1313 (69) 2 years ago

Sorry guys. I visited this site and tried to understand your point of view, and almost became convinced that you might accomplish something. However, there are just too many videos floating around that make you all look too stupid to accomplish anything. I know that you are not all stupid, some are very smart. The idiots and infiltrators are the ones who always seem to be on camera, so this is what the world sees. It is because of this that you will fail. I can appreciate what you are trying to do, but way too much bad publicity is going to ruin you. Liveleak.com is a good place to watch videos and see what the world is seeing. Sorry guys.

[-] 1 points by lavendersoap (31) 2 years ago

Pure democracy in motion.

[-] 1 points by LoneStar3 (45) 2 years ago

OWS = Obama Welfare State.......

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

troll

[-] 1 points by LoneStar3 (45) 2 years ago

Be nice...:)

Damn what a bitch....Me thinks I like her...lol

[-] 1 points by NicolasZN (1) from Windsor, ON 2 years ago

Sorry, but this is evidently a victory for the 60% - not the 99%. A simple majority.

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

It's a victory for all of the 99%, whether they want to admit it or not.

[-] 1 points by Peacedriver (23) 2 years ago

Congrats Ohio voters and Occupy Cincinnati !!!!!

[-] 1 points by crashingglobalmarkets (43) from Brick, NJ 2 years ago

Cant use this site on mobile end up losing posts just another frustration no help censorship losing potential support by thousands unresponsive amateurs

[-] 1 points by crashingglobalmarkets (43) from Brick, NJ 2 years ago

This site isnt user friendly on mobile. Even reggstering. Likely lost more support from public than gained.

[-] 1 points by crashingglobalmarkets (43) from Brick, NJ 2 years ago

Excuse me. Would one of u idealist pacifists kindly sho how to start new threads?

[-] 1 points by shoesandtables (20) 2 years ago

*A video showing the "Wealth Gap" in the U.S. Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7tmZv1o5Ac

[-] 1 points by Bellaciao29 (99) 2 years ago

The revolution has to extend itself in every State of America and be substained by million of people all over the world. This will happen soon, because the poor are increasing at an incredible rate. After Greece, Italy has fallen in the quagmire of desperation!!! One of my friends, who lives in the Ceca Republic, has told me that in this State and in other States of the Eastern Europe a lot of people carry out a little crime in order to be imprisoned and to be sure to eat!!! These news should be know by everybody.

[-] 1 points by crashingglobalmarkets (43) from Brick, NJ 2 years ago

How the fuk do u start new threads here?

[-] 1 points by JosephCouture (45) 2 years ago

Judging by the near total uniform nature of the hateful comments I see posted almost everywhere condemning the Occupy movement, it seems to me we have the numbers upside down. It is the 1 percent of the population with a social conscience who are protesting injustice and the 99 percent that make up the masses who are demanding they be silenced.

Read what happens if you try to speak truth to these people at:

www.josephcouture.com

[-] 1 points by DonQuixot (231) 2 years ago

Bravo for Americans. Don't let the rich take us back to the 19th century.

[-] 1 points by JohnWa (513) 2 years ago

There is another war on Workers - the weapons are misinformation. Brewing behind the economic mess driven by banksters is the more sinister changes being driven by the same mob. A pathological consumerism. We are all hooked into this as our alternatives have all but been taken away.

The consequences are fairly stark yet we are told so little .

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/09/fossil-fuel-infrastructure-climate-change

Denial is so dangerous but OWS may make a difference to awareness of our massive pollution legacy through excessive energy use and particularly fossil fuel.

350 ppm CO2 is the predicted risky upper limit beyond which acceleration changes are warned, while 450ppm has been pushed out for political reasons not scientific ones. How does 220 feet of sea rise sound among many other runaway climatic / weather changes.

[-] 1 points by socialmedic (178) 2 years ago

I am most pleased to see this activity defeat some of the innate and incessant cruelty of the virus that has inflicted this country pretty much ever since I can remember from 1959 the year of my birth.

[-] 1 points by Censored1 (2) 2 years ago

A victory? So the Citizens will have jack booted thugs at their doors to collect revenue for the Public Servants and that IS a victory?

[-] 1 points by Censored1 (2) 2 years ago

A victory? So the Citizens will have jack booted thugs at their doors to collect revenue for the Public Servants and that IS a victory?

[-] 1 points by Keakevene (0) 2 years ago

"I am the 99" Occupy Wall Street Theme Song http://soundcloud.com/michael-ayers/i-am-the-99

[-] 1 points by Isoleucine (4) from Yorba Linda, CA 2 years ago

Of course. The damn funding for 1% bills just gotta keep going. The people can ONLY TAKE SO MUCH. No more corporation ownership, no more lobbying, no more monetary influence. This is it lads. We are the people. They are not. This country belongs in the hands of the workers.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

Yes, what a great victory. We are turning the corner. But we can not stop fighting to keep the American Dream alive. We are at the beginning...


