Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: A simple question.

Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 10, 2011, 11:32 p.m. EST by Anon86 (3)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Hello. I have an honest question for anyone that might know the answer.

What is the goal is of these protests?

I understand the argument about the 1% v. the 99%, but I haven't been able to discern an actual end result desired. I have asked quite a few people around me and none of them are able to answer that question so I'm asking here.

61 Comments

61 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by WarmItUp (301) 12 years ago

Glad you asked this question and thank you for your interest in wanting to learn more about this movement. The end result if this movement would be returning this country to a system of government that is a true democracy. That means a government run by the people where everyone's voice counts equally. Currently we have a corporatocracy, that is to say, those with the most money have more influence on getting policies pushed through than do those with less money. We simply want corporate influence out of politics. We want policy being made in the best interest of American citizens not in the interest of big business. This can happen simply if we put in place policy that clearly states only human beings can lobby congress, not corporations. Also only human beings should be allowed to donate to campaigns, no corporate donations should be allowed as it always ends in policy being made to favor those corporations. This would effectively remove most corporate influence out of our government and return the power to We the People. 99% of Americans can agree that the people of this country should be making the decisions on how our government is run, not corporations. We are open to the opinions of everyone as long as they are constructive and well thought out. This movement does not align with any political affiliation it serves as a forum where all voices can be heard left, right and center. It is about listening to one another and developing a game plan to put democracy back in the hands of the people. When you have a true democracy it can look messy, that is a good thing, that means that everyones voices are being listened to. Healthy debate is important to work out the details of a plan of action. The movement is currently in that "messy" phase of listening to ideas and working out specific ways to deal with corporate influence. Please feel free to jump in on any topic and add your opinions to these discussions. They may get heated at times but always remember this is what true democracy looks like. The freedom to express your self in a constructive manner, of course any name calling and intentionally trying to start non-constructive arguments are not welcome as they only further divisiveness. What is most important is to find what 99% of Americans do agree on rather than further exploring the tired arguments about what we don't agree on. I have learned from chatting here with people that I have much more in common with most people than the two party system would like me to believe.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by FriendIyobserver (-28) 12 years ago

The question I have is how is standing in a park with a sign that says occupy going to stop the government from being lobbied by corporations?

[-] 2 points by WarmItUp (301) 12 years ago

It is called raising awareness. you are here talking about these issues, over 350,000 people have "liked" the occupy facebook page, first we must garner enough support beheind the cause by raising awareness, every movement always starts with raising awareness otherwise you are just preaching to the choir. How does wearing a