Forum Post: A review of the OWS movement from a non supporter
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 4, 2011, 10:13 a.m. EST by HeavySigh
(227)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Let me start off this analysis by shutting up a large portion of you. I am NOT in the 1% (yet), I am not a "paid troll by the right", I am not a troll, etc.
I had no idea what this movement was about to begin with. Instead of going to the media outlets, I went to this very website first. I didn't get a clear picture of the movement, even on the about page. There were a lot of emotional terms being thrown around like "solidarity", "corruption", "fairness", "greed", "lies", and such. There was an obvious absence of specific goals or outcomes. I then went to the forums to get some clarity on the movement and swiftly realized a few things.
At this time I want to make an important point. I am against corruption. I like the idea of getting politics to work for the people and not a few.
That said, let's get back to the topic at hand. After arriving at the forums I saw a lot of things along the lines of "the rich need to be taxed more", "i have problems that were caused by other people and they need to be fixed", and to top it off, a general lack of understanding of the market and economics. I'm trying to be concise here so let me just make a few points about the movement and then I'll be done. I'm being concise, so I am making some generalizations and not being as in depth as I want.
1) This movement is already over with a lack of goals -I've seen some of you argue all you need to do is protest and goals aren't important...well...you're an idiot.
2) Loans that you have are on you. You have NO rights to have them forgiven. You signed the papers, you agreed to it, now have some accountability.
3) The "rich people" are not evil. They do NOT deserve to pay 60-70% tax as some of you are suggesting. That is insane. That is not fair in the least bit.
The problem with our country is NOT the rich. It's our fault. Our country is overrun with entitlement programs. Our generations are becoming lazy and apathetic. Even though it was WRONG for the companies to offer subprime loans and market them as AAA products, we still lived outside our means. If you can't afford it, don't buy it. It is not the creditors or the banks fault we are getting into debt. We would much rather march around and cry about the situation than try to fix it. What happened to hard work and determination? Half the country doesn't pay income tax. People are content to live off the government instead of changing the world for the better. We are entitled to nothing but fair treatment. We have to kick this victim/entitlement mentality to fix where we are.
"But it helps to strengthen the already too prevalent view that the pursuit of profits is wicked and immoral and must be curbed and controlled by external forces. Once this view is adopted, the external forces that curb the market will not be the social consciences, however highly developed, of the pontificating executives; it will be the iron fist of Government bureaucrats." -Robert Audi
1) This movement is already over with a lack of goals -I've seen some of you argue all you need to do is protest and goals aren't important...well...you're an idiot.
Answer: The Tea Party didn't have a list of specific goals, yet they got promotional support from the Corporate Media without questioning the "lack of goals" and subsequently were hijacked by large Corporate interests. When large corporate interests hijacked the Tea Party movement the media continued to falsely promote it as a "grass roots movement" and never reported its takeover by the 1%. That was intentional on their part. Despite the consistent negative polling (see pollingreport.com) the media never stopped their endless promotion of the Tea Party on behalf of the 1%. The Tea Party elected officials manipulate legislation with the help of the media corporations and that legislation only benefits the 1%.
2) Loans that you have are on you. You have NO rights to have them forgiven. You signed the papers, you agreed to it, now have some accountability.
Answer: The SCAMS weren't mentioned. Top Student Loan Scams. http://thecollegeinvestor.com/317/top-student-loan-scams/
3) The "rich people" are not evil. They do NOT deserve to pay 60-70% tax as some of you are suggesting. That is insane. That is not fair in the least bit.
Answer: A recent CBO report indicated that: "The share of after-tax household income for the 1 percent of the population with the highest income more than doubled, climbing from nearly 8 percent in 1979 to 17 percent in 2007.
The population in the lowest income quintile received about 7 percent of after-tax income in 1979; by 2007, their share of after-tax income had fallen to about 5 percent. The middle three income quintiles all saw their shares of after-tax income decline by 2 to 3 percentage points between 1979 and 2007."
Furthermore, the CBO says that "an increasing concentration of market income" was the primary reason for the growing income inequality, but U.S tax system and government transfers were also contributors:
The report also included a graph showing increased disparity in household income (after transfers and federal taxes) between the top one percent and the rest of the population between 1979 and 2007:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/124xx/doc12485/WebSummary.pdf
It should be noted that the non-partisan CBO report was largely ignored by the Corporate Media.
Annual World Bank reports show that despite the lies in the US Corporate Media, US Corporations NOMINAL (before the tax loopholes) tax rates are AVERAGE for G12 and BRIC countries. Check it out yourself.
With all the loopholes the politicians protect with their lives the EFFECTIVE tax rates average around 25% with many of the largest corporations paying ZERO. That puts it near the BOTTOM of other G12 and BRIC countries.
4) You also stated: "Half the country doesn't pay income tax"
Answer: Repetition of an irrelevant media distortion repeated by easily trained parakeets.
A report by Congress’ Joint Committee on Taxation that 51 percent of households owed no federal income tax in 2009 is being used to advance the argument that low- and moderate-income families do not pay sufficient taxes.
The 51 percent figure is an anomaly that reflects the unique circumstances of 2009, when the recession greatly swelled the number of Americans with low incomes and when temporary tax cuts created by the 2009 Recovery Act — including the “Making Work Pay” tax credit and an exclusion from tax of the first $2,400 in unemployment benefits — were in effect. Together, these developments removed millions of Americans from the federal income tax rolls. Both of these temporary tax measures have since expired. In a more typical year, 35 percent to 40 percent of households owe no federal income tax. In 2007, the figure was 37.9 percent.
It also only reflected the Federal portion and did not include the payroll tax that many of these households pay , gasoline tax, state and local taxes, etc. When all federal, state, and local taxes are taken into account,the bottom fifth of households paid 16.3 percent of their incomes in taxes, on average, in 2010. The second-poorest fifth paid 20.7 percent
And again, the 51 percent figure is a temporary spike caused by the recession .
The problem is the news media (that represents the 1% interest and NOT the Public Interest as they are supposed to) and it's ability to train people like pets into repeating falsehoods.
John
I'm not going to address the entire response here, but I just want to talk to you guys about what is a fair tax? Let's not even get started on the taxes our country revolted over, but let's talk about today. Do you consider 60% being a fair rate for rich people? Would you pay that much? I have a close friend from Denmark that wants to come live here, not because he doesn't like Denmark, but because his parents have to pay 65% tax. He was here during the summer visiting and was very vocal about how much he hates it. He makes an average salary, I think it was 12-15/hr and he only took home about 8.
You see brother, You really have no desire to understand this movement. You just want to talk about what ignites ur fire. This movement is passed all that…we are here to voice the opinion of humanity.
Well, there are a few things to consider here. First of all, income tax is paid on income based upon the bracket that income falls into, not as an overall tax on all income (a common misconception). So a person making $100,000 and falling into the 25% tax rate bracket doesn't pay $25,000 in income tax. Rather that person pays the same portions of income on income falling into lower brackets that those making lesser amounts do, and only pays the 25% rate on income falling within that bracket. So a 90% income tax rate (which would be too high, admittedly) would only effect income dollars above $379,000, not all of a wealthy individual's income. If we are talking about income tax reform, a higher tax rate on upper income brackets would not make the wealthy any comparatively poorer to lower income earners (i.e. they would earn some compensation for their efforts and earn more than those who don't). If we are talking capital gains tax reform, which is more important, that tax rate at the highest bracket is much lower (15%) and could be raised a modest amount (say 25%) without breaking the banks of wealthier Americans. While it may seem counter-intuitive, there are advantages to discouraging the pursuit of limitless wealth, one of which is that by making the pursuit of wealth beyond a certain point less gainful, consolidation of wealth (and thereby power) in a single individual is more naturally discouraged (because taking a larger share of the pie becomes less attractive as you gain less by doing so). Higher taxes on greater accumulations of wealth also contribute towards ensuring that the government is funded at least as well as the corporations and power brokers the government seeks to regulate, which is immeasurably important. In short, do I think a 60% tax rate would be fair? Not on people in any of the current income brackets, no, but it could be fair if applied to income earned above, say, one million dollars a year. And if I was a millionaire, yes, I would gladly pay that, because I wouldn't stop wanting to make money (especially that much money) doing something I clearly must be good at just because I make less at it. Now, personally, I think raising the rate to 50% for income dollars above 1 million is enough. So if you want an actual rate, there it is.