......... WE are the 99 percent !!!

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

Yes indeed...We're in the middle of global manifestations. Now the turn of Colombia http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOEWOMKFrNY

P.S. We Are Winning! (and this time is just not only a rhetorical device). I hope a global inter-relations of struggles may come soon.

[-] 1 points by MJMorrow (419) 2 years ago

An outstanding victory and a clear message that Prof. Jeff Sachs and his Globalist fans, in Washington and on Wall Street, are out of step with the wishes of the poeple, the best interests of the middle class and the future of America. S! MJ

[-] 1 points by ediblescape (235) 2 years ago

“This movement is not going away."

[-] 1 points by Howard (25) 2 years ago

For all of the idiots claiming teachers aren't raping taxpayers here is a link to how much Wisconsin teachers make. http://politicosinamerica.blogspot.com/2011/03/2010-wisconsin-teacher-wages.html

[-] 1 points by Howard (25) 2 years ago

The stupid people of Ohio will soon see the error of their ways when they realize that the unions are not going to make concessions and that they have consigned their children and themselves to inflated benefits and salaries to support union goon leaders and political donations to those who will continue to provide government cover for union thugs.

[-] 1 points by MadProfit (312) 2 years ago

in neanderthal voice "stupid people this - stupid people that - har har har - I can't see beyond my own political bias..derrrrrr" - Howard

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

Actually, Neanderthals were superior to the trolls on here.... but I agree with what your'e saying.

"Neanderthal cranial capacity is thought to have been as large as that of a Homo sapiens, perhaps larger, indicating their brain size may have been comparable, or larger, as well. In 2008, a group of scientists created a study using three-dimensional computer-assisted reconstructions of Neanderthal infants based on fossils found in Russia and Syria. The study showed Neanderthal and modern human brains were the same size at birth, but by adulthood, the Neandertal brain was larger than the modern human brain.[8] Neanderthal males stood about 164–168 cm (65–66 in), and were heavily built with robust bone structure. They were much stronger than Homo sapiens, having particularly strong arms and hands.[9] Females stood about 152–156 cm (60–61 in) tall.[10]

Neanderthals were almost exclusively carnivorous[11][42] and apex predators;[12] however, new studies do indicate that they had cooked vegetables in their diet.[13][43] They made advanced tools,[44] had a language (the nature of which is debated) and lived in complex social groups."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal

[-] 1 points by MadProfit (312) 2 years ago

Gosh - apologies for insulting Neanderthals - I must have meant Cro-magnons... :)

[-] 1 points by Howard (25) 2 years ago

Why so much hate for neanderthals Mr. Mad. Weren't they part of the 99%?

[-] 1 points by shill (60) 2 years ago

I have a question....can the people make a bill that we vote on & if it passes it becomes a law? I would like to see lobbying outlawed. But we all know that nobody in DC will bring it up for a vote. So how do we get anything we want done?

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

People can start petitions for something that can be put on voting ballots if they obtain enough signatures by a particular date.

[-] 1 points by turak (-812) 2 years ago

Koch is the mortal enemy of the 99% Everything he is involved in is specifically aimed at destroying the American middle class. Read the history of what he's managed to do so far. He's a union buster. He pays his employees minimum wage. All businesses owned by the Koch industries should be boycotted and his stores should be marched on and tagged as places not to shop in.

[-] 2 points by Jonas541 (72) 2 years ago

Cock and his brother are both assholes!

[-] 1 points by turak (-812) 2 years ago

good: spread the word: all his stores are now to be targeted. Make that bastard pay where he notices it: in his wallet

[-] 1 points by Howard (25) 2 years ago

Turak- the companies run by the Koch brothers actually provide a good living for many union employees. Is it possible you could check your facts before letting drivel just slip from between your lips? I wonder Turak if your job banging on drums all day employs anyone and I wonder how many parents are able to support their families on any contribution you have made to society?

[-] 0 points by turak (-812) 2 years ago

BULLSHIT you are another paid fucking SABOTEUR paid for by the interests of the top elite: YOU HAVE BEEN RECOGNIZED: Koch ones DIME STORE FRANCHISES whom he pays MINIMUM WAGE to all his employees you fucking LIAR: He's trying to get RID of all unions in America.

[-] 1 points by Howard (25) 2 years ago

Turik- the Koch brothers run large companies, such as in Green Bay, WI that employ many union workers. You are simply wrong and typing in all caps won't change that. And you employ and provide wages/health for how many people Turik?

[-] 0 points by turak (-812) 2 years ago

Yes they do: And they have an explicit agenda: they want to destroy the middle class and working classes of America diown to the poorest most abysmal level of poverty possible. You do not do your homework. Look up Pacifica news on the internet and search their broadcasts about the dirty dealings behind the scene manipulations and funding organizations with hidden agendas. You will find they are one of the most active reactionary neo-con, republican radical, anti-leftist billionaires in America.

