Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: A lot of confused people.

Posted 7 years ago on Dec. 1, 2011, 5:02 p.m. EST by unoccupywallstreet (81)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I really don't understand what people hope to gain with this whole OWS thing. What's the end goal here? People compare it to the Arab Spring, but those countries were getting rid of dictatorships to move toward a democracy. And what country do other countries use as a blue print for democracy? America. Sure it's not a perfect democracy, but since the world is not a perfect place, no such thing exists.

People want to complain about special interest groups having to much influence and "corrupting" everything. Well the reason these special interest groups form in the first place is because of the general publics hands off approach to politics. It's not the special interest groups who are holding down the American people, but rather, the American people who allowing the special interest groups to thrive. Holding rallies and demonstrations won't change anything, getting invloved in whats going on and voting will.

Another thing I see a lot of, is complaining about the one percenters. First and foremost, the super rich one percent basically fund fifty percent of our government. On top of that, how much of our GNP do you think they are resonsible for? The one percenters are the group that has the largest influence on making America what it is. Not Joe Schmoe who works a job that anyone can do. Were you guys holding up signs thanking the super rich when America was having an economic boom? Nope.

It really bothers me that you guys say you're representing ninety nine percent of America. You aren't. You're one percenters too, just on the other end. The other nintey nine percent of Americans are out there busting their butts trying to get their's and help make America better.

Unemployment seems to be another big topic. No one owes anyone a job. Period. If you want a job, be better than the next guy or girl. If you actually paid taxes, you are entilited to follow the governments guidelines for unemployment compensation, but that's it.

If anything, this movement should be about the government actually being held accountable for the tax money that they take in. The crazy government spending we have with zero accountability is the real problem. Not private citizens earning money and using it as they see fit.

145 Comments

145 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 6 points by 99thpercentile (94) 7 years ago

Maybe I don't espouse the exact set of ideals that you are questioning here as I hope to be part of the 1% one day but I think you miss the point as to why people on the right and the left are upset. People are upset because the American public is literally being robbed by certain corporations via their control over our corrupt government. Bailouts and artificially low interest rates by the Federal Reserve steal money from your pocket. These actions devalue your money and cost you higher taxes. I'm not complaining about the billionaire who builds a better mousetrap so to speak. I'm complaining about the billionaire who made his money by buying political influence to gamble with my money and keep the winnings but get bailed out when he loses because he's been deemed "Too Big to Fail".

[-] 1 points by sinead (474) 7 years ago

If we are being robbed it is because we have elected and continue to elect representatives that pass laws legalizing the very things that OWS complains about.

The robbery won't stop until we do something about the people we sen to Congress.

[-] 1 points by 99thpercentile (94) 7 years ago

The robbery won't stop until American's actually understand what is going on. Getting rid of every single person in Congress and the Executive branch wouldn't mean anything if people are made aware as to who is really in charge and how the world really works. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. That's how the current power structure maintains control. They get people all excited about getting rid of one party only to elect another party that they also control. Until people are aware of the real issues that we're facing this football cheer for your team mentality and false debate will continue indefinitely. Look at Obama. He was supposed to be different but he wasn't because he's always been controlled by the same people that controlled Bush.

[-] 1 points by sinead (474) 7 years ago

I refuse to believe that there is some "bogey-man" or men sitting someplace and pulling the strings. I'm sorry but all it takes is one person to say "no" and say it loud enough that people will pay attention. If I believed that there is an untouchable elite group calling all the shots then what would be the point of even trying to stop it?

[-] 1 points by 99thpercentile (94) 7 years ago

You can refuse to believe that our government is bought out by the international banking cartel all you want but that's just burying your head in the sand. Look up the history of the Federal Reserve. I was like you once. I thought all this stuff was crazy too but it's not. It's true. Why do you think that the bailouts passed when congressmen were getting 99 calls to 1 against them? Because they don't work for us anymore. There is no "bogey-man" as you say. There is no caped super-villain in an underground lair or whatever you're imagining. What there is is a bunch of very wealthy individuals and corporations who as a group whether cooperatively or just by serendipity steer our political debate to distractions like abortion and gay marriage while they get their agenda passed no matter who's in charge. If you think our media is really open and really reports what's going on in the world try watching Russia Today or PressTV. I wouldn't trust what these networks say about their own countries but they provide lots of useful information about the western nations. They will report things that will boggle your mind but when you check it out it's real. Stop watching the media outlets that are controlled by the very companies that benefit from the corruption.

This is a documentary on the history of money, banking and the Federal Reserve. If you can disprove it please do. I tried to for a long time before I finally accepted it. If you're not going to even look at it then don't call me crazy because you're the one ignoring reality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYZM58dulPE

[-] 1 points by sinead (474) 7 years ago

If you "wouldn't trust what these networks say about their own countries" why would you trust that they would tell the truth about other countries? Especially ours.

And if we are being distracted by things of lesser importance then it is our fault that these things are happening. It takes one politician to stand up and speak out..... one. Why aren't we (OWS) looking for that one?

[-] 1 points by unoccupywallstreet (81) 7 years ago

I agree to an extent. "Too big to fail" is a very naive and stupid mantra to have. And it was proven very wrong. My point is that you can't blame private companies for trying to get theirs. Blame the government for their role in things. We literally pay their salaries, the bail out money was tax money (along with any money the government has), and the whole purpose of the government is for our nations benefit, not for them to profit. It should be OccupyWhiteHouse.

[-] 4 points by 99thpercentile (94) 7 years ago

But that's what you don't quite understand. We don't pay our politicians salaries. They become multi-millionaires within a few years of getting into office. Our government is corrupt to the core. But you can't really separate our government from many of these corporations because they are just two sides of the same coin. They influence our politicians more than we do and therefore have hi-jacked our process. You can blame them for "getting theirs". If I committed murder and I tried to bribe a judge would I be just trying to "get mine". No that's illegal and bribing congressman to pass laws to steal money from the American economy is also illegal it's just not enforced. I agree with you that it takes more than people just complaining to change things. People need to be more informed. I disagree with the calls to end capitalism and set a $20 minimum wage. That's all sophomoric non-sense. But being for capitalism would mean that you are against the bailouts and the price fixing of interest rates. They are the opposite of capitalism.

[-] 1 points by jjuussttmmee (607) 7 years ago

setting a minimum wage is one of the things that sent entire industries overseas.

[-] 1 points by 99thpercentile (94) 7 years ago

That's absolutely true! Minimum wage laws hurt teens from poor neighborhoods because they can't find employment. Since the creation of the minimum wage the unemployment rate among minorities and the poor has increased tremendously and the number of minorities in jail has increased tremendously as teen age males who have nothing to do and no way to make money are typically far more likely to get into trouble than they would be if they had a job that would give them something to do with their time and give them a way to earn money legitimately and productively. All of these feel good social programs hurt the very people who they are claiming to help.

[-] 1 points by jjuussttmmee (607) 7 years ago

when i was younger I did farm work in the summer. Now migrants do the work and my kids can not find work there. The minimum wage is one of the biggest factors when it comes to inflation. I had a friend who worked for 3 years and got above minimum wage by a few dollars. Then they raised minimum wage and his wages stood the same, as he was now BACK at minimum wage. The raising of the minimum wage was actually a reduction in pay for him. THANKS UNCLE SAM. There would be a good reason to repeal the minimum wage, as low paying jobs might return then and bring our jobs back.