The Taxed Enough Already party had ( has) specific goals. Cut, Cap and Balance.
I have just taken the last twenty minutes to read through all these posts. I have spent a lot of time on this forum and other forums related to OWS. What I have tried to do is find common ground. Conflict is not my forte. I agree with your statement above, "It's our fault." You are absolutely right. We have all had a part in where we are today. I believe what is different now is that we have reached a point in evolution where we realize we are all connected. The financial crisis has provided us with an opportunity to come together to discuss a better way, to develop new systems. It doesn't matter which politician you vote for, or how many millions you make or how many loans you pay back or don't pay back, nothing will change until people change. It is people who run the corporations, it is people who make up government, it is we the people who can create our world each and every day. I see the model at Zucotti Park as a microcosm of the world those that are there envision. These young people have begun a movement that won't stop. I personally am inspired. What is more important than any demands is the intention. This was the first question I had when I saw this post. What was the intention of the person who posted this? My intention here is to continue to network and bring people into the movement that has begun where I live, in small town U.S.A., right wing, Republican, Fox news watchers for the most part. That's okay. I know that they too are saddened by what our country has become, a place where the basic needs (food, shelter, health care) of millions of people can not be met. When we ask ourselves why, the answers make no sense. The profit motive has invaded every facet of our lives. These people who do not have access to basic needs are not all freeloaders living off entitlement programs. They are families where unemployment has forced foreclosure, the elderly on fixed incomes, your neighbor who was laid off, the man who got sick and went bankrupt paying for his medical care and is now homeless. These are just some examples. So you want a clear message and demands from a movement that is about human suffering. I would never speak for anybody else, but for me it is about the future of humanity. As we continue these dialogues the messages and ideas will emerge. We are all human, and we are all the same. We may think we are different, we may look different, we may have different politics, we may drive different cars, but it really doesn't matter. What matters is our intention.
Wow very well said brother! This perpetual movement is about getting greed out of grid and bring humanity into it!
What a great message. Thank you!
I just come from the heart,
" These young people" did not start ows. It's been orchestrated, planned for a long time by George Soros and the arms of his organizations. The point of it all,.....forment class warfare keep 0bama in power.
I'll have to research that one. Where can I back that up?
NYCC , created by ACORN
I expected better from Soros. I thought he could do more damage.
This is just the warm up for next year.
I agree with some of your points. I believe that if people want anything to get done they need to pick ONE large issue and demand that it be changed. Every time OWS brings up the environment they get written off as hippies. And aren't taken seriously. It's sad, it shouldn't be that way, but right now it's not paramount to the financial issues so drop it and fix it later.
The student loan issues are a big deal ($1 trillion is a massive number). Education is an expensive necessity and loans are unavoidable. Working to save to get into school is just not an option anymore even at a cheap state school.
Despite economic hardship and high unemployment rate, people should NOT have their loans forgiven. That will make issues worse. However, lenders should be able to negotiate better to allow a borrower to pay a monthly payment that isn't more than a certain percentage of their pay check. Federal student loans are doing this and I think private lenders should do the same. Some lenders refuse to be even a little helpful (google: sallie mae ruined my life).
It's all give and take. Lenders should give the debtors a break, debtors should help the lenders out and pay a reasonable amount. This will allow portions of paychecks to go out into the economy instead of strait to the banks. The banks are going to hold on to their money or lend it out. It doesn't really go anywhere else.
I'm not 100% for OWS's messages but I'm not 100% against it. The beauty of it is you can help them be more organized with how to solve the nation's problems by speaking up. You don't have to agree with everything to be apart of a solution. Our own congress doesn't agree in complete consensus. The ability to speak out is important so that people don't lose sight of what is important. Continue to try and persuade OWS to try different ideas on. :)
This was an educated response. +1 to you sir or madam
"a general lack of understanding of the market and economics."
if the people don't understand, should there be a system that they can understand ?
I don't think you posted this to the right person. But I agree with you that we should have a system that is easier to understand.
"a general lack of understanding of the market and economics. "
if the people in general do not understand the market system,
the marker system can exploit them
I love #2 Simply logic at its finest. You signed it, you own it.
unless you are a massive Wall Street financial institution whose former CEO is secretary of the treasury, then you get a $700B bailout funded by rank and file taxpayers. what a joke.
I know. How dare someone have to keep their word!!!!! I am entitled to not be accountable for anything!
I share your views 100%.
As to ows, I firmly believe that if the 'movement' would adopt a platform... reform the political process to eliminate (or minimize) the role of corporate and union money... you would find a very sympathetic public.
But reading this website, one would conclude that ows stands in opposition to every institution in the U.S., from police force to pizza parlor and all points in between.
Believe it or not, while concerned about the direction of our nation and interested in a better future, most Americans are just not that angry.
The first step toward success is focusing on an objective. A corollary to that is that the first step toward failure is to avoid focusing on an objective.
If this movement remains religiously in-focused then it will only serve as a pool of latent and undirected energy, vulnerable to co-option by anarchists like the people in Oakland who shut down the port for no clear reason, doing more harm to the 99% than to the 1%.
(The Zeitgeist spam tacked onto the end of this page is a funny and sad reminder of how this movement tends to attract crackpots who are not interested in focusing on realistic, productive objectives.)
Well said! It IS our fault. We have allowed our politicians to pursue their own interests instead of the interests of the people.
I only need to point out one thing: the faith that you have in meritocracy that underlies your arguments - especially #3 and the then the paragraph about hard work - is what is leading you astray. Meritocracy is a mythical ideal that does not exist. In a meritocracy, a child born in poverty would have the same chance of reaching the 1% as a child born into the 1%. Ask yourself if you think that's really true.
Everything else - all your other simplified arguments over "fair" tax rates for the rich and entitlement programs - falls apart if that simple, single premise of opportunity doesn't hold.
it's called life. And yes there are many, many..... one more time, many programs for people who were born into underprivileged situations.
By the way, one program that is ready to blowup in our faces. Student debt, The Fed's stepped in and backed or gave tuition to people who either couldn't afford it or didn't deserve it because of their scholastic background. So now, say, a minority with a bad scholastic background is accepted to a school because of the quota system. That student either a) makes it half way then quits and has 20-40 G's in debt or b) makes it but still can't find work becasue of various reasons and can't pay back the loan. Just like students who are finding it hard to get work and can't pay back their loans.
I would like to make one point thought; students who are coming out of a school witha degree have an unemployment rate of about 4.5%
I don't believe that the 4.5% rate you mentioned takes into account underemployment (i.e. working at a wage substantially under the pay grade for the industry your degree qualifies you for). There are plenty of employed graduates working cashier jobs. It's not lack of work ethic either. In many cases, it's lack of connections, i.e. cronyism.
connections, work ethic, and, frankly, what kind of degree you have are all variables. But the one big thing that needs to be recognized is the "hustle" factor. Gotta hustle, that how it's done, that how this country was built and that's how you get the good jobs and meet the right people. Hustle, hustle, hustle
Here's what I am confused about (as far as the griping about repayment of student loan debt) - the Federal Aid system being what it is, MOST people in the 99% qualify for at least some amount of state and federal aid, whether it is in the form of Pell Grants, State-specific Grants, and Subsidized/Unsubsidized Stafford Loans. If your family's EIC is too high, then you have to apply for private loans or PLUS Loans.
So...it should be safe to assume that at least a few of these students received Stafford/Pell/Grants, etc. Are they not aware of the various payment programs and repayment changes that can be made? They (governmental note holders) WILL work with students to either put the loan on hold, do an income-based repayment plan, etc. My loan repayment started out at about $500 a month, once I graduated. Just from the website, I was able to alter my loan schedule, lower my payment about $200 a month, file for a forbearance due to a financial circumstance, etc.