If you actually think billionaires are your fucking friend you are totally nuts

[-] 1 points by sleonard (54) from Cranford, NJ 2 years ago

THIS IS AWESOME!!!!! And only the beginning.

[-] 1 points by cmd1095 (7) 2 years ago

I'm not the most informed on the subject, and as such my views may seem odd, I don't know if it will or not until I put the view out there.

I'm no history major, but from what I remember before the unions there was no minimum wage, no safety regulations, and basically no rights for workers altogether.

So I think all the anti-Union comments are a bit unfair, since Unions HAVE improved the lives of workers in the past.

Whether or no current actions by Unions uphold that legacy is debatable. However, if unions were destroyed and the worker's collective bargaining rights revoked, what exactly would stand between the top 1% of our country from then going to remove ALL worker rights and return us to the time and conditions of the industrial revolution? We have already established that that corrupt 1% is writing the laws in this country, so it would be a victory for them if they could do that. It would increase their profits, and our right to oppose them would be limited.

If the Unions have been less than effective at protecting the common man/woman as of late then that is a separate battle that must be fought, but only after the battle against the rich and powerful 1% is won.

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

You are right on with your view and comments!

[-] 0 points by jdoggma (25) 2 years ago

Unions are sometimes good and sometimes bad. When a union restricts the freedom of others it is bad - like forcing people to join (or to pay dues even when you don't join). Public sector unions have very little to balance them and eventually cause harm. Look at Greece, France, Italy....

We need to look at specific rights or wrongs. Saying all unions are bad is like saying all corporations are bad.

[-] 1 points by mesinger (26) 2 years ago

So Multinational Corporations that pledge alliegiance to no flag except the flag of profit are bad ...Ben and Jerrys that gave out Ice Cream at OWS are good?

[-] 1 points by velveeta (230) 2 years ago

Public school teachers make a ton of money. When they want a raise, they aren't required to do a better job or teach more hours, they just go on strike and take more from the already over-taxed taxpayers. It's one thing to go on strike to get your fair share of profits from the private company you work for, but to hold regular working-class taxpayers' services hostage everytime you need a raise is not cool.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

I don't know what public school teachers you know, or in what country. Here in the USA, they make, at BEST, a modest middle class wage, and that's only after they've been in the system for at least 15 years. If they were working in other fields they qulaified for in the private sector, they would make double what they do as teachers.

They already work an average of 60 to 70 hours a week, writing lesson plans, tests, reading, grading and commenting on every student's paper. (In New york, that could easily come to 250 tests, papers, etc per day!) On average, each teacher in America gives $1500.00 of their hard-earned salary to the school for books and supplies every year. And most states have the equivalent of New York's Taylor laws, making it illegal for them to strike, and penalizing them 2 days pay for every day they are out of the classroom.

And what you may not understand is that much of the contract negotiations that teachers undertake is not even about money, but issues like making sure textbooks are available, teacher training is effective, class sizes are smaller, teachers have more tools available with which to teach.

Working class taxpayer's could do no better for themselves than to have professionally trained, professionally paid, and professionally treated teachers for their children, working with small class sizes in well lit, safe and comfortable modern schools equipped with a good libraries, science labs and art rooms. That increases those kid's odds of a really good education, which in turn is their very best hope to rise above working class in their lifetime.

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

My boss's wife is a public school teacher, and she has to buy all of her students' supplies for them out of her own pocket, because the school refuses to do it any longer. WTF???? I hear similar things from teachers in other school districts.

[-] 0 points by velveeta (230) 2 years ago

I couldn't agree more with your last paragraph. But let's pay for it by taxing the wealthiest Americans at a high rate, not by prolonging the current "unions vs. local government" crap that goes on

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

I absolutely agree that a steeply graduated progress income tax is badly needed for the country as a whole. I would include all capital gains as income as well, and tax it at the same rate.

Unfortunately neither of those things addresses education funding. Public schools in the US are primarily funded by local property taxes, not state and federal ones. That's one of the reasons you can see amazingly good public schools with beautiful campuses and 8 kids per class in some towns, and not twenty minutes away you have 50 kids per class in room that have no heat in the winter and have water pouring from the ceiling during rainstorms.

The town with the great school is comprised of million dollar homes, the other one, two towns over is one like Newark. Since most parts of the country are highly segregated by income, the wealthy have a permanent advantage when it comes to public education. What's more, since income distribution falls along racial lines, it is a de facto racist system.

Some states have tried to remedy this by taking a portion of state taxes and distributing them to poorer schools. That usually creates a political backlash that disproportionately negatively effects progressives. Then again there are court battles that were begun in the 1950s that have STILL not been resolved about this issue. The CHILDREN of those filing the complaints about discrimination in their education are grandparents now.