[-] 1 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 7 years ago

Minimum wage is not equal to a living wage in most areas. Three quarters of the minimum wage force are adults and 40% are the sole providers for their household. You take away minimum wage, and the corporations will just slash people's salaries further. They'll lose more homes, and they'll starve because they can't afford food.

I understand what you're saying about your friend not getting the raise when minimum went up, it happened to me and people I know too. But take that away, and corporations will use it to their advantage, and the people struggling to survive will be the ones to suffer.

[-] 2 points by jjuussttmmee (607) 7 years ago

yes that is what everyone says. But I do not believe it. They say CEO's make so much money because the good ones are hard to find and a good CEO can make billions of dollars difference in a companies bottom line. Best thing plan to start your own business and compete with those supposedly BLOATED corps. If they are indeed bloated you should be able to steal all their business with your better business plan. Just try to beat Ford with workers you pay $1.00 per hour with, hahahaha yea right Chrysler will pay only $.50 per hour labor costs and make piles of money selling their cars. Your products will be made poorly and they will not sell, and you will fail and go out of business. For those of you that have never been in a position of running a corp. it is not as easy as you think to make those kinds of profits every 1/4. CEO's don't just play golf all day. I ran a corp as CEO for 15 years. I earned every penny I got. US businesses need protection from foreign countries that seek to steal whole industries like the textile industry for example. We used to make a lot of clothes, but it did not pay well and when minimum wage was raised they could no longer compete and closed their doors. Now the US gets all its underwear from china the US does not make any anymore. Whole industries gone, they needed government protection from foreign countries that were manipulating the markets and dumping goods below cost so to destroy our industry here and so it could go to China or other places.. But instead the government let those industries fil and let the jobs go, we didn't want to have those jobs anyway?. We got people without college educations that need work. Do we have enough jobs for them? Can we pay them like college educated people? Should we?

[-] 1 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 7 years ago

No, they shouldn't be paid the same as jobs that require higher education. But they should be paid what is necessary to survive in the area where they work. This varies greatly, and particularly in larger cities is very high. This is why a national minimum wage causes problems, but at the same time many current companies cannot be trusted to do the right thing because they aren't even now. They set up shop in these big cities with higher cost of living, and then pay their employees minimum wage, completely aware of the fact that it isn't a living wage.

Want me to prove I'm right, then argue with these numbers:

Daily intake: $20,000

20,000 x 30 = $600,000

Monthly intake: $600,000

If the product was sold at 200% of cost (which is we both know is quite low to sell a product at) then:

600,000/2 = $300,000

Employee weekly cost: $7,000

7,000 x 4 = $14,000

Employee monthly cost $14,000

300,000 - 14,000 = $286,000

If rent = $10,000 (A pretty gross overage. At that point it would be cheaper to buy the building, but I'm overshooting on purpose)

If electricity = $10,000 (Someone forgot to turn off the lights)

If repair = $20,000 (Darn those shopping carts and registers)

If management pay = $30,000

If loss = $5,000 (I hate shoplifters!!)

286,000 - 75,000 = $211,000

Profit = $211,000

They could double their workers monthly cost and still have a profit of $197,000. And I'm not asking them to double them. Just give them the wages, and hours, needed to provide a decent life.

Quite frankly, I've seen poorer quality in things in recent years. Clothing, cookware, etc. And people buy them "because they're cheap". And they see me saving my dollar to buy a more expensive item I feel is better made and think I'm strange. There's a mind set here that needs to be changed. We are sold on the idea that cheap = better. And do not see that we have bought this cheap item over and over again in the same time a person with the more expensive item has only had one.

[-] 1 points by jjuussttmmee (607) 7 years ago

buy quality, s a good choice. In my corp 35% of income was used to pay the bills, the rest went to pay wages and benefits. My people knew this, that the pie was only so big. And by being open with the "books" my employees (partners in business) felt more ownership in the business (without being owners that have money invested in the business) they acted more like co-owners of the corp, because when we made money the bonuses were paid on a monthly basis. And the accounts were not kept secret and wages were not secret either. To me people seemed happy with the arrangement, then cam my car crash, end of a chapter, business had to close I could not work anymore. So I gave the business to my former employees to run. Do you think that was a good business model? including the workers in the profit on a mouthy basis and opening the books?

[-] 1 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 7 years ago

I think it's a fantastic business model. One I wish more stores and companies adopted. With the exception of private businesses I've worked for, every job I've ever worked had you sign a form that said if you discussed your wages with another employee, you could be fired for it.

They didn't want anyone knowing what anyone else earned, because they didn't want them to realize what the numbers read. That they were being underpaid for their work, not because the company couldn't afford more, but because they didn't want to lose their "profit". It didn't actually stop the discussions. Employees just held their discussions off work ground. Knew they were getting underpaid, but also knew there was lack of work elsewhere, or identical wages at the other jobs.

Two of my fondest work experiences was for private owners. One, unfortunately, had to shut down. The other I had to leave due to illness. I've worked for big companies most of the rest of my time, and I've seen things that just aren't right. I raised complaints at one, and came within an inch of being fired for "other reasons". Only job I've ever run the risk of being fired from. I found other employment and left the company, but the experience definitely left me a bit soured.

[-] 1 points by jjuussttmmee (607) 7 years ago

I was trying hard to be FAIR so i wanted them to discuss wages so they would discover the fairness I was trying to have. I eventually changed the model to: everyone bids the new jobs, we meet agree on a bid range and then I go negotiate the contract within the range or we fold. I was more confident at the bid meeting because everyone was behind me. If we didn't make as much money on the job our bonuses were immediately lower. There was a formula worked out so if you produced more you would get more bonus that month. it immediately rewarded those that produced accurate work, and that changed attitudes, and of course that changed the quality of our work for the better, which made our reputation better, it was a "opposite of a vicious circle" whatever that word is. I think most businesses can change in similar ways, and get similar results. Those employees are now gone for several years but I still keep in contact with many of them. I pass them work when it comes to me, as i can't work anymore. It was a great experience, i learned a lot and I bet so did those that worked for me. I used to laugh and say I was ruining them for other employers.

[-] 1 points by jjuussttmmee (607) 7 years ago

he got a reduction in pay as he was 2$ over minimum and the government pushed him back to minimum wage even thou he had 2 years exp working. The government took away his raises and also hurt him with inflation. Government is not our friend, but our MASTER.

[-] 1 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 7 years ago

Agreed about the government.

And I do know what you mean. I have a friend who's worked for a company for 4 years. Because of the raise of minimum wage, and the company raising the other raises people are hired at (but not their current employees), she now makes maybe $0.50 over people just now being hired for the same job as her. After 4 years of working for them. But, frankly, I hold the companies just as responsible. They are raising the salary they bring people in at, and never once think they should raise the wages of the people who have worked for them?

It's not a minimum wage that's the problem, it's the idea of a National Minimum Wage that causes problems. Because in one city a person only needs $7 an hour to get a house and food, and in another city they need $12 an hour. It's bad for everyone, because a company in a small town is asked to overpay their workers, and a company in a larger town gets away with grossly underpaying them. The company in the small town would have to raise prices to make a budget, while the company getting away with underpaying makes a profit. These wages need set by area, not by a national average.