There is also loan forgiveness in many fields, depending on your occupation. Sure, you may not want to teach school on an Indian Reservation for a few years, but if it means you'll get your loans forgiven, why not? Nursing students and doctors also have that option.
Why are more students not applying for any and every scholarship at their school of choice? What about work study? What about not borrowing the maximum amount and working while you go to school?
I hesitate to bring up this next point, because I am concerned that some of the responses might be a bit offensive, but hear me out. There is one job that is ALWAYS hiring, and can also help you pay for college tuition, gives you room and board, etc - what about enlisting in the military? Most of the branches have bumped up the enlistment age to about 35-ish, but if you are 18 and don't want to take out a huge loan for four years of school, why not enlist and do your 4? Then you've got the G.I. Bill to pay for school, and you can also take classes while enlisted. As the daughter of 2 retired Air Force vets, I can tell you that I remember growing up in both base housing and regular housing. My parents received housing stipends, food stipends, free medical care on base (I was born at MacDill in Tampa), retirement, travel at steeply reduced prices, etc.
The other thing I brushed upon in another thread but didn't see much about afterwards is the fact that the banks are not responsible for the cost of tuition. In Texas, our State Legislature 'deregulated' the state cap on tuition in 2003. From that point on, the schools were allowed to decide how much it would cost to attend. Once that happened, tuition to public universities in Texas increased by 47% (as of 2010).
Frustrated39, you brought up a lot of good points. Ok, this is a little off topic, but your comments made me think about all of my family members who have recently attended college. What I have seen is that, for some reason, many parents are willing to send their children to out of state colleges at an astronomical cost, despite not being able to afford the school or despite not obtaining a high paying degree. I have two cousins who just took out astronomical loans. Their costs of tuition, room and board was over 43K per year. One obtained a decent job in the financial sector and the other is an art teacher. The parents were well educated and capable of making a sound decision but for some reason encouraged this. They could have saved two-thirds of the money by going to school in state and even living at home. Now, the parents are having financial trouble, so they are selling their house. My youngest brother attended a school in state, and will graduate will virtually a few thousand dollars in debt (he qualified for the Stafford/Pell and a few loans). When my daughter decided to go to college, I fully educated her on what life would be life being burdened with loans, and I told her she could go to school in our state with our help, or she could take out huge loans and pay to go out of state. It's really not rocket science to figure out that it's not worth paying 100K or more for an undergraduate degree just to go to some fancy private school or out of state. Yet, I see so many people I know who can't afford to send their kids to these schools, still do it (by taking out massive loans they'll have trouble repaying).
So your argument is that life isn't fair? Of course it isn't. That's life. I choose to deal with it and move on. My parents are middle class, blue collar people. I've never been expected to just get by. I've always been expected to work hard and make something of myself. It works.
Yes I know people fail. Yes I know it doesnt' always work out. Obviously
My argument is not only that life isn't fair. My argument is that life isn't fair - but we don't have to reinforce unfairness. We - human beings with function - can strive to do better. We don't have to build up social systems that reinforce injustice. And especially we can NOT build up social systems that reinforce injustice and then argue that they are fair while at the same time saying life isn't fair. Especially this.
No way, someone with ideas on here!?! So what do you intend to specifically change. Keep going with your thought.
There are many, many individuals with ideas here. It is ironic to me that you have the gall to patronize them - and me - while still proudly bearing your preconceived bias. Address that for yourself first, and then we can talk ideas.
Do you blame me for grouping people together? Everyone on here screams justice, freedom, and fairness, but nothing realistic. I was serious when I wanted you to continue your thought. You are one of the few intelligent people talking to me on here with real ideas.
Yes, I do blame you for grouping people together. Don't get me wrong: I understand the temptation. It is easy to fall into it.
But it is still wrong. You and I know logically, ethically, morally, it is wrong. Anything else is rationalization - and not the good kind, either. Just the kind that reinforces our own bad behaviors because we are too stubborn to get it right.
Not going to continue and be specific with your thoughts? ok.
No, I'm not. I have them, I have plenty. It starts with separating money and governance. It ends with an end to the Enlightenment's ideal of perfect rationality - or, I should say, the completion of the Enlightenment's idea of rationality by adding modern cognitive science's understanding of the human brain's less rational processes. In between is a reformulation of political theory and theories of social justice. I don't really have an economic platform, but I know the ones predicated on perfect rational market actors are bonked.
My question is: What would you like me to talk about, and how long should I dedicate to this? Especially if you're going to be dug in with your preconceived bias, I don't see how this would benefit anyone (other than, obviously, you).
I'm waving off your request only after having given thought to it on its own merits. If your request really was made in good faith, then let me suggest you start with John Rawls' Theory of Justice.
While we are on Rawls, what are you talking about specifically? I agree with him that the utilitarian view does not hold when looking for an impartial spectator to judge. Specifically in that we are all different and what is good for "aggregate well being" may not be good for me or you. Specifically he says "utilitarianism does not take seriously the distinction between persons".
The most important point he's made, in my view, is that the judgement of justice for a society must be made behind the blind veil. (Yes, I know it's not his idea originally. But he has the most modern development of it that I've seen.)
This is the implication that our subjective biases are no way to build a moral or just foundation for a society. A world built on me first will not strive for justice, it will strive for the injustices that benefit those with a voice. This is the larger (and long overdue) explicit acknowledgement that our bias towards selfishness is in conflict with the ideals of justice and humanity.
I like Nozik's ideas a little more. Rawls focuses more on the end-state of distribution whereas Nozik is more about how it happens. It seems to me that his idea, where distribution is just as long as every step along the way is fair, is right on. It is flat out wrong, and infringes on their rights, to distribute someone's money because someone else needs it (in a system as we have here, there are exceptions obviously). I find that to be what a lot of the OWS people want to happen, or a variation of such. That is a scary place to be. Nozik makes a good point when he says that such redistribution would require "constant interference" and would require "reeducation" and "self criticism". It's just a slippery slope honestly.
My point is there is a severe lack of clear goals or ideas about what needs to be done. You seem like you should know of some things that specifically should happen. I'm fed up to here with emotional words and generalizations. This movement, whether I agree with it or not, needs a direction. It's probably already too late.
No more room to reply in the other thread. So you get one last thought: self-criticism and re-education are fundamental to improvement. I pointed it out above - question your bias. Is it just? No amount of criticism from me will change your mind. That's on you.
Note that I do not make the argument that all self-criticism and re-education is "good".
I have other problems with Nozick - which is obvious given my trumpeting of blind veil justice. The selfishness angle is as strong a destructive force as it is a constructive one. I asked someone else here, and I ask you the same thing. What takes priority? Liberty or justice? The two often work hand-in-hand, and we can trumpet both with a clear conscience. But when they do come in conflict, what do we ultimately choose, and why?
Also: slippery slope is a bunk argument. I know why we make it - the implicit statement is "well, where do we draw the line..." The response to slippery slope is always: if we haven't figured out where to draw the line, we're not done thinking about it. We've defined something wrong, or too vaguely, or too simply, or whatever. We're not done.
I don't disagree that re-education cannot be valid. However, who is deciding it? And I'm not validating selfishness with Nozik. I am however saying that if rights are not infringed upon and it is fair, then someone is entitled to their money and not you. Should they help people? Yes they should. They should not be forced to though. I am not going to act like I wouldn't want a business to give its employees a share of profits and not just stockholders, but I cannot say it is ethically required to infringe on rights and force them too. Whether they are being selfish or not, if they are entitled to it, under Nozik's idea, then I cannot be justified in taking it. It's like the crazy people who are allowed to protest the military funerals. I cannot stress how wrong they are, but I cannot take away a right from them.
Use of the very term "social system" is where I lose all interest in OWS and all that it stands for. I do not wish to put my faith in a system. I prefer freedom to succeed or fail on my own.
You are mistaken if you think you live in a vacuum. You are mistaken if you don't think the roads you use, the police forces you rely on, the traffic laws you drive under, the money that you use, the air you breathe and the water you drink aren't all subject to the underlying social philosophy.