In the meantime, the wealthy put forth a false paradigm characterizing the problem as one of government versus unions. But wealthy parents are in on it too. New Jersey Governors races , for example, have been driven by this issue as far back as I can remember,

So unless the laws are changed dramatically regarding school funding across the country, these tragic problems, for the kids and teachers alike, will remain.

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

" Public schools in the US are primarily funded by local property taxes, not state and federal ones. That's one of the reasons you can see amazingly good public schools with beautiful campuses and 8 kids per class in some towns, and not twenty minutes away you have 50 kids per class in room that have no heat in the winter and have water pouring from the ceiling during rainstorms."

Yep. In my area, the rich school districts' high school campuses make most college campuses look like dumps. Their baseball fields (I play and run women's baseball teams, and we've used some of their fields before) make many minor league parks and fields look like shabby city fields.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

"Savage Inequalities: Children in America's Schools" by Jonathan Kozol, is the very best book I know about the subject. Although it was published a decade ir more ago, it is up-to-the-minute relevant today. It looks at realities and outcomes of education and tracks the money. It is heartbreaking and enraging. And from my experience as an educator of 15 years, spot-on accurate.

It should be required reading for every politician and every parent in this country.

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

Thanks for the info.

[-] 0 points by velveeta (230) 2 years ago

"Public schools in the US are primarily funded by local property taxes, not state and federal ones."

I'd like to see the federal taxes raised significantly on the 1%, then use that money for schools all over the country

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

It's a great idea. Unfortunately, that would only scratch the surface. It would take a lot more in terms of resources and commitment to change the current situation. And it would take a constitutional amendment to take the control of education away from the individual states. Finally, the politicians are unlikely to do anything, given that any who have tried were booted out of office by angry middle class and affluent parents, who demand that their own kids have the advantage over others. Until society as a whole develops a real sense of altruism and fairness for ALL kids, the only remedy lies in the courts. Only non-elected judges would ever have the power to make the changes that are necessary.

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

Your opinion is very inaccurate.

[-] 0 points by velveeta (230) 2 years ago

Total funding that public-school systems received in 2008 was $582.1 billion, 4.5% more than in 2006-07. State governments' portion of that totaled 48.3% and local governments contributed 43.7%. The remaining 8.1% came from federal sources, the report said.

In New York, state government's portion was 45.4% in 2007-08, and local governments contributed 48.7% of the total, with 5.9% from federal sources. The spread in 2006-07 was 45.2% from the state, 48.4% from local governments and 6.5% from federal sources.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Your numbers seem accurate. Unfortunately, they don't tell the whole story. State dollars are distributed to local school districts as determined by politicians, not the needs of the schools, and are discretionary. Because of that, they never make up for the disparities between local districts. Wealthy communities get nearly as much state funding as poor ones, the the un-level playing field is maintained. Federal money goes to the States, whose legislatures have discretion over distribution. Indeed, much of the federal money never gets to education at all, but is funneled into other projects or used to fill budget gaps.

Read the Kozol book I mentioned a coupe of posts above, and you'll get a clearer picture than my poor writing can provide.

[-] 1 points by LoneStar4 (5) 2 years ago

Booted and most my comments gone....6th time

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

Stop trolling then.

[-] 1 points by LoneStar4 (5) 2 years ago

How is my big bottom babe today?

[-] 1 points by cristinasupes (145) 2 years ago

Hurrah! More workers should be unionized as well. That will allow the worker to take back his/her job. All that companies care about are the shareholders/stockholders and not the actual workers.

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

My mom wouldn't have lost her job at the University of Michigan if she would've been protected by a union. She was treated very poorly and unfairly by several employees there, including someone who thinks she's the boss but who isn't. My mom worked her ass off there, not only completing her own work every day but also completing the work of the lazy ones who acted like they were too stupid to get their work done. She even did this when she went down to part time and partial retirement.

I told her that her mistake was being overly productive.... as in picking up the slack for the ones who didn't want to work.... because then everyone expected her to do that all the time!

[-] 1 points by cristinasupes (145) 2 years ago

that is what happened to me when I worked in an office. After 6 years of work work work, the company was bought out and poof. What was it really all for, I used to think? After a 10 year career and two degrees, I'm told I am overqualified. So now I'm switching careers to be a teacher.

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

Good luck to you. My sister has two degrees and a minor, and she is facing the same thing. And she also was treated like shit while working in non-union positions for companies such as Ford Motor Company, Teneco Automotive, and others. She had no footing to stand on to fight for fair treatment.