[-] 1 points by jjuussttmmee (607) 7 years ago

feds need to shrink their area of control States rights have been trampled and that is where minimum wages should be set, if at all. The feds are way way out of control. My friend was not happy at the raising of minimum wage as it really was a reduction in pay for him. Prices for goods had to go up to cover the extra cost of wages so nothing really changes EXCEPT every low paying person got a REDUCTION in pay not a increase. Thanks NOT feds. Every time they do something its just gets worse. They need to do what they are supposed to do. Defend our borders, stay out of our bedrooms, houses, lives. And shrink back to a proper size. The gov is expanding to meet the needs of a expanding government. Yikes

[-] 1 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 7 years ago

It is scary how much the government is expanding and taking over. And it's true that there really is no state control anymore. It's pretty much all central government. I still see the need for minimum wages, but we need a new system. If the state can manage to adjust taxes between cities, then why can't it do that for minimum wage?

You obviously were a good business owner, but there's people out there who aren't. I have experienced, seen, and heard from sources I trust stories that are just wrong. I mean, things that you would not to expect to hear from businesses in a country like America. And people basically never did anything about it because there was an overwhelming attitude that this was the way it was everywhere, and that they couldn't afford the loss of income for speaking up.

But that brings up the question that if we don't rely on the government for protection from places like that - who do we rely on? How do you regulate these businesses? Who tells them - you can't get away with this?

[-] 1 points by jjuussttmmee (607) 7 years ago

the consumer regulates business. Raised your fees? ok we leave your business for one that is better for us. We need consumers to form groups to balance the power of corps. buying groups whatever. Boycott groups. You do wrong we call boycott on you and your volume drops immediately by 50% can you stay in business then? or will you change? Will CEO still get 5,000,000.00 wages for year? plus bonuses? can't, didn't make a profit because we did something and pissed off a group that had power over us, the consumer. Change has arrived. We need to form the consumer groups that will form that balance of power over the corps. Our gov uses that same approach to reign in other countries that re doing what we don't like, Iran. So our gov thinks it is ok to do that so we can do that too.

[-] 1 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 7 years ago

I've read several calls for boycotts in recent years that were ignored, and some of them were because of the way companies were treating their employees. Still, I like the idea better than entrusting the government with the task. I, for one, don't want the government involved in every aspect of my life.

[-] 1 points by jjuussttmmee (607) 7 years ago

I re-reading what I wrote, like this idea a lot, "consumer groups" or democratic consumer groups, OWS should be given this idea, how do i get it to them for consideration?

[-] 1 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 7 years ago

I'd say start a new post here, plus get into contact with your local group. Some of them have gone to stores to protest, so why not start some boycotts of different companies?

[-] 0 points by Farleymowat (415) 7 years ago

The local fast food joints pay more than minimum wage, around here. I have no idea where you go get a job for minimum wage.

[-] 1 points by unoccupywallstreet (81) 7 years ago

I see your point. I wasn't trying to say that what the corporations are doing is right, just that they don't owe the people like the government does. We do pay their salaries. Whatever money they garner from illegal bribes is not part of the political system that is supposed to be in place. On top of that, they are sworn in to do what's right for the American public. Corporations aren't elected by the general public, they're private companies. My point is that we shouldn't be focused on the corporations, but rather the root cause, the politicians.

[-] 2 points by 99thpercentile (94) 7 years ago

I think we agree on a good bit and I understand your frustration with the view that many OWS people take that corporations are inherently evil while they sip their Starbucks mocha and post to Twitter on their Apple MacBook pro. The problem is government. That's what a lot of people here don't understand. They think that the corporations are how all this bad stuff happens but a corporation (in principle) can only take money from you if you choose to buy their products while a government uses guns to get whatever they want from you. The problem is that there isn't really a strong demarcation between the two anymore. SOME OF the most powerful corporations (not the majority) are becoming the government because they use their influence to steal from the public treasury by inflating the currency. The root cause of our problems is the international banking system which includes the Federal Reserve as it's local branch. They counterfeit money (one of the three crimes listed under federal authority to prosecute in the constitution next to piracy and treason) and give it to their buddies at the expense of the purchasing power of the dollar in your pocket. This is theft plain and simple. If you or I did it we would be arrested and sent to jail.

[-] 3 points by unoccupywallstreet (81) 7 years ago

True, corporations share some of the blame, but the government is the root cause. The corporations don't really owe us anything, where as the government needs to be fully accountable for it's actions.

[-] 2 points by 99thpercentile (94) 7 years ago

But we don't owe the corporations anything either. That's the point. Our government shouldn't be dolling out our money to a bunch of failures so that they can continue their self-destructive ways whether they be rich or poor.

[-] 2 points by unoccupywallstreet (81) 7 years ago

I agree. But again, that goes back to the government abusing it's power.

[-] 2 points by 99thpercentile (94) 7 years ago

Do you think the Federal Reserve abuses it power?

[-] 1 points by unoccupywallstreet (81) 7 years ago

Yes.

[-] 0 points by Doc4the99 (591) from Washington, DC 7 years ago

the lobbyists via corporate monies buys the politicians. pointing the finger at politicians is a waste. Also, private banks own the FED-R; again so trying to say the politicians are not doing a good job is simply a distraction. Why do you think politicians routinely move money from things like funding for education to bailing out (now) private enterprises-- do you think people are voting on that stuff-- NO. For instance, recently in Occupy WA (Olympia)-- the protesters were chanting for no reductions in education and fire department funding...The police dispersed the protesters, and later the state politicians approved sending money or public tax money away from public education, et al. to help rescue bailed out condo developments via corporate interests...NOW why would they do that...you think that's what the voters wanted...NO...the politicians line their pockets with the scrapes from the table, and the common individual suffers...what a joke...

[-] 1 points by unoccupywallstreet (81) 7 years ago

So get those people out of office. That's the way to make change. What is protesting against corporations gonna do? According to you this has already been proven futile. The government won't enforce the laws they are benefitting from by letting the corporations break, so change the government.

[-] 0 points by Doc4the99 (591) from Washington, DC 7 years ago

again. you focus on the distraction. the politicians are owned by corporate money. the whole system has to change. both dems and republicans do nothing but support lobbyist and corporate donations. The corporations own government. Fact. the FED-R is run by the banks. No tax payer or congress wanted to bail out the banks, but the corporate elites put pressure on congress.

[-] 3 points by sampson (34) 7 years ago

You infact stated the very problems of this country as if they were positive attributes...

the super rich fund our government... Money buys power, and power corrupts... for more money.. America was having a boom? A housing boom? We saw what happened with that... the bubble busted and now the boom was at the expense of everyday citizens... Now they've lost their homes... A financial boom? we know the banks defaulted on their loans, and now once again everyday citizens are paying for it. Corporations are making record profits.. how? Once again, at the expense of our citizens, out sourcing labor to third world countries.

We should pay our taxes? Why? so the government can be on welfare? Funded by the people? Why should they get handouts? Shouldn't they be expected to work and make profits on their own? We've all been led to believe that it's the "American thing to do". Line their pockets, once again, at the expense of everyday citizens.