This is part of the myth of meritocracy, by the way. Just putting that out there. It's also another logical fallacy to assume correlation is causality. I believe you, 100%, when you say you've worked hard. I will even go so far as to say that hard work is a factor in success. But it is not the only factor. It is never the only factor. It is not even always the decisive factor.
I know it to be true because I am a living example of going from a very poor situation to a very successful situation simply by hard work and God's grace. However, it is unreasonable to define success as going from the poverty level to reaching the 1% in one person's lifetime. I have worked my butt off since my teenage years and reached a point so that my kids or their kids now have an opportunity to someday reach the 1% if they too work hard enough and smart enough. I am very satisfied with that - and I will be ashamed if my descendants ever choose to vilify those who are successful or choose to demand anything from their government except freedom.
I'm also an example of someone who grew up in poverty and have reached success. But it's a logical fallacy to pretend you and I are typical - in fact, it's such a common fallacy that it gets it's own name: generalization fallacy.
The question isn't, "can anyone succeed?" The question is, "is the system just?" That's a lot harder to answer, and there is no room for logical fallacies. Because this isn't just cafe talk with our friends. There are real people who starve and suffer unjustly - not only here in our country, but around the world - when we get it wrong.
Generalization fallacy is indeed what permeates and pollutes much of the rhetoric on these forums, Excellent point.
I agree the system is not just as it is today. I completely agree with that statement. What I disagree with is the fact that OWS seems to think the fault lies with Wall Street or with successful private citizens, and not with a federal government who has created more imbalance and economic displacement than anyone involved in this equation. I include Republicans in this statement as well. Our government is too big and it spends too much. What we need is less government, and more freedom. I will be happy to compete in that environment.
The solution - "what we need" - is neither less nor more government. The solution is simply smarter government action - whether that means less or more is irrelevant - that is incentivized to work for the public good rather than for private moneyed interests.
Citizens, unchecked, will inherently reinforce injustice when it benefits them. This is not only the conflict between individual liberty vs. societal benefit writ large. This is not only the conflict between an individual's microeconomic goals and a nation's macroeconomic goals writ large.
It is also empirical fact - witness special interest lobbying. There are real, on the ground reasons why this is exploitable - despite rational market theory's insistence that it can't happen in the abstract. A good place to start is the idea of rational ignorance. Another good place to look: future discounting. Another place to look: externalities.
I mean, I can keep going, but trying to make a finite list and then knock them out one-by-one is subject to failure of imagination. That's no way to solve this. We need to formulate, as a society, a broader philosophical foundation that guides the decisions we will discover we have to make in the future.
The question is what takes priority for you: individual liberty or justice? The two do not always come into conflict - in fact, the two often work hand-in-hand. But when they do butt heads, and we have to make a choice, how do you choose?
I always choose liberty.
No, you don't. You think you do, and yet you accept the fact that you can't run a bulldozer over your neighbor's house if you want a larger yard. You recognize that taking that liberty deprives someone else of property rights, and that is unjust.
No more platitudes. Please, no more. We have grown sick and fat on simplistic platitudes.
I'll take liberty within the confines of the current US Constitution and I'll be just fine, thanks. Liberty is more than a platitude to me. It was paid for with blood. Sorry you do not feel that way.
More platitudes, Lord, this is why we are in the hole we're in. "__ is more than a platitude to me" and just fill in the blank. That's a platitude. Please think harder.
I am not saying that liberty isn't valuable. Of course it is.
But it is not the only value, not even to you. The Constitution is man-made law, and you demonstrate above that you value the rule of law. The Constitution is founded not only on liberty, but also on justice, in a tenuous balance. What else do you value?
You don't have to answer to me, I am not some grand judge or arbiter. But if you are going to participate in society and take on a role greater than passive acceptance, if you are going to advocate, then you must take responsibility, and that means understanding what you actually believe in, not just what you think you believe in. That means self-criticism, critical evaluation, and - please - no more platitudes.
I leave it to you. I refuse to judge you. This is on you to judge yourself.
Gee, thanks for giving me permission to participate in society. I take responsibility every day and fully understand what I believe in. One of the things I believe in is less power for the federal government than what we have today, and more freedom for individuals (and for the states) to operate according to what the Constitution says. Our federal government will never be "smarter". But it could be smaller and less intrusive.
There we go. LESS GOVERMENT. I cannot agree more. My goodness. +1. Finally.
Some good things to be had in here. We need goals, we need a way to get to them. Demonizing any group as "Evil" is just showing a childish outlook on the world.
Demanding something for nothing when we are angry at corporations doing the same make us look like hypocrites (because those people doing that are hypocrites).
This is hardly an objective review of OWS. You made up your mind long before you wrote this post. Two points.
First, this is an open forum. Everyone is here: democrats, independents, republicans, klan, nazis, tea party people, conservatives, liberals, gay, straight, unions, small business owners, communists, socialists, clowns and jesters all. This is the great thing about this movement. Some are posting statements which many disagree with. My problem is that you assume we all agree with these statements. This is wrong. This is American Democracy in action. This is not easy or smooth. It was not meant to be. This is also our last best hope.
Second, "when the excesses of business interests and their political proteges in Washington leave the regular guy broke and screwed, the response is always for the lower and middle classes to split down the middle and find reasons to get pissed off not at their greedy bosses but at each other.
It's a classic peasant mentality: going into fits of groveling and bowing whenever the master's carriage rides by, then fuming against the Turks in Crimea or the Jews in the Pale or whoever after spending fifteen hard hours in the fields. You know you're a peasant when you worship the very people who are right now, this minute, conning you and taking your shit. Whatever the master does, you're on board. When you get frisky, he sticks a big cross in the middle of your village, and you spend the rest of your life praying to it with big googly eyes. Or he puts out newspapers full of innuendo about this or that faraway group and you immediately salute and rush off to join the hate squad. A good peasant is loyal, simpleminded, and full of misdirected anger."
We are all peasants now, each and every one of us, made so by an insane set of brutal, selfish, non Christian, unAmerican, greed inducing economic policies that started with Calvin Coolidge and were updated by Ronald Reagan.
We are here and we are pissed. We are not going anywhere.
We are winning. Deal with it. Join us.
You are blaming the Washington why you guys are not in DC. This is serving DC as citizens are distracted.
It's called Occupy DC and Occupy K Street.
I have been there. it is a joke. There are couple of people there and you can see homeless people along. I asked a kid there why not many people here. he told me union leaders does not want in DC. Union leaders are trying to hijacking this movement.
Yes, I know. Go back. Often. Participate. Get involved FULLY, if you can. This won't happen overnight and it won't happen without you.
It's tough, frustrating, uncertain and glorious.
I've spent 2 weeks reading posts and not commenting. Believe what you want about me, but everything I pointed out has been said on here NUMEROUS times.
First, this movement needs some GOALS which it doesn't have. How can I know what you all agree with if there are none?
Second, that quote is garbage. It is not an educated assertion of anything close to reality.
There has been a place created to submit demands of the movement here. This "collaborative poll" has great potential as a structured way to share ideas and gather feedback from people within the movement, as well as people outside of the movement. Share your opinions here: https://urtak.com/u/10364
Apparently, De Nile is not just a river in Egypt.
Is that supposed to be a counter argument? It's posts like these I don't understand in this forum. "Oh, I posted a witty comment so I win".
Yes, it is a counter argument. You need a simply stated goal that you can evaluate and agree with. You are here because you know something is wrong, but you want the solution gift wrapped in wrapping paper you like.
Good luck with that. This is a new type of movement, consensus based and as leaderless as possible.
If you do not see the problems with bought off politicians selling the country out on the cheap, with regulators who will not protect the public, with stateless, soulless corporations making life difficult for an increasing number of people around the world, then I can not help you. You want risk without uncertainty, a cure without a pill, you want to keep doing what you are doing.
No can do.
I may not be a supporter, but I was rooting for this movement when it began. I liked the idea of an organic, grass-roots assembly of the people standing up against a common foe. HOWEVER...A movement without a message is meaningless...A message without a voice cannot be heard...A voice without an audience will not effect change. You have an audience. You seem to be missing the other key components.
The problem a lot of people appear to be having is this: this is your movement. A message will not develop unless you develop one. Yes, YOU. Don't just wait on the sidelines. No one will deliver freedom to you in a nice shiny box. You have to go get it.
That approach will generate an infinite number of messages. How will that effect change? The power of numbers (the large number of protesters) can work in your favor if you have a common voice and common message. Otherwise, you simply have a crowd with no real purpose.
No. This is a technique used by many groups. It takes longer, but once you get to agreement, the result is solid.
Well...you've conceded that you need agreement. A common message. After nearly two months, I still don't know what the message is. Is there a list of demands or expectations? Does the group attempt to form consensus with a vote? How are you getting nearer to the agreement? Pardon my ignorance, but I am not in the vicinity of the movement and have not found answers to these questions. Are you an "occupier"? If so, are you at Zuccotti Park?
Learn to read, from my post "At this time I want to make an important point. I am against corruption. I like the idea of getting politics to work for the people and not a few."
I am a proponent of actually working within the system, not just protesting without goals or demands. I want to change things, but being "leaderless" and just protesting is not going to get it done.
Watch.
Oh believe me, I am. I'm just not drinking the koolade and can see it for what it is.
Absolutely an astute post, you are correct.
"We have to kick this victim/entitlement mentality to fix where we are."
Fine, on the other spectrum, let banks fail and not get bailed out by taxpayers, enforce the law and show accountability in financial and political fraud, allow the person who takes a school loan to be able to declare bankruptcy, don't allow Citi to dump toxic loans on an entity with the FDIC umbrella, don't allow robosigning fraud to get off on a few dollars without any investigation and enforcement of law, let those who sold shitty repackaged securities to pension plans and others without full disclosure eat the losses, take out all the tax loopholes, stop the revolving door between business and politics, and on and on.
Somewhere in there I said all that was agreeable and good?
That;s true, read the post again.
Here's my response to those who think the movement "lacks goals" or that it is bad/wrong/stupid to remain a generalist movement and not align ourselves with this or that particular policy or program: People are participating in this movement because they are determined to see things change for the better in this country and the world, and there is general agreement that there is no one right way to do this. In fact, I would argue that most of those participating in the movement celebrate a curious, open-minded, tolerant, and experimental approach to problem-solving. The problems that humanity faces are systemic and interconnected, and the movement's lack of a "platform" reflects that dynamic, complex connectedness. In general, this movement is a profound expression of how many people (globally) are adopting totally different values and a totally different vision for human societies than the one we're operating under now.
"Feel good" ism isn't going to get you the changes you want. Sorry. I'm not against, change, but I am against doing it this way. Not having a goal and "not having one right way to do it" doesn't equate to real results.
To heavysigh who posted this: I ask you because you are wanted in the movement like this. View the following video and tell us what in this process convinces you that all is well? http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/jack-abramoffs-guide-to-buying-congressmen/2011/08/25/gIQAoXKLvM_blog.html
You start out making points, then suddenly declare that people who are not thinking similarily to you "are idiots". I stopped reading right there and will not bother reading your posts again, heavysigh.
They are idiots if they don't think this movement needs direction and goals. They want success and don't want to do what it takes. Idiots. And you're free to stop reading anytime you want.
I'm curious as to what specific entitlements you believe are overrunning our government.
If you think welfare is a good program than you're blind. Sorry. Unemployment is basically infinite now. Nationalized healthcare is a disaster in the making. What programs does our government run that aren't entitlement monsters? What kind of people are we making?
Look at our country. We want everything for free, we don't want to work for it, we "deserve" everything, and people that have what we don't have are evil. That mind set is what is ruining us.
Interesting. I notice that you don't mention Social Security, Medicare, or Defense as budget issues.
Where in that response did I mention a budget. It's the mentality. Look at us. "I signed a loan and agreed to it but I'm the victim here I'm entitled to your money".... There are a lot of issues going on that have a lot to do with our perspective now.
I agree that loans should not be forgiven but, banks should assess their risk better when providing loans. Banks providing loans have much more experience in the process than do individuals. Both parties are at fault in my opinion.
It wasn't the banks fault entirely. The position we are in now is because a) the banks made subprime loans b) They were packaged together and marketed as AAA by the ratings agencies and sold c) companies like AIG sold insurance on them, even to people that didn't own them, and go raped when it tanked, as they should have.
Then we are agreed.
No conflict - ONE large issue - We need to pick an issue that is simple - that is popular - how about an issue that 83% of Americans already agree on - that 56% of TP agree on - that will cement the people in OWS with the people outside of OWS
Our only goal should be to pass a constitutional amendment to counter Supreme Court decisions Citizens United (2010) & Buckley v. Valeo (1976), that enable unlimited amounts of anonymous money to flood into our political system. It will be as short and concise as possible, a legally constructed “corporations and other organizations are not a persons and have no personhood rights” and “money is not free speech”.
We don’t have to persuade people to accept our position – we have to persuade them to ACT based on their own position. Pursuing this goal will prove to the world that we, at OWS, are a serious realistic Movement, with serious realistic goals. Achieving this goal will make virtually every other goal – from jobs, to taxes, to infrastructure , to Medicare – much easier to achieve – by disarming our greatest enemy – GREED.
THE SUCCESS STORY OF THE AMENDING PROCESS The Prohibition movement started as a disjointed effort by conservative teetotalers who thought the consumption of alcohol was immoral. They ransacked saloons and garnered press coverage here and there for a few years. Then they began to gain support from the liberals because many considered alcohol partially responsible for spousal and child abuse, among other social ills. This odd alliance, after many years of failing to influence change consistently across jurisdictions, decided to concentrate on one issue nationally—a constitutional amendment. They pressured all politicians on every level to sign a pledge to support the amendment. Any who did not, they defeated easily at the ballot box since they controlled a huge number of liberal, and conservative and independent swing votes in every election. By being a single-issue constituency attacking from all sides of the political spectrum, they very quickly amassed enough votes (2/3) to pass the amendment in Congress. And, using the same tactics, within just 17 months they were successful in getting ¾ of the state legislatures to ratify the constitutional amendment into law. (Other amendments were ratified even faster: Eight—the 7th, 12th, 13th, 15th, 17th, 20th, 21st and 26th—took less than a year. The 26th, granting 18-year-olds the right to vote, took just three months and eight days.)
If they could tie the left and right into success -
WHY CAN'T WE??????????
I feel that we should stay with this simple text to overturn CU:
”corporations are not people” and “money is not free speech”
for four simple reasons and one – not so simple:
1
83% of Americans have already opposed CU in the ABC/Washington post poll and the above
IS THEIR POSITION ALREADY.
2
We don’t have to work to convince people on the validity of our position.
3
Simple is almost always better.
4
This simple Amendment is REQUIRED to overturn CU.
And all other electoral reform can be passed through the normal legislative process.
5
OWS and these pages are chock full of ( mostly ) excellent ideas to improve our country. All of them have strong advocates – and some have strong opposition. None of them has been “pre-approved” by 83% of Americans ! Pursuing this goal – without additional specifics is exactly what Americans want. What do we want? Look at that almost endless list of demands – goals - aims.
Tax the rich. End the Fed. Jobs for all, Medicare for all. So easy to state. Can you imagine how hard it would be to formulate a “sales pitch” for any of these to convince your Republican friends to vote for them. 83% of Americans have ALREADY “voted” against CU. 76% of the Rs.
All we have to do ask Americans is to pressure their representatives – by letters - emails – petitions,
Wanna take your family on vacation? Convince the 7 year old and the 10 year old to go to Mt Rushmore. Then try to convince them to go to Disneyland.
Prioritizing this goal will introduce us to the world – not as a bunch of hippie radical anarchist socialist commie rabblerousers – but as a responsible, mature movement that is fighting for what America wants.
I feel that using the tactics of the NRA, the AARP an the TP – who all represent a minority – who have successfully used their voting power to achieve their minority goals plus the Prohibition Amendment tactics – bringing all sides together - is a straight path for us to success that cannot fail to enable us to create & complete one MAJORITY task.
I hope this gets some traction.
I would like to point out that during the hay-day of America, the 1950s-1970s, the tax rate on the richest people was 90%.
Think on that.
you mean post war america?
Which means it was fair, obviously. I can assure you if I made 20 million a year, I wouldn't ever be ok with having 50% of it taxed. I want to pay taxes for infrastructure, programs, schools, etc. What I do with the rest is up to me because it's MY MONEY. Sure, I want to help people out and give money to charity, but where it goes should be my decision.You have no right to say otherwise.
Why are you all against making goals? Just a question.
Profits are not wicked; the pursuit of profit is not wicked. Money is not evil, but the love of money (greed) does create problems. What is wrong is that the game is rigged in favor of corporations and the very wealthy. When I graduated college, I had no debt (good, affordable state school). I worked summers, holidays, and even during school because there were plenty of jobs available. My security was knowing I could always find a job to pay my bills, and I wouldn't have to move to another state or country to do it. In the middle '80's, the game was rigged in favor of those who were at the top of the earnings chart. Investments in investments instead of investments in real growth. The rich got richer and the rest of us flatlined. But momentum carried us further than it should have (I, for one, knew that too much easy credit would lead to disaster, but I was silent, I'm sorry to say, and I used the system to my own benefit). It seems that people come together when they are against something more than when they are for something, probably because there are too many options in the "for" category, whereas objections don't have to have solutions. I would like to see this energy harnessed into positive approaches to work within the system. Every single individual out there has one vote more than any corporation. Let corps. spend their money creating commercials that are geared to influence...but do not be influenced. Find candidates in your own ranks and promote them. Each state has only two senators...and many of them are up for reelection. Bernie Sanders could probably help.
We have been mislead by Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr, Obama, and nearly every other public figure. Economic growth, job creation, and actual prosperity are not necessarily a package deal. In fact, the first two are horribly misunderstood. Economic growth/loss (GDP) is little more than a measure of domestic wealth changing hands. A transfer of currency from one party to another. The rate at which it is traded. This was up until mid ’07′ however, has never been a measure of actual prosperity. Neither has job creation. The phrase itself has been thrown around so often, and in such a generic political manner, that it has come to mean nothing. Of course, we need to have certain things done for the benefit of society as a whole. We need farmers, builders, manufacturers, transporters, teachers, cops, firefighters, soldiers, mechanics, sanitation workers, doctors, managers, and visionaries. Their work is vital. I’ll even go out on a limb and say that we need politicians, attorneys, bankers, investors, and entertainers. In order to keep them productive, we must provide reasonable incentives. We need to compensate each by a fair measure for their actual contributions to society. We need to provide a reasonable scale of income opportunity for every independent adult, every provider, and share responsibility for those who have a legitimate need for aid. In order to achieve and sustain this, we must also address the cost of living and the distribution of wealth. Here, we have failed miserably. The majority have already lost their home equity, their financial security, and their relative buying power. The middle class have actually lost much of their ability to make ends meet, re-pay loans, pay taxes, and support their own economy. The lower class have gone nearly bankrupt. In all, its a multi-trillion dollar loss taken over about 30 years. Millions are under the impression that we need to create more jobs simply to provide more opportunity. as if that would solve the problem. It won’t. Not by a longshot. Jobs don’t necessarily create wealth. In fact, they almost never do. For the mostpart, they only transfer wealth from one party to another. A gain here. A loss there. Appreciation in one community. Depreciation in another. In order to create net wealth, you must harvest a new resource or make more efficient use of one. Either way you must have a reliable and ethical system in place to distribute that newly created wealth in order to benefit society as a whole and prevent a lagging downside. The ‘free market’ just doesn’t cut it. Its a farce. Many of the jobs created are nothing but filler. The promises empty. Sure, unemployment reached an all-time low under Bush. GDP reached an all-time high. But those are both shallow and misleading indicators. In order to gauge actual prosperity, you must consider the economy in human terms. As of ’08′ the average American was working more hours than the previous generation with far less equity to show for it. Consumer debt, forclosure, and bankruptcy were also at all-time highs. As of ’08′, every major American city was riddled with depressed communities, neglected neighborhoods, failing infrastructures, lost revenue, and gang activity. All of this has coincided with massive economic growth and job creation. Meanwhile, the rich have been getting richer and richer and richer even after taxes. Our nation’s wealth has been concentrated. Again, this represents a multi-trillion dollar loss taken by the majority. Its an absolute deal breaker. Bottom line: With or without economic growth or job creation, you must have a system in place to prevent too much wealth from being concentrated at the top. Unfortunately, we don’t. Our economy has become nothing but a giant game of Monopoly. The richest one percent of Americans already own nearly 1/2 of all US wealth. An all-time high. More than double their share before Reagan took office. The lower 90 percent of Americans own less than 10 percent of all US wealth. An all-time low. Still, the rich want more. They absolutely will not stop. Now, our society as a whole is in serious jeapordy. Greed kills.
Those of you who agree on these major issues are welcome to summarize this post, copy it, link to it, save it, show a friend, or spread the word in any fashion. Most major cities have daily call-in talk radio shows. You can reach thousands of people at once. They should know the ugly truth. Be sure to quote the figures which prove that America's wealth is still being concentrated. I don't care who takes the credit. We are up against a tiny but very powerful minority. The rich have more influence on the masses than any other group in history. They have the means to reach millions at once with outrageous political and commercial propaganda. Those of us who speak the ugly truth must work incredibly hard just to be heard.
The ugly truth. America's wealth is STILL being concentrated. When the rich get too rich, the poor get poorer. These latest figures prove it. AGAIN.
According to the Social Security Administration, 50 percent of U.S. workers made less than $26,364 in 2010. In addition, those making less than $200,000, or 99 percent of Americans, saw their earnings fall by $4.5 billion collectively. The sobering numbers were a far cry from what was going on for the richest one percent of Americans.
The incomes of the top one percent of the wage scale in the U.S. rose in 2010; and their collective wage earnings jumped by $120 billion. In addition, those earning at least $1 million a year in wages, which is roughly 93,000 Americans, reported payroll income jumped 22 percent from 2009. Overall, the economy has shed 5.2 million jobs since the start of the Great Recession in 2007. It’s the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression in the 1930’s.
Another word about the first Great Depression. It really was a perfect storm. Caused almost entirely by greed. First, there was unprecedented economic growth. There was a massive building spree. There was a growing sense of optimism and materialism. There was a growing obsession for celebrities. The American people became spoiled, foolish, naive, brainwashed, and love-sick. They were bombarded with ads for one product or service after another. Encouraged to spend all of their money as if it were going out of style. Obscene profits were hoarded at the top. In 1928, the rich were already way ahead. Still, they were given huge tax breaks. All of this represented a MASSIVE transfer of wealth from poor to rich. Executives, entrepreneurs, developers, celebrities, and share holders. By 1929, America's wealthiest 1 percent had accumulated around 40% of all United States wealth. The upper class held around 30%. The middle and lower classes were left to share the rest. When the majority finally ran low on money to spend, profits declined and the stock market crashed.
Of course, the rich threw a fit and started cutting jobs. They would stop at nothing to maintain their disgusting profit margins and ill-gotten obscene levels of wealth as long as possible. The small business owners did what they felt necessary to survive. They cut more jobs. The losses were felt primarily by the little guy. This created a domino effect. The middle class shrunk drastically and the lower class expanded. With less wealth in reserve and active circulation, banks failed by the hundreds. More jobs were cut. Unemployment reached 25% in 1933. The worst year of the Great Depression. Those who were employed had to settle for much lower wages. Millions went cold and hungry. The recovery involved a massive infusion of new currency, a World War, and higher taxes on the rich. With so many men in the service, so many women on the production line, and those higher taxes to help pay for it, the lions share of United States wealth was gradually transfered back to the middle class. This redistribution of wealth continued until the mid seventies. This was the recovery. A massive redistribution of wealth. Then it began to concentrate all over again. Here we are 35 years later. The richest one percent now own well over 40 percent of all US wealth. The lower 90 percent own less than 10 percent of all US wealth. This is true even after taxes, welfare, financial aid, and charity. It is the underlying cause. No redistribution. No recovery.
The government won't step in and do what's necessary. Not this time. It's up to us. Support small business more and big business less. Support the little guy more and the big guy less. It's tricky but not impossible. No redistribution. No recovery.
Those of you who agree on these major issues are welcome to summarize this post, copy it, link to it, save it, show a friend, or spread the word in any fashion. Most major cities have daily call-in talk radio shows. You can reach thousands of people at once. They should know the ugly truth. Be sure to quote the figures which prove that America's wealth is still being concentrated. I don't care who takes the credit. We are up against a tiny but very powerful minority who have more influence on the masses than any other group in history. They have the means to reach millions at once with outrageous political and commercial propaganda. Those of us who speak the ugly truth must work incredibly hard just to be heard.
Well said and 100% correct.
Well if thats how you feel this movement is not for you! Go to work while we change the world!
Protesting without goals and having no leverage doesn't equate to changing the world. Sorry
951 cities protesting with a movement that was, at the time, less than 30 days old? No leverage? OWS not working?
Please.... Changing the world takes time. Watch.
Who is feeling the pressure? The entire world economy? "Wall Street"? Apparently there was/is a "protest" here. I think some people wrote on the ground with some chalk, seriously. Like I said, get a clear direction or it's over. There's a step that must be taken from a protest to an effective movement, and OWS isn't taking it.
We are taking it. In 951 cities around the world. Direction will not come until YOU provide it.
Stop waiting. Stop whining. Join us.
I, sir, am not whining. It's pretty clear I am a proponent of work, goals, and achieving. You still haven't learned to read.
I did not understand this at first but it is being worked on everybody knows they have to have goals but it is hard to create something new its esier to be forced fed what you were born into...
The FIRST thing I would do is make goals and be specific if I were to protest. Why protest corruption when you can say "X is specifically wrong" and "We want Y to fix it".
So what are you doing about it?
I realize that where I am now, I don't have a lot of say. Joining a group without goals or a main idea certainly won't give me that. I have priorities to my family and their future right now. You con't change things by being a burden.
So you're not doing anything about it. I rest my case....
Can you not read? I said I don't have a say, where I am now, and I am not going to join a unorganized group that isn't getting things done because it wouldn't change things either. There is no case for which you to rest. If you don't have leverage or a valid voice, then get one. I've thought about things I want to change. But where I am now, I can't. I hope to get there one day. It takes time.
Wrong. You DO have a say. Join a protest. Attend the General Assembly. Post here. call. Write. Just say something is wrong and I want to fix it. Notice what I said. Some thing is wrong and I want to fix it. I don't want YOU to fix it. I will do it myself.
But it will be tough, uncertain, long. Fixing a system this broken will not be easy.
You are literally ignorant. The fact is that joining the GA or a protest is NOT going to change things. I realize that there are a lot of emotions flying around. It feels good to protest and be part of something. It is "cool" to do these things. But it isn't working, OBVIOUSLY. As I've said earlier, you're a bunch of whiney people living in tents. That's not going to cut it. When you have political support and you start playing with the real issues, then you are serious. Until then, it's just a lot of noise. Sorry, thats's the fact.
Yes, a little angry, are we? Despite repeated attempts to speak truth to you, all you do is deny the facts and unjustly claim moral superiority. Remember, "A good peasant is loyal, simpleminded, and full of misdirected anger."
It comes down to this: you are a good peasant. We are "bad" peasants.
Right, more abstract crap from am abstract quote. You are just blind to the fact that I am right about this movement. It has to be more than just protesting. It has to unify behind a clear and concise goal/demand. It has to get out of the park and into the political circle. If you don't see this then you're ignorant.
What I find funny is people of the 99% defending the 1%. You will not be part of them, ever. They don't want you there. Any opportunity for a position to get there will be given to a family member.
More than half the people once believed they would be part of the 1%, and we're not exactly protesting the richest 50% now, are we?
Are you sure you are not protesting the richest 50%?
That's next year's agenda...
I see you missed almost the entire point of my post. I haven't even graduated from college yet and I'm starting this summer with the 2nd largest privately owned company in the world. Don't lump everyone into the same boat as you. I have determination and dreams to accomplish. I've worked hard. I worked every summer, doing manual labor, since I was 15 to pay for gas/food/tuition. I paid for my first car. The scholarships I got were the result of my effort. My college degree is actually worthwhile. I'm blessed and I praise God for it, but I wouldn't be where I was if I sat back and cried.
(my family is certainly middle class btw)
Oh, christ--I've been working since I was 16, and I'm 50 now. I have two degrees and a good job, and I'm STILL down there protesting. Why? Because the electoral system in the United States is COMPLETELY corrupt and broken. It's a BRIBE FACTORY. It's absolutely polluted by corporate and special interest money. And this is unacceptable. The Citizens United ruling needs to be overturned, and all electoral campaigns to be publicly funded. And until that happens, this movement's not going away, no matter what happens at Zuccotti Park. COUNT ON IT...
Then you should be in DC. Union leaders won't let that happen as they support the politicians. Let us march in dc on 6/16 next year.
Your job lets you off to go run around a park all day? I'm sure it does. I agree things are corrupt. I also assert that crying about it without CLEAR GOALS OR OBJECTIVES won't get anything done. COUNT ON IT...
Well, what are your goals and objectives, then?
If I was OWS? First I would cut the anti-capitalism and anti-1% lines. Especially all the "I have a hard life and I'm sick of it. I'm the 99%" garbage. If you are going to be effective in the political world, which is where this would HAVE to go to make changes, you can't be a victim or be crying. Those tactics are unprofessional and weak. Second, I would make clear things to attack. I wouldn't be on wall street EVER. I would be in DC, protesting bailouts and government programs. I would be backing politicians that follow my views. I would NEVER EVER be "a protest", I would shoot for a movement. Get off the streets. Get in the ring. Battle SPECIFIC corruption, not "wall street", which isn't your enemy anyway.
Then you should support the Tea Party and people who want to reform the corruption in Washington. The OWS doesn't have any intention of doing that. They want to create anarchy and collapse the government and capitalism. The very system that allowed you an education and a job to support your family with.
OCCUPY WASHINGTON - APRIL 2012
I have no problem with the Tea Party (in fact, I campaigned for Ron_Paul (can I really not type his name on this site?!?)--who actually started the original Tea Party--in 2008). And I don't know any OWS supporters who like Washington any more than they like Wall Street. But the fact remains, OWS has put its money where its mouth is for the last two months, while the Tea Party hasn't done much. OWS is holding down its end of the bargain. But I applaud the Tea Party's decision to occupy Washington in April 2012 (although, hmm, I don't remember this being announced before OWS started--but I could be wrong...). Now let's see how they do. Let's see if they're willing to get arrested and/or beaten for their beliefs. I will cheer them on and join them if they do....
The Tea Party has the idea. You can't just protest stuff.
The Tea Party needs to embrace the rational OWS supporters, not the radical anarchists, and plan for the April Occupation of Washington. Lets get rid of all elected officials before the elections and get all new ones.
Everything I said still stands.
You dream too much, as did many others before you, who worked twice as hard.
You said nothing. There's nothing to stand. You assume that I won't move up in society because "the 1% doesn't want me there" and that you find it funny people don'y crucify the 1%. None of that was in anyway worthy or qualified to be an argument. It's not even founded on anything close to facts, it's just opinion. This country was build with dreamers. People forget what people went through and what happened. We were built against big government. People died, lost homes, lost their fortunes, and literally lost everything in the pursuit of dreams and happiness. People dreaming too much gives you the freedom you have to even type on this board. Where do you think most of the technology comes from? It's people like you that give the movement a bad name. Get informed before you speak.
"People died, lost homes, lost their fortunes, and literally lost everything in the pursuit of dreams and happiness."
Yeah, they're called the Sioux. Only they lost everything to OTHER PEOPLE'S pursuit of dreams and happiness...
I think people also got greedy. We started buying stuff we cannot afford. I have better job than my acquaintances but smaller house and regular car. They are blaming other as their life is tough now. Now they complain job is low paying.
Not a valid argument. What they did to the native americans was terrible and shouldn't have happened. That doesn't discredit my argument or their dreams.
OCCUPY WALL STREET Buttons!
A portion of proceeds will go toward the movement in the form of food, drinks and monetary donations. If you have a few extra bucks, drop off a box of apples, warm gloves, or anything you
can to the folks outside in your community!
Free Shipping Offer! www.OccupyButtons.org
.
Folks who write posts like this are the people who will wake up one day with a devalued home, worthless retirement funds, a toxic environment, decent food and education beyond their reach, their freedom and liberty gone --- and hopefully they will say, "hey this wasn't my fault, this was taken from me, who is to blame for this?" and hopefully it won't be too late...
The banks got President Clinton to unregulate them in 1999 and it has be hell to pay for their mistakes since 2007. The banks set themselve up to get a bailout by becoming monopolies 1.The exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service. 2.The exclusive possession, control, or exercise of something: Bottom line they change the rules so they could become richer.
Couldn't agree with you more. Thank you for writing my thoughts. God Bless the USA! You give me hope that the American spirit is still alive. What happened to Dignity in this country?
great post :) I seriously doubt the majority of OWS activists are willing to or able to understand what you've stated but it's nice to see some intelligence being offered. Imagine what a hungry farmer sitting on the dirt floor of his hut in Ethiopia would think of the well fed, clothed,educated mob of healthy protestors sitting in free parks blogging on their laptops and living off of daddys credit cards. bunch of spoiled brats with no gratitude or appreciation?
shamefull
Evolution doesn't adhere to our timing. This is a movement that is evolving and you have just become instrumental in helping others to focus more on the matter at hand. Other responses said 'don't blame everyone for 10 bad apples' Correct. One at a time for the criminals alone will suffice.
Great post - I would also add that there needs to be some consideration of the old "medium is the message" saw. Why would anyone listen to the financial reform ideas of someone camping in a city park? They have no credibility.
Do you want to know what is useful about groups of people camping out in parks?
It gives a glimpse of what our cities & towns will look like when we eliminate all the so-called "entitlements" and the minimum wage laws and the last of the trade restrictions and the last little shred of an ethos of justice in this country.
It 's a little glimpse of the future for the followers of Ayn Rand.
Yes, the medium is the message, but not all of you have grasped it yet.
Perhapse this should be stated more prominently then. The last I heard the plan was to chase the homeless people out of the park.
You heard that the purpose of the encampments is to chase the homeless out of parks? Interesting. Got a link?
No response to the substance of my reply, of course. Just a little sneaky smear of the protestors as anti-homeless. Very poor debating technique.
I was referring to this post: http://occupywallst.org/forum/send-the-homeless-to-the-churches-so-they-do-not-d/
But also this article: http://www.salon.com/2011/11/04/occupational_hazard_living_with_the_homeless/singleton/
and this: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/01/us/dissenting-or-seeking-shelter-homeless-stake-a-claim-at-protests.html?_r=2&ref=occupywallstreet&pagewanted=all
The substance of my reply was that until you stated it I had never heard or seen anyone state this as the goal of the camp-outs.
I read the salon article about homeless folks in Detroit showing up to the Occupy camp there and eating the food then leaving without participating. There is going to be a lot of work and education and outreach to get ALL of the classes, including the chronically poor and the chronically rich and the new rich and the middle up to speed on the issues Occupy movements are interested in addressing, and the kind of egalitarian human lifestyles it envisions for the future. Occupiers say, we don't want to give or receive handouts. We want people to be able to make a living by working together and caring about each other in a climate of mutual aid and support.
Is that why every day comes a new request for donated supplies? If you are trying to start a self-supporting commune a city park is one of the least desirable places to do it. Idealistic nonsense
Exactly
Exactly wrong.
Good argument.
" I am against corruption. I like the idea of getting politics to work for the people and not a few."
This is you statement. B y agreeing, you are not against the movement, you are just part and will benefit from it.
It is one of the essential reason why we are doing this!!
We agree that there is a lot wrong in this country! OWS is filtering the main issues in a new democratic way(GA), without corruption and political lobby!
After that ,point by point gets addressed and executed .
What half people pay or don't pay in taxes, is not the issue now. We don't like a system that defines there success on corporations rather on people.
And are no victims, we are the power that demonstrates democracy vs. a broken monopolist society (1%) If you are for less taxes and less administration then this is your place! Today government can be reduces by at least 60%.
Thanks for you comment
Oh no, let me be clear, I am very much against this movement.
For no reason reason. You don't like what is happening but you don't want to act on it.
Result in this movement - BoA canceled the fees. 650.000 Accounts left the bank. 4.2 Billion savings hey will loose next month.
This are results.
Washington all parties are changing there point of views and taking suggestion into account.
Against that?
That was posted on another forum with no link to OWS. It happened, but it doesn't mean it was the doing of OWS. Links are required for statements like that.
Amen brother
By the way I came here first as well. Eye opening is what i would my experience
To be eye opening you actually have to have your eyes open. Try it.
oh so clever
...and true. You did not mention this.
Well said. I was OWS supporter as long as they talked about corruption and use media to highlight it. As OWS progressed, it became a joke and I do not support it any more. There are 1000s company I'm wall street, you cannot blame every body for 10 bad apples.
US is great country and people are misusing the entitlements.
Not 10 bad. More like 550 out of 1000. You are selfish and greedy, and understand nothing about this great country. Every great fortune in the US has been created with government help.
Talk about abusing government compensation...
Agreed!
Finally, a voice of reason and logic.
What a sad and misguided post.
"This movement is already over..." - Last time I checked it was still up and running and getting stronger every day
"now have some accountability..." - can we get some accountability out of the folks who knowingly bundled and sold bad bets as good bets?
"The "rich people" are not evil. They do NOT deserve to pay 60-70% tax as some of you are suggesting..." - but it's ok for rich and powerful people to lie, cheat and buy their way into trillion dollar deficits to bankroll their private wars and to bailout their reckless financial scams, the regular taxpayer should foot the bill for this?
You're misguided. If you signed the papers to a loan, whether you should have been offered it or not, it's your fault. You could have said no.
The movement is severely over. Unless something changes, they are starting to look stupid. Oakland was a disaster. Non violent protests? Yeah right.
There are some "rich people" who are corrupt, protesting "wall street" will not change that. Like I've said before, without goals, representation, and real agendas then this movement is whiney children who like to camp. This is the truth of the matter.
When a bank makes a mortgage loan, they take on the risk. The property is the collateral. You stop making payments, the property is foreclosed and reverts to the bank. No has to keep paying the loans. The banks take the risk. They are entrusted by the people to properly run their fractional reserves and to cover their bets. We don't give them that privilege so that they can gamble recklessly and expect a bailout. What planet do you live on?
I understand that. I was talking about the people crying for forgiveness of loans they themselves agreed to take on.
There's no forgiveness. The property is the collateral. You walk away from the mortgage, the bank gets its property back. The borrower did not cause the depreciation in value. The bank took that risk when they loaned the money. Most states have "non-recourse" laws, meaning the bank gets its property back and that's that. When you sign a mortgage, it's not an agreement that you will pay everything off, it's an agreement that you will live in the house as long as you make the payments - the bank is renting the house to you until you pay it off.
HeavySigh,
For OWSers (Socialists/Communists/Statists/Marxists/Democrats) their Liberalism (Big Government) is a religion, a matter of fundamentalist religious faith to be spread by any lies necessary, despite the overwhelming worldwide evidence of the horrific human cost of the religion's failure. Facts are completely irrelevant.
BTW: You will probably find a home in the Tea Party (The REAL 99%). Check them out.
Let's face it. The tea party are just a group of bigoted middle class white people who are frightened of a Black president. Did the tea party have 951 cities join them in protest? Of course not.
[Removed]
[Removed]