[-] 1 points by cristinasupes (145) 2 years ago

Thanks for the good wishes. And to your sister as well! There was a company I worked at after I got laid off. I worked there for 11 months. I was ill and spent some time in the hospital. (Lupus) When I returned I was laid off with a severance package. (Yes two layoffs in two years) Inside the paperwork, it stated that if I challenged the lay off in anyway, my severance would be revoked. Therefore I wasn't able to sue the company. It was fishy they let me go due to the fact that I was sick. Sure the company had money troubles too, but that month, they also laid off a gentleman who was crippled and a pregnant woman. A union would never let that nonsense happen.

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

This is exactly what is being challenged, along with other things. But the trolls on here will tell you that that company you worked for doesn't owe you anything.

[-] 1 points by cristinasupes (145) 2 years ago

and that is what is frightening. We are all human beings and should treat each other with compassion. That is what makes us civilized.

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

Yep!

[-] 1 points by littlebiggygirl (26) from Hesperia, CA 2 years ago

is it me, or does the movement seem to be losing momentum? http://littlebiggy.org/4660547

[-] 2 points by cristinasupes (145) 2 years ago

no, it's only gaining momentum every second.

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

It's just you..... and a few others on here who troll.

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

Dear Occupy Wall Street

Did you know that there is a UK band called " BLAME THE BANKERS" who play a mixture of pop, blues, jazz and Latin? They were formed about six months ago and if in NYC would love to play for you - pass it around.

http://www.youtube.com/user/blamethebankers

Good luck and keep it going until victory!

Best wishes

"Blame the Bankers" Band

[-] 2 points by audiman (90) 2 years ago

There is no victory. Even unions will, everyone will lose. Thousands across America will lose their jobs. The Post Office just won big time. But who will pay them? They are belly up. So they won but thousands will go out the gate. There is no victory. And if you don't believe me, watch what happens to the Post Office andtheir unions in the next year. There is no hope for them.

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

The fault of what's happening with the USPS lies in a bill (H.R. 6407) that was passed in 2006.

[-] 1 points by Thisisthetime (200) from Kahlotus, WA 2 years ago

Congratulations to the Citizens of Ohio for Supporting the Working Class Tax-Payers.

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

They supported working class tax CONSUMERS, not tax PAYERS!

[-] 1 points by gestopomilly (497) 2 years ago

employed people do not consume tax they PAY tax

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

People who are employed by the taxpayers are not generating new tax revenue. We have public employees to the extent that we need them to build and maintain critical infrastructure. This does have an economic gain, and hence that subset of public employees is contributing to the tax base. However, public agencies have only one incentive - to grow their size and power. Hence, we lose control of them, particularly when we allow them to form conspiracy cells (public unions) to collude with the very people who are supposed to represent us. Public unions are a contradiction, and need to be outlawed. Even FDR saw this.

[-] 1 points by gestopomilly (497) 2 years ago

and if not for the unions those people that you want to do these things for you would be paid minumum wage. government always pays less than the private sector.. and unions are the only way to make them pay a living wage. you would pay the cost of training a firefighter.. then they would quit as soon as another job came along the money you think you would save by paying them less would still be lost in the constant training of new help. you know this is true cause you can see the rate of turn over at mac donalds. and if you want to pay teachers less.. reduce the requirements. a person can teach without a college degree. and the turnover would probably be good for the kids. you are not thinking right about this. these people have to be paid fairly.. and you cannot trust the 'boss' to do this on his own he must be forced somehow. so you must have unions

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

Why would they be paid minimum wage? Why do non-union professionals get paid more than minimum wage? My belief is that unions basically push everyone to the middle wage: The total payroll is the same, but the motivation for the individual is changed. You get mediocrity by design.

In any case, I have no problem with private unions so long as they don't have the force of law making you support them. Public unions, on the other hand, are just institutionalized corruption.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by velveeta (230) 2 years ago

the taxpayers just got slammed - they now have to pay more for less - teachers, cops, firemen, etc... will all get to charge the taxpayers MORE without having to provide anything more in the way of hours or services - they just go on strike, and if you want your kid educated, or your buildings saved from fire, PAY UP

[-] 0 points by Perspective (-243) 2 years ago

There's a big difference between public unions and private unions. Remember,we the 99% pay the public unions salaries. They produce no saleable goods whatsoever. Now that Issue 2 was voted down we Ohioans can expect to see less policemen/firemen/teachers/services because the public unions want more and we don't have the money to pay for it. Ohio is probably the 2nd worst hit state by this recession. We don't have any more money. Are you honestly going to tell me you think it's unfair that the public unions were asked to pay 15% of their healthcare cost? Most of us pay 20% or more of the cost and then only if you're with a good company. Do you think it's really unfair for the unions to have to save 10% of their pensions? Here in Dayton the trash collectors get paid 8 hrs whether they work it or not.This has led to poor service because they fly around trying to get done in 4. Is that fair to those of us who work 8 to get paid 8? Those who voted no have no one to blame but themselves when the layoff of public employees begins.

[-] 0 points by Dio1313 (69) 2 years ago

'Not a solution' Mayor Jean Quan has drawn withering criticism for her handling of previous attempts to shut down the encampment.

"Tonight's incident underscores the reason why the encampment must end. The risks are too great," Quan said. "We need to return (police) resources to addressing violence throughout the city. It's time for the encampment to end. Camping is a tactic, not a solution."

[-] 0 points by tsizzle (73) from De Pere, WI 2 years ago

explain to me how draining the states financial resources by clinging to unattainable growth projections to pay for thousands of public pensioners, retired and current, is a good thing for the "99%"?

[-] 0 points by KahnII (170) 2 years ago

You forgot the other victory against overreaching government where the people of Ohio shot down the federal mandate to force them to buy health insurance.

That's the real victory against TPTB for the "99%"

[-] 0 points by oldfatrobby (129) 2 years ago

Ohio Voters Reject Individual Mandate

By Emily P. Walker, Washington Correspondent, MedPage Today Published: November 09, 2011

WASHINGTON -- Voters in Ohio expressed their disapproval of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Tuesday, passing an amendment to their state constitution that says that Ohioans can't be forced to buy health insurance.

[-] 0 points by velveeta (230) 2 years ago

I don't live in Ohio, but when I pay taxes for education, I want them to go directly to the school and the teachers, not to a bunch of middle-men that includes politicians, administrators, union bosses, etc...

[-] 0 points by newearthorder (295) 2 years ago

It doesn't matter if you like unions or the concept of unions. What you must like, as an American, is the right of the people to organize.

A single person with specific job skills can shop around and do pretty well finding a job that pays them according to their skill level. But, a group of people who work in the same industry and have a similar high level of specific skills can contract with an employer and negotiate for better wages.

All you have to do is look at who wants to take these rights away to understand that it's going to be bad for the 99% if they do. It is primarily driven by corporate investors who believe what they here, that the cost of labor is so much they can't make as much profit as they would like.

So, stockholders just want to sit at home, make money off of the company's stock and drive wages down for thousands of blue collar employees. I say:"Fuck these assholes!"

[-] 0 points by rufust1 (15) 2 years ago

REPUBLICAN / TEA-BAGGERS GET THE BOOT CLEAR ACROSS THE ENTIRE COUNTRY!

YES! -

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/us/politics/ohio-turns-back-a-law-limiting-unions-rights.html?_r=1

[-] 0 points by rufust1 (15) 2 years ago

REPUBLICAN / TEA-BAGGERS GET THEIR ASS KICKED CLEAR ACROSS THE ENTIRE COUNTRY!

YES! -

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/us/politics/ohio-turns-back-a-law-limiting-unions-rights.html?_r=1

[-] 0 points by bobby (58) from Quincy, CA 2 years ago

Yes/No questions are plurality elections and they perpetuate the two party system. A better election is when multiple alternatives and ranked choices are used. The Occupy Cincinnati has reacted to a plurality election, which defines and divides people in a 50 vs 50 choice.

I hope the Occupy Cincinnati group does something positive for advanced elections soon.

[-] 0 points by Fedup10 (228) 2 years ago

All it means is that Ohio will experience large deficits in the future that will ruin the state. The unions will bleed the tax coffers dry.

[-] 1 points by MadProfit (312) 2 years ago

Hmmm...I think corporations asking for more tax cuts will actually bleed the coffers dry first. Shame on any entity that tries to deny people the right to consumer and worker protection. Otherwise, what you're saying is - here - let us take your protections away and treat you like slaves because labour laws are inadequate and in-court settlements take years. otherwise what you are saying is that to form a Union - the first words of the Constitution - is illegal - that the very thing our democracy is based upon - is illegal. This is an almost fascist sentiment and I wonder how long it can possibly go on before people realise how our democracy is being dismantled under the guise of business-as-usual. It should really be enough to make any American want to start beheading some of these fat cats and politicians...

[-] 1 points by MadProfit (312) 2 years ago

Which I sincerely hope doesn't happen because I am against violence - but they seem to relish in inciting it in order to discredit whatever they fear will expose them for what they are. So if they won't budge unless they have to be forcibly removed...

[-] 0 points by Fedup10 (228) 2 years ago

The US has the highest corporate tax rates in the world. This is one reason that corporations have placed their manufacturing overseas. They take advantage of lower taxes and wages. Wake up, we are is a global economy. We are competing with other countries for jobs, its a new world

[-] 1 points by MadProfit (312) 2 years ago

After tax loopholes and offshore funding many corporations pay less than nothing so cry me a river. Plus this statement has nothing to do in answer to my comment. They move over seas because they get cheap labour and they don't want to pay people here even though they can afford it - YOU CAN NOT MAINTAIN THE SAME PROFIT MARGIN IN A FLUCTUATING ECONOMY. IF YOU FAIL, THEN YOU FAIL. GROW UP AND START AGAIN.

[-] 0 points by Fedup10 (228) 2 years ago

The tax laws effectively shelter corporate taxes earned overseas as long as the cash earnings remain overseaa. Congress wrote the law and it enocourages companies to expand overseas. Corporations do not do thing they can afford, they maximize profits for their shareholders which are from every continent in the world. They are global entities and the behave accordingly.

[-] 1 points by MadProfit (312) 2 years ago

shrug Their behaviours are contributing to joblessness here. I don't give a damn about who they hire or not somewhere else - this is MY country and if you don't like the benefits this country allows you to make your fortune then renounce citizenship and move your operation somewhere else entirely and see how "successful" you become.

[-] 0 points by Fedup10 (228) 2 years ago

Our behaviors are causing joblessness here. Our tax and regulatory policies are at fault. We are competing for jobs in a global market. We have to make our workforce more competitive. If a corporation makes its stuff here, then they pay a minimum tax on the sale of those USA products, to offset the low wages overseas. Think differently, and give workers stock as well as cash salary, so they too can gain stock appreciation and when sold get capital gain tax rates.

[-] 1 points by MadProfit (312) 2 years ago

I'm very sorry, but I've seen corporate profit tables - this simply isn't true. Corporations can well afford to do business - once they have hooked on to new sources of income they don't want to give it up. I agree about giving workers stock - but people like the Koch brothers will argue that your contribution is not large enough to warrant partial ownership. You are a wage slave, plain and simple, unless you are higher up the ladder. People shouldn't have to play corporation's reindeer games to make a living - they should have the freedom to make a small business successful on their own - but consumers loooove those cheap Wall-Mart prices. I don't care about your competition, only survival.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by LoneStar3 (45) 2 years ago

Top of the Morning my filthy bongo banging chanting hippie friends

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

How's your trolling job going?

[-] 1 points by LoneStar3 (45) 2 years ago

Not bad....How your job going?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by joemotor (13) 2 years ago

We can change things when we get involved, Please read this document it is all about changing government by using the Constitution. Anonymous is now supporting it too. Please read and share. the document speaks for it self: http://anoncentral.tumblr.com/post/12409353866/for-the-99-the-new-common-sense-must-distribute

[-] 0 points by LoneStar3 (45) 2 years ago

Do you want real change?....OK Let's work together; we have the capacity to stop the Washington culture of corruption and place in The White House and our Congress, true leaders, that will stand for our Constitution, our Sovereignty and enforce our immigration laws. Let's stop the Obama, culture of corruption. Let's stop the US Supreme court from the demise our Constitution. Let’s stop Eric Holder, Janet Napolitano and the US Dept. of justice from voiding, undermining and stopping the enforcement of our immigration laws. Let's stop this invasion of illegal aliens that are taken our jobs and destroying our country. Let’s stop the greedy multinational corporations that are outsourcing American jobs overseas and killing the American dream of prosperity. let's stop this free trade that is making the working America an economic slaves. Let's stop this overwhelming debt that is the result of expending money we don't have, on economic crony-ism, stimulus that favor Obama's cronies. Let's work together with passion to retire Obama, the Democrats and the Republicans that betray us; they are a disgrace to our country and to the people that voted for them.

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

If you want cooperation from the left on what you have said, then you ALSO MUST mention the CORRUPTION OF YOUR RIGHT WING MASTERS.... Republicans, Tea Partiers, Libertarians, etc.

Until you AND the rest of the right are able to do THAT, I WILL NOT cooperate with the right.

" illegal aliens that are taken our jobs and destroying our country"

This is complete and utter bullshit. They ARE NOT destroying our country. They ARE NOT taking our jobs. They work in fields picking crops, they do landscaping work, they are maids at hotels and motels, they are washing dishes in restaurants, they are doing a lot of other SHITTY jobs that most Americans WON'T do, and they are getting paid shit wages for them.

Stop with your right wing propaganda if you want cooperation from the other side!!!!!

And, BTW, that " stimulus that favor Obama's cronies" was put to use in my area.... to fix PUBLIC roads... you know, that weren't getting fixed before that stimulus. It also went toward OTHER civil projects (for cleaner water and other things) that needed to be done.

[-] 1 points by LoneStar3 (45) 2 years ago

I have to ask....I am retired so I have lots of free time to be on this web site...I notice you are always here...Don't you have a job or something?..

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

Yes, I do.... and I can spend my free time doing whatever I want to do.

[-] 1 points by LoneStar3 (45) 2 years ago

Boy ...you told me ...Huh...lol

[-] 1 points by LoneStar3 (45) 2 years ago

I love you too....:)

[-] 0 points by Alex22452 (15) 2 years ago

Check out this video from Occupy Maui of a guy trying to make the protesters look bad but he is an agent provocateur! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fF0Kvm_9OMY

[-] 0 points by CrapOWSIdiots (4) 2 years ago

Hurrah! Celebrate the bankruptcy of Ohio thanks to over paid, over pensioned government workers! FUCK U OWShitters!

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

Hi, everyone. My blog has now been updated. Check it out :)

I´m now almost done with my new article "The Transition Phase: The Road to Freedom". I will definatly post it on my blog soon, but maybe also here on this site.

http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/

greetings and solidarity sff

[-] -1 points by FoxturdActionFigure (11) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Spam...

Because if you repeat it enough times you might start to believe it yourself.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Indy4Change (254) from Columbia, SC 2 years ago

Hooray for protecting the worker's ability to collectively bargain wages and benefits to the highest levels while retaining the right to work at the level of the least common denominator! Win-Win!

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by occupyme (1) 2 years ago

Since there is no compromise to be had the truth is this sets in motion increased taxes for the 53% and only the 23% Union and affiliated interest groups will benefit by continued draining off the taxpayuer resources. This is not a 99% victory - it is a continuation of the 1% mentality of Union Leaders.

[Removed]

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

The defeat of the union reform legislation in Ohio is a setback; but it may well end up being a phyric victory for the unions as the local governments will have to either find new sources of income (not likely) or lay-off more workers if the unions insist on high levels of benefits and pay. Further it appears the anti-union reform forces 90% union funding) spent over $40 million to defeat the bill as compared to less than $3 million by the pro- legislation forces. So the union forces succeeded in demogoguing the issue using the polices and fire-fighters and they won---but they had to spend massive sums to do so as they did in Wisconsin (another $30 million)--that is money they won't have next November.

[I copied this from another site]

[-] 1 points by gestopomilly (497) 2 years ago

and i dont see the point. you are only using government employees in this example.. those laws would have impacted ALL workers

[-] 0 points by velveeta (230) 2 years ago

i'm not sure about that - I thought the law had to do with public employee unions

[-] 1 points by gestopomilly (497) 2 years ago

no.. it referred to all unions in the state. not just one particular union

[-] 0 points by velveeta (230) 2 years ago

SB 5 was about public employee unions, not all unions

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

It concerned PUBLIC employee unions only.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 2 years ago
[-] 0 points by Rob (881) 2 years ago

Perhaps it should have been put to the voters that if you want to provide this then everyone, I mean EVERYONE (including the 'poor") will have to pick up the tab to the tune of 200 dollars per year per taxpayer. Do not saddle just the working class and the wealthy with this huge bill.

[-] 0 points by raines (699) 2 years ago

They've voted to bankrupt their state. The union bosses will be the only ones to benefit.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by audiman (90) 2 years ago

Are you kidding me? Unions do the very thing that OWS hates. They have high wages, charge dues to their workers, and a portion of the dues goes to liberal politicians. And the workers have no say so. You hate the super rich for giving to politics? It's the very same thing hairball. Dumbo.

[-] 2 points by vitriolck (69) 2 years ago

Yes, unions collect generally about 2% of your weekly check in order to get you on average 15-20% higher salary than a non-union counterpart. Then when the employer tries to take away your health insurance or lay you off you can join together and say "Fuck you. Skip the new yacht." If you think unions do "the very things" OWS hates, then you don't understand either one of them.

[-] 1 points by audiman (90) 2 years ago

The point is they still give to their political party. The Dems. With your money. You have no say in the matter. What it is is the legal laundering of union dues to a political party. I read over and over again that one of your main points is that you do not want rich folks to give to politicians. That is just what they are doing. There is no difference. I don't think that you understand. Google how unions operate.

[-] 2 points by vitriolck (69) 2 years ago

If the union gives a portion of my union dues to a politician, its ostensibly because that politician supports policies that will benefit me. If that isn't the case I can vote them out. If a business owner gives some of the profit he derives from my labor to a politician it is most likely because that politician supports policies that will hurt my standard of living. That is the significant difference.

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

And you don't get to throw out that business owner if you disagree with them.

[-] -1 points by velveeta (230) 2 years ago

collective bargaining against management in the private sector is different from collective bargaining against the people

[-] 1 points by bronxj (150) 2 years ago

I agree. Unlike the private sector where both sides, labor and management, have skin in the game public sector unions deal solely with elected officials which they may have "bought" by unions and who negotiate with the money of their constituents; the majority of which are NOT public sector workers.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by velveeta (230) 2 years ago

the public employee unions were bargaining against the taxpayers - not sure how this is a victory for anybody, unless we change things so that "taxpayer" means ultra-rich 1%-ers who pay a 90% tax rate

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

Since there is no compromise to be had the truth is this sets in motion increased taxes for the 53% and only the 23% Union and affiliated interest groups will benefit by continued draining off the taxpayuer resources. This is not a 99% victory - it is a continuation of the 1% mentality of Union Leaders.