Cut the crap man, the system is broken. The problem with a capitalist democracy is that, it's not a true democracy... The laws are made, bought and sold... to the highest bidder.

[-] 2 points by unoccupywallstreet (81) 7 years ago

The system is broken, just not where you seem to think it is. It's having a big fat government taking in billions in tax money every year and not being held accountable to how they spend it.

[-] 1 points by sampson (34) 7 years ago

If we are to pay to taxes, then at least let us choose where the money goes... Set up like mutual fund or stocks, we should be allowed to "invest" in certain areas of government. That way it's still a democratic process of the people investing in what they think is necessary, instead of the dictatorial process that's currently set up where we pay, and they decide where it goes

[-] 1 points by unoccupywallstreet (81) 7 years ago

Yes, accountablility of where our funds go is definitley a step in the right direction.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by unoccupywallstreet (81) 7 years ago

Um no. The super rich don't fund the government just to have power, the government takes their money via taxes, and for the most part wastes it. The super rich are citizens too, they just happen to be much better off than most. And guess what, in a free society they have the right to be. If they want to try and influence the government, that's their right too. Just like you have the right to raise awareness of it and vote to make changes. Not cry about it.

Yeah, the boom as in before the housing and bank markets crashed. Just because they're super rich doesn't mean they can't fuck things up.

[-] 1 points by barb (835) 7 years ago

No, the super rich should not be allowed to influence politicians to create or bend laws that have a direct effect on the masses. This should be stopped immediately since the consequences are always going to be negative to the population as a whole.

[-] 2 points by unoccupywallstreet (81) 7 years ago

It's not evil corporations corrupting innocent politicains. It's politicians who are dirtying the offices they are supposed to uphold. Focus on the politicians, the real cause. Go out and vote.

[-] 1 points by barb (835) 7 years ago

Vote for a honest politician? Haven't seen one yet so should I vote for the one that is less evil?

[-] 2 points by unoccupywallstreet (81) 7 years ago

I don't recall saying to vote for an honest politician. No Barb, what you should do is hold up a sign in a street outside of a corporation. That will change government wrong-doing for sure.

[-] 2 points by barb (835) 7 years ago

No it won't, the corporation (s) together funded politicians to influence the laws in their favor. The corporations can only be considered unpatriotic to this country. Every business wants to make a profit and if they can makes changes in the laws that allow them to do it, its human nature that they will.

We expect our government to not take bribes and they did and that is why everyone is pissed off.

[-] 1 points by unoccupywallstreet (81) 7 years ago

The corporations are able to create these special interest groups because of the general publics hands of approach to politics. If you are pissed at the politicians, go after them. Their salaries are paid for by the people, and their entire reason for a job is to be for the people. The corporations are breaking laws, but they don't owe us what the government does. They aren't the root of the problem.

[-] 1 points by barb (835) 7 years ago

Their job is not for the people and it hasn't been for quite some time.

[-] 1 points by unoccupywallstreet (81) 7 years ago

Yes, and that's the problem. That's what we should be focusing on.

[-] 1 points by unoccupywallstreet (81) 7 years ago

I'm not talking about doing things as normal, where everyone zones out for four years, waits to see who get's nominated by a political party, then listens to empty campaign promises.

Get invloved day to day and hold these people accountable for their actions.

[-] 2 points by Brandon37 (372) 7 years ago

Bingo. Not once have I seen OWS get upset about what our Govt spends our tax dollars on. That is the problem. Instead, we have seen the majority of OWS call for more Govt intervention. That is exactly what the majority doesn't want.

[-] 1 points by PandaMe73 (303) from Oakland, CA 7 years ago

Huh? Many have spoken out against the use of our taxes to bail out private industries without holding any of them accountable for past corruption nor enact changes to end future corruption. Just as many have spoken out against the use of tax dollars to fund foreign wars that have nothing to do with our actual security. How is a call for restoration of a basic safety net, which has been gutted to pay for the above, not to actually be fiscally responsible, the same as a call for big government? We want our tax dollars used for the benefit of the citizenry and used efficiently so we can also pay off our debt at the same time, and therefor we demand it not be used to fund neo-con interventions or neo-liberal corporate welfare, and instead go back to education and other sectors where it does the most good. This is not the same as asking to expand those sectors, which aside from a sane and affordable means for people to attain healthcare (which if done efficiently could be done for a fraction of what we spend to wage failed wars), only a very few are asking for anything resembling such a thing.

[-] 2 points by Brandon37 (372) 7 years ago

What we do here at home is not even close to the amount we send overseas. We are sending ungodly amounts to places that have zero benefits to us.

YES WE CAN sellout the United States. Hope and Change indeed.

[-] 1 points by PandaMe73 (303) from Oakland, CA 7 years ago

"We are sending ungodly amounts to places that have zero benefits to us."

I agree. And I understand the bitterness against Obama, but do you truly believe McCain would have done any differently? The problem is not democrats or republicans, the vast majority in both want the best and freest world for all people, even if they disagree on how to achieve that. The problem is it's been decades since EITHER party has had an opportunity to vote for a candidate that represents the people instead of a small minority of entrenched power and financial elites. The blue shirts and red shirts who still cling to the illusion that it's the other guys fault need to read more and look at the laws and policies enacted under every administration for the last 4 decades and realize neither party can shoulder the blame for this alone, and until certain corrupting influences are brought under the people's reign, neither party can solve it, since the leadership of both our parties has long had a completely different agenda than they've been telling us about with campaign lies every 4 years.

[-] 2 points by Brandon37 (372) 7 years ago

I was not a big fan of McCain. It is a matter beyond the last election. We are in some very serious trouble and it's time for people to start looking at the real problems.

[-] 1 points by PandaMe73 (303) from Oakland, CA 7 years ago

Well friend, on this we are in complete agreement. :)

Rather than getting into details as to "the real problems" as we each see it, which is bound to diverge enough so as to send us into multiple rounds of further debate, I will leave that for us to slog through in other threads if we meet there and for now simply bask in the rare moment of harmony that we have briefly achieved here.

Best wishes :)

[-] 1 points by Brandon37 (372) 7 years ago

You too buddy :)

[-] 1 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 7 years ago

It spends your money on whatever the 1% feels like spending it on.

Corn subsidies, weapons, oil subsidies, hummer subsidies, you name it.

[-] 2 points by Brandon37 (372) 7 years ago

Sounds like you see things through liberal eyes. Now name off all the bullshit the liberals in congress have spent our money on. How about starting with the biggest spender in history - Obama.

How much money have we sent overseas to rebuild mosques and prop up economies of countries that are not our friends?

[-] 2 points by jaimes (86) 7 years ago

0bama has spent more money in his almost 3 years in office than the total combined amount of all the presidents before him.

[-] 2 points by Brandon37 (372) 7 years ago

You're right.

[-] 1 points by jjuussttmmee (607) 7 years ago

and we are still in a depression

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 7 years ago

You're wrong.

It was not Obama's discretionary spending that caused the dramatic upswing in government spending. It was payment for those laws that already existed on the books, right wing propaganda to the contrary.

[-] 1 points by Brandon37 (372) 7 years ago

In his first three budgets, Obama borrowed nearly $5 trillion. Currently, the government is borrowing about 45 percent of everything that it spends. Obama's projected 10-year plan would add nearly $10 trillion to existing U.S. debt. This spring he proposed the largest annual deficit in U.S. peacetime history, which is why his $3.7 trillion budget for 2012 was rejected in the Senate by a 97-0 vote.

In other words, under Obama, the government during the last three years has borrowed on average about $4 billion each day. That staggering sum is far in excess of the $1.6 billion per day during the eight-year tenure of George W. Bush, who until Obama's presidency had borrowed more than any peacetime president.

Time to wake up.

[-] 1 points by jjuussttmmee (607) 7 years ago

why should the government borrow one penny? it does not make sense to pay all that interest to banks. 40% of our taxes go to pay interest. The gov. should be forever banned from borrowing money, then there can be no interest paid to fat bankers.

[-] 1 points by Brandon37 (372) 7 years ago

It's China buddy, not fat bankers. The problem is way bigger than this domestic Robin Hood nonsense.

[-] 1 points by jjuussttmmee (607) 7 years ago

why should the government borrow one penny?

[-] 1 points by Brandon37 (372) 7 years ago

Why should we be sending so much money overseas? Why should we be selling out our economy to China? Why are we buying oil in the middle east when we have enough right here? The questions of why are endless.

[-] 1 points by jjuussttmmee (607) 7 years ago

we buy oil so we can run the rest of the world out of oil while we still have all of ours. Then the price of our oil will skyrocket. Nice bunch aren't we?. We sent jobs to China because they work cheap and then the corps can get larger profits to pay higher bonuses to CEO's. We are in the influence business, and need to get out.

[-] 1 points by Brandon37 (372) 7 years ago

That is totally ridiculous. One major reason we buy oil overseas is environmental militants.

[-] 1 points by jjuussttmmee (607) 7 years ago

environmental militants have had a huge impact on the economy of this country. we have not built a new gas refinery since 1970 because of environmental laws and now because we don't have enough capacity the price of gas goes up. Thank a environmental militant for the price of gas.

[-] 2 points by Brandon37 (372) 7 years ago

I completely agree. They have also bankrupt almond farmers in CA and driven the prices up for a sorts of goods we use. It's now cheaper to buy many items overseas.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 7 years ago

Just about all to pay for pre-existing legislation. Unless Congress repeals those mandates, the Obama administration is bound by law to issue payments. You are blaming him for abiding by the law.

[-] 1 points by Brandon37 (372) 7 years ago

This is the worst attempt I have ever seen at deflecting the truth from a liberal. Are you seriously trying to imply that Obama was only paying for legislation passed during GW tenure?

I guess Obamacare was GW as well. Wow dude.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 7 years ago

No, all previous legislation, not just from GW. That has been true of every administration, Rep or Dem in my lifetime.

Singling out Obama for that ignores the entirety of the whole last century, and is just another example of repeating right-wing talking point distortions

And "Obamacare" represents a fraction of the cost of two wars (hmm, let's see of I can remember who started those) and increased spending due to that little thing called.... what was it it now?..... wait. just give me a minute........Oh, yes, THE RECESSION. I guess Obama was responsible for that too, huh.

Of course, he must also be responsible for creating the service the government must pay on its debt that has accumulated so much for the last 40 or 50 years. Yeah, put the blame for that on at his feet, too. It makes no sense whatsoever, but that has never stopped the right wing from saying it before, why should it stop you from saying it now?

However, I would try to LEARN something about the budget and about the laws before posting such stupidities on the web for all to see.

[-] 1 points by Brandon37 (372) 7 years ago

The figures I posted are what Obama has added, nothing more. Obama borrows on average of 4 billion a day, opposed to GW, who borrowed 1.5 billion. His 10 year budget would have added 10 trillion to our existing deficit. You are right we have needed to make cuts for a long time. However, Obama has only added more debt. More than any President before him.

Those are the cold facts. You claim that this is to pay existing legislation is preposterous.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 7 years ago

Go back ad look at the legislation. The debt increased dramatically as a result of a) two wars, b) GWs tax cuts for the rich, and c) the recession and d0 increased debt-service.

The bills have to be paid. It is a legal obligation with no wiggle room. With less revenue coming in from taxes due to tax cut and unemployment, borrowing must BY LAW go up.

[-] 1 points by Brandon37 (372) 7 years ago

Buddy. Again. Obama has been in office over three years. This is what he has spent and it proposing to spend. Wars, no wars, Obama is in charge and going the wrong direction. Had he been in office in 2001, we would be done by now.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 7 years ago

I fully agree that we should have gotten out of the wars sooner. even though I seriously doubt it is that easy without losing credibility world-wide.

Nevertheless, you can't put the entirety, or even the bulk of the blame for increased borrowing on his administration, just as you couldn't on Bush before him, Clinton before him, Bush Sr. before him, Reagan before him, and so on. There has been NO administration of either party in 100 years that hasn't needed to increase borrowing, sometimes substantially.

Singling this administration out for that represents an ignorance of history, and is simply an unjust distortion. there is plenty about this administration I am furious about, but this particular issue is not one of them. For example, Congress could have raised taxes to pre-Bush levels, and that alone would have mitigated borrowing levels today. It did not do so for right wing ideological and especially political reasons. That's on them, not him.

[-] 0 points by Brandon37 (372) 7 years ago

I think you and I are in agreement that it has been going on a long time. My only point is that Obama has done it the most and he is our current president. I didn't mean to suggest that the problem started with Obama. The problem has been going on for decades. I don't think any credible conservative will argue with you on that.

I'm sorry, but I disagree with raising taxes as a solution. Raising to pre Bush levels would come no where near the revenue needed to balance the budget. We must stop spending and start producing before that ever happens.

[-] 0 points by jaimes (86) 7 years ago

you mean like solyndra, fast and furious and lightsquared? the only sector of the economy tha has grown is the govt.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 7 years ago

More right wing crap. Solydra represents 0.6% of government investment in industry. All but 1.6 % of total investments has created thriving businesses and jobs. That's a FAR better record than anything you see from Wall Street.

Government employment, apart from an extremely short period of hiring temporary workers to do the census (a constitutional requirement, but the way, not an invention of this administration) is DOWN.

Keep blowing that smoke out of tour ass.

[-] 0 points by jaimes (86) 7 years ago

taxpayer dollars used for the obamamoney laundering machine. The only sector of job growth is in D.C. government workers, expanding agencies and creating news ones, at taxpayer expense. Thousands added to the IRS for 0bamcare.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 7 years ago

Government on the whole has cut its workforce. It should expand it considerably. If you haven't noticed, we are in a recession, and the private sector, due to a lack of demand is not hiring.

But go ahead, keep throwing up chaf. Continue to ignore the 15-22 TRILLION dollars of our money the banks made vanish, go bye-bye, and created the worst economic contraction since the Great Depression. Keep blaming it on mythological government expansion, that, even if true, would be miniscule in comparison. Perhaps you should enroll in a remedial math class: your numbers just don't add up.

Of course, you sailed right past the point, in response to you tired and repeatedly debunked "Solyndra" argument, that government investment in businesses has been a roaring success. You just move on to the next distortion, as if your last "point" wasn't refuted. Par for the course.

[-] 0 points by jaimes (86) 7 years ago

the private sector is not hiring but govt IS. That's not a myth, it's a fact.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 7 years ago

Government, ALL government, has shrunk by 0.5% in the last 3 years. The federal government has grow by 98 thousand in that time, and is about four hundred thousand smaller than it was 15-20 years ago. As of this past March Bureau of Labor Statistics data showed that employment at all levels of government, federal, state and local, dropped in February by 30,000.

The Private sector has lost at a MINIMUM FIFTEEN MILLION jobs. That was NOT caused by government hiring. That was caused by THE BANKS. What's more, the overwhelming majority of the jobs were due to the expansion of the Department of Defense, not a host of new departments. Most departments shed workers.

Your pointing to the creation of 98 thousand Washington jobs as a serious problem in the face of 15 million jobs lost in the private sector is nothing short of psychotic. And THANK GOD for those government jobs. At least SOME people found employment. What would you do with those folks? Have them jobless and collecting unemployment? The private sector is not hiring, remember?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by stuartchase (861) 7 years ago

There is no confusion here. This company is corrupt.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/make-a-stand-join-the-clan/

The Revolution starts here!

[-] 1 points by barb (835) 7 years ago

So basically we should all shut up and stop complaining since we should accept that our government can do whatever it wants with our tax money and keep on allowing it to reduce every freedom we have left with new amendments to laws. We should accept that our government is no longer accountable to its citizens and if you are rich you can manipulate laws in your favor.

[-] 1 points by unoccupywallstreet (81) 7 years ago

That is the opposite of what I'm saying. I'm saying not to focus on the private citizens, and instead focus on the government. Government accountability is the key. You can complain all you want too, but complaint without action means nothing.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 7 years ago

"Another thing I see a lot of, is complaining about the one percenters. First and foremost, the super rich one percent basically fund fifty percent of our government. "

lol

How Robin Hoods men really treated the poor

[-] 1 points by Lalo (1) 7 years ago

Malcontents, rabble rouser's and want to be communists. rather than screw up America (worse than it already is) why don't you socialists move to Cuba or north Korea? Since the "hope and change" thing, inflation has skyrocketed, violence has increased, crime has increased, energy prises have soared. you filthy hippes need to take a bath, get a job and move out of mom's basement. giving up the drugs would help too, but mosty soap would help.

[-] 1 points by OWSisawaste (133) 7 years ago

AMEN!!!!! people just want some handouts and want the gov to give them money and a job and such......

[-] 1 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 7 years ago

Have you read the constitution? Do you remember what our country was founded on? Just because these people have more money, doesn't make them more important to this country than Joe Schmoe. (And, btw, there's no such thing as a job "anybody" can do. As can be attested to by the people who have the jobs you are discussing and groan about some of the people who are hired because they are not cut out to do these jobs.)

Nobody owes anyone a job. But those who run businesses owe their workers (who manufacture and sell their products and therefore are the only reason they have a profit to make to begin with) a decent life. The money to have food and housing, and pay their bills. And not live in fear of having to chose between the three.

Your vote means nothing so long as these companies continue to be who control the politicians. Because they don't care about you. They care about their profit margin.

[-] 1 points by unoccupywallstreet (81) 7 years ago

Yes I have read it. It's talking about everyone having equal rights, not equal importance. Just because you play on the team, doesn't make you the mvp. The president is more important to America than the guy working part time at McDonalds.

The businesses owe their employees what is agreed upon at the time of hire. What is deemed to be a decent life varies from person to person. If it no longer works for you, get a different job.

"A job anyone can do" is a generalization and obviously not meant to be taken literally. Some people are just bad workers. But according to what you're saying, they are stilled owed a decent life.

[-] 1 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 7 years ago

This is what happens when I rush and am frustrated. I'm usually a little bit better at making my meaning understood, and not make errors in what I'm referring too. I meant the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,"

And, though I'm sure some people will kill be for this quote - "There is no I in Team." There'd be no MVP if he didn't have a team to play with or against. And, I don't know, if I wanted fries, I'd trust the guy at McDonald's to make them over the President...

I described my definition of a decent life. Money to have food, housing, and pay the bills. Not living in fear of having to chose between the three. I'm not saying everyone deserves to be raking it in, but, yes, they deserve these things. As for what businesses owe their employees, BS. That concept only counts for something if people are in a position to negotiate. Knowing people aren't, they take advantage of them. Many would love to get a different job, but if you haven't noticed there's a job shortage at the moment. So their choice is accept what they're offered, stay quiet even if unhappy, or have no food or housing. Not much of a choice, is it?

Bad in what way? Can't do the job they're doing, or too lazy to do the job they're doing? The key for the first is to find the job they're capable of doing. The key to the second is called firing - which I have no issue with provided it's for that reason. And not because the company thinks they can pay someone less to do the same job and get away with it.

[-] 1 points by unoccupywallstreet (81) 7 years ago

There is no such thing as deserving these things. You have to go out and get them for yourself. If you take a minimum wage job at Wal Mart, it's not Wal Mart's responsibility to make sure you can pay all of your bills, it's yours. If you want more, go out and make more.

Again, created equal refers to rights, not ability and performance. Just because you show up doesn't mean you're as vital as the person busting their ass and doing more than their share of the work. Peyton Manning went down and now the Colts are win-less this season. What if there back up kicker had got injured instead? I'm guessing their record would be a lot better this year. Even if the guy can make a killer creme brulee.

There's a shortage of lower level jobs sure, but not higher end ones. Work to increase your ability (education, work ethic, apperance, etc...) and you can move on to a better job and a better life. It just isn't easy, which is why not as many people do it.

[-] 1 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 7 years ago

Nobody deserves these things? Nobody deserves food? They deserve to starve because even though they're working but can't afford food, the answer is they didn't try hard enough? I have one reply to that thought process -

``If they would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."

I think you know where the quote comes from.

I give up, actually. I'm tired of trying to explain the rat race to people who don't understand the problems these workers face. It's very convenient to say "They didn't try to do better." Since you don't know these people or see how hard they do work, you can convince yourself of it with ease. It's the perfect excuse to avoid moral responsibility. Unless the day comes where you find yourself in their position, you'll probably never understand the problems they face, and how the system has been set against them. You'll continue to ignorantly insist it's their own fault. But as tempting as it is, I won't wish it upon you or anyone.

I shall not respond to any responses.

[-] 1 points by javasurfer (0) 7 years ago

The purpose of government is to govern ALL ITS CITIZENS! It's very easy to see one side of the story but not so easy when you ask yourself "How do I help EVERYONE?

[-] 1 points by JadedGem (895) 7 years ago

Yep, we want the money out of politics. Then we want monopolies and virtual monopolies (Like when all the gas companies collude and raise their prices to jack up their already obscene profit margins) (Like Monsanto who ran around buying up seed companies to try and make itself a Monopoly on the world's seed) regulated, capped, or busted by the government stepping and providing the basic services people NEED at NO cost to the people. (They are welcome to compete with a non-profit, go Koch brother's!) Monopolies are the enemies of capitalism not some glorious thing. They crush entrepreneurs and small businesses by operating in the red until the banks foreclose on the little guys. It isn't right, it isn't fair, it isn't a model of fairness. Its big ole bully business. I don't choose who brings me a land line, I don't choose who sells me electric, I don't choose between nearest hospitals, gas is priced the same at all pumps and the profits are threw the roof for everybody! That's crap, its not about who makes the best Iphone or most reliable computer. On things people think are not basic like my operating system, computer, cell phone service, internet, food, I can tell a company how I feel by not using their product or not shopping in their store. I can tell a Corporation they can build factories in the US or I'll order some cheap Chinese product direct online and cut out the middle man! Consumers can fight back without leaving home!!! I don't know how I feel about OWS methods, I agree with the goals though. Now tell me why Monopolies are good? Tell me why I shouldn't have choices and if I can't have choice then why that gravy train doesn't need a price cap? I am not talking about real entrepreneurs here, I'm talking about corporations that are parasites. There is no ethical or moral high ground that justifies your position. Deregulation is just the legalizing of unfair trade with US Citizens and allowing big bully businesses to buy and sell people like slave to line their pockets and you know it. More importantly We ALL know it.

[-] 1 points by joemotor (13) 7 years ago

Hey unoccupiedwallstreet, you say "The one percenters are the group that has the largest influence on making America what it is" that is the problem, that is unconstitutional. We The People, that means every citizen, not just the 1% are to be equal. Do you not believe that? You need to read this: http://pastebin.com/gm2UV08D

[-] 1 points by unoccupywallstreet (81) 7 years ago

Yeah, equal in rights, not in contribution. I didn't mean it in terms of decision making, I meant in terms of helping further the nation we live in. What have you done for America?

[-] 1 points by PandaMe73 (303) from Oakland, CA 7 years ago

It's ok that you are confused about ows, you are thinking about the issues and the best solutions, which is more than most were doing before ows. In that sense, you simply dropping in to explain why you don't support ows is a sign that ows has accomplished a great deal. What a paradox :)

I think there are many strands of corruption that come together to form the root of the problem, and they must all be attended to... fixing only one will only leave wide open workarounds for the same old corruption to take hold again. Going after the politicians without going after the financial interests that corrupt them even when we vote in outsiders hasn't worked, so we must take a stand against them all at once. No one is interested in crushing the things that work, including the large sectors of American business, including some of the largest corporations, that keep up their end of the social contract (which they do "owe" since it is the very infrastructure and educated populace of our society that provides them the ground level tools to turn to profit). The end of loopholes and corrupt practices only hurts those who have taken advantage of them to benefit without giving back. Why should those upright institutions and people of the 1% be afraid of that? They need not be, and many of them indeed know it, which is why even some of them are acting to support us.

It is early yet, I think ows is only one face of this time's push for a more just society. Its ok if others choose to work toward the same goal taking a different path. You are right, ows is not the 99%, but at the same time, considering how many either support ows specifically, or seek some of the same changes whil not supporting ows's methods or even being in a place to worry about it as hard as it is just to get by, ows still represents far greater than a mere 1% on the other side as you claim.

But keep talking about what you see and what you think we can do to make a more just society, there is room for many voices in this discussion, and I am glad for yours even though I staunchly support ows. I wish the best for us all, and am happy however it happens, whether through ows or through methods more in line with your perspective :) so long as we make progress and become a better and more just democracy, since the smallest group of all seem to be the ones claiming there is nothing to improve :)

Happy Holidays!

[-] 1 points by barb (835) 7 years ago

I will be happy if the OWS movement is sucessful in educating people of how corrupt our system is for the masses that are still living in ignorance. That alone makes it a success.

[-] 1 points by unoccupywallstreet (81) 7 years ago

I hope people get more hands on with politics and leave the private citizens alone. You are not entilted to anything from them.

[-] 1 points by barb (835) 7 years ago

Entitled is the wrong choice to describe it. I pay my government's salaries, all of the depts under government, my social security and medicare, and many other things.

Government is suppose to work for the people that pay them them to do it and I expect them to be honest and fair in every decision that is made that directly effects its "employers" quality of life.

I don't think that this is too unreasonable to expect from them, do you?

[-] 1 points by unoccupywallstreet (81) 7 years ago

I agree 100%. That's why I'm saying to hold the government accountable, not Wall Street.

[-] 1 points by barb (835) 7 years ago

You might want to think about why they "have to" target Wallstreet instead of government. I'm sure that most will agree it is government that is the main problem since they allowed and helped those that got us into this situation.

[-] 1 points by unoccupywallstreet (81) 7 years ago

They don't have to. Unlike like in the Arab countries, we aren't going up against dictators. Are system is already set up as a democracy. But since a general lack of interest in politics on the average Americans part has allowed the system to become what it is, people are taking the easy route and just blaming the elite.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 7 years ago

GFY imperialist.

[-] 1 points by unoccupywallstreet (81) 7 years ago

FU you dirty hippie. Wow, I feel better for saying that, but I really didn't make any points. But then again, neither did you.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 7 years ago

No need to make any points with anyone that thinks buying legislation is copacetic. Bribing elected officials is treason, just as it is for them to accept bribes.

[-] 1 points by unoccupywallstreet (81) 7 years ago

I didn't say it was copacetic. Just that the focus is on the wrong end of the bribe.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 7 years ago

You think so? You really think that your answer of the token vote, aka the bloodless revolution, will change anything?

It won't.

I doubt very few care if the 1%ers take their ill gotten gain of FRN's and go away. I know for a fact there exists enough know how and determination to get things done without them.

[-] 1 points by unoccupywallstreet (81) 7 years ago

The one percenters go away, our economy collapses, we get taken over by another country. Fact.

Power will exist wether you want it to or not. Or maybe you just want to be the one given the power.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 7 years ago

Yeah, I think all the other countries are busy with their own imaginary money problems to take over this one.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 7 years ago

"People compare it to the Arab Spring, but those countries were getting rid of dictatorships to move toward a democracy."

Well they were getting rid of dictators, we're getting rid of oligarchs.

Tomatoe, tomato.

[-] 1 points by unoccupywallstreet (81) 7 years ago

You want the governement to regulate more things, when it's the government that is the real problem.

Tomato, potato.

[-] 1 points by HarryCrew07 (433) 7 years ago

Well, I think its changing how people view the world we live in. Frank Luntz does too: http://thedailyoccupation.org/republican-strategist-frank-luntz-scared-to-death-of-occupy-wall-street/

[-] 1 points by unoccupywallstreet (81) 7 years ago

It's like anything else people hear about and don't take the time to understand. It is very scary from a political stand point. It just happens to be a bunch of bullshit too.

[-] 1 points by HarryCrew07 (433) 7 years ago

Well most things are bullshit from a political standpoint.

[-] 1 points by genickgenau (22) from New York City, NY 7 years ago

"People compare it to the Arab Spring, but those countries were getting rid of dictatorships to move toward a democracy."

Got rid of corrupt elites.

[-] 2 points by unoccupywallstreet (81) 7 years ago

Government corrupts, not private citizens. Private citizens don't owe you shit.

[-] 1 points by genickgenau (22) from New York City, NY 7 years ago

Many Americans lost confidence in their political system. What they are made to believe in? a libertarian utopia without a government. No government doesn't get you out but promotes unregulated abuse. Financial deregulation for instance.

[-] 1 points by unoccupywallstreet (81) 7 years ago

They lost confidence even though they didn't do anything to change it. What percentage of people actually vote for the president? A little over 50 (of the ones who can!). And it's even less for local elections. Our political system allows for anyone's voice to be heard as long as they're loud enough. Holding rallies is not what it's gonna take, especally when the focus is on the wrong problem. Hold politicians accountable, monitor their actions, and vote.

[-] 2 points by genickgenau (22) from New York City, NY 7 years ago

A political system is designed in a way that it doesn't matter who rules.

Anti-government libertarianism usually leads to abolishment of doing good first while doing evil is backed by the lobby. Reagan was a keynesian politician, only that he focused on military spending, the free market sermon was just an argument to cut down social policies and reduces taxes for the rich.

[-] 1 points by unoccupywallstreet (81) 7 years ago

I'm not anti-government. I just think we should have a good one. Government controlling everything is not the way to go.

[-] 1 points by genickgenau (22) from New York City, NY 7 years ago

The government is corrupt because of the way it is set up.

But it is feasible to get good governance

[-] 1 points by unoccupywallstreet (81) 7 years ago

The set up is fine. What we have allowed to happen is what's wrong with it. Our system allows us to change it at any time though. We first have to focus on the right things, then make the effort.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 7 years ago

The problem is that the people running for office have already been vetted on some level by the power elite. Too often the difference in candidates represents only relatively minor differences of opinion among that elite. So the election of virtually any of them merely acts as a ratification of a pre-existing agenda that the electorate has had no say in.

So yes, there is certainly some laziness of the electorate to blame, but many simply feel, on a gut level, that their vote simply facilitates the status quo and changes nothing.

What's more, although people have done little to change this current slide into oligarchy, despite years-long warnings by leading progressives, (dismissed in the media as whacky liberals for obvious reasons) they are doing something about it now. That something it the Occupy movement.

Those elites have made sure to hoodwink half this country into believing that what's good for for the wealthy and powerful is what's good for the populace as a whole , that somehow "trickle down" will work for them. The propaganda campaign has been relentless. And very effective in preventing any reforms. When half the country believes that reform is dangerous, no electoral consensus forms to make change happen. The status quo of oligarchy remains unaffected.

I'm not talking about some vast shadowy conspiracy. It is simply how the structure of the system works itself out. Those that have wealth either field candidates from amongst their ranks, or are appealed to by candidates seeking support. Most candidates come from the business community and are well-networked. Those that don't come from that community develop such networks. They get to know each other. And once elected, representatives are more likely to listen to the concerns and needs of those cohorts they came from or who helped them along the way. It doesn't even take promises of millions (though we see that happening constantly) to sway those politicians: natural inclination does a pretty good job on its own. When a congressman gets a call from the president of Boeing or CitiGroup, they are simply more likely to take the call and listen than if he or she gets a petition on his desk about some issue from Joe and Jane Public.

The electorate is naturally rendered irrelevant.

[-] 1 points by unoccupywallstreet (81) 7 years ago

It doesn't have to be that way. If people would make an effort to see through the bullshit and make changes, things would get a lot better. We have a good base system, it's just being executed poorly due to lack of effort.

[-] 0 points by bereal (235) 7 years ago

As Jaimes stated above, Egypt (and the other Arab countries will soon have a "totalitarian theocracy".

[-] 1 points by MrMiller (128) from Sandy, UT 7 years ago

I agree and also disagree, (about the last paragraph). It just pisses me off to no end that once you get so rich, you can just throw your money at people and call it fancy terms, like portfolios, and then get outrageous amounts of money back off the work of other people. That's what makes rich people rich and if they create jobs, then that's the main credit that I would attribute to them. I DON'T credit them with creating jobs just because they can buy shit. Anyone with half a brain could buy stuff. But anyone who knows even a little can invest in new companies and wait for the money to roll in too. They don't do most of the leg work typically, after some point. So, to an extent, I don't agree with demonizing the rich. They are just working with the system. But I personally don't really think of it as very legitimate. In fact, the whole idea of stocks strikes me as deeply immoral to some degree. Thoughts?

[-] 1 points by unoccupywallstreet (81) 7 years ago

A stock is part ownership in a company, and it's how most companies get their funding to take things to the next level. It's hardly immoral. I don't understand your comment of rich people throwing money at people to get outrageous amounts back. Do you mean like loans?

[-] 1 points by MrMiller (128) from Sandy, UT 7 years ago

Yes, like loans, or like specifically student loans.

[-] 1 points by unoccupywallstreet (81) 7 years ago

Student loans generally carry very low APRs and are usually paid back over many years. I don't think anyone is getting outrageously rich off of student loans.

[-] 0 points by jaimes (86) 7 years ago

the govt now controls all student loans.

[-] 0 points by Doc4the99 (591) from Washington, DC 7 years ago

THIS:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-06/cuomo-joins-brown-in-seizing-on-occupy-movement-s-tax-the-rich-sentiment.html

California Governor Jerry Brown and New York’s Andrew Cuomo are seizing on a core sentiment of the Occupy Wall Street movement in seeking higher taxes on the wealthy to offset cuts in education and government programs.

The governors of the first- and third-biggest states by population took aim at the affluent in proposals yesterday. Brown said he’d ask voters to raise income taxes on individuals making more than $250,000 a year and boost the sales levy. Cuomo said he wants an income-tax overhaul that would place a higher burden on top earners.

“The occupiers’ message is much more popular than the movement itself,’’ said Dan Schnur, director of the Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of Southern California, in Los Angeles. “For Brown or Cuomo to take the least-strident aspects of the occupiers’ agenda -- separated from the occupiers themselves -- presents them with a political opportunity that might not have been there a year or two ago.”

U.S. states slashed payrolls to close $91 billion in cumulative gaps in fiscal 2012 budgets, after tax revenue was slammed by the longest recession since the Great Depression, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. California, the most populous, may face a $13 billion deficit, while New York, the third-largest, projects a $3.5 billion gap.

Demonstrations that started as Occupy Wall Street in New York on Sept. 17 have spread to cities on four continents. Protesters refer to themselves as “the 99 percent,” a reference to economist Joseph Stiglitz’s study showing the richest 1 percent of Americans control 40 percent of the wealth.

[-] 1 points by unoccupywallstreet (81) 7 years ago

Cool. What they don't mention is how these states have mismanaged their funds for years. Now they want the people who pay the most to pay even more. And they can do it because it's popular right now to blame the rich for everything, even though, of the private citizens (non-federal or state employees), they have done the most for America. Sure, there are always bad apples, but the same can be said of every single class, profession, and culture in the world.

[-] 0 points by Doc4the99 (591) from Washington, DC 7 years ago

you are wrong. you have it backwards. why don't you un occupy this website and occupy something else. Corporate money buys the politics-- focusing on politics is nothing more than a distraction to the real problem. I am specifically talking about the bad apples that screwed over all the average people by doing things like shoving bad mortgages down their throat.

[-] 0 points by jaimes (86) 7 years ago

Thats what the TEA party is about. accountability Cut, Cap and Balance.

[-] 0 points by jaimes (86) 7 years ago

egypt will NOT be a democracy. it will be a totalitarian theocracy

[-] 0 points by Lenny1 (0) 7 years ago

Amen. Well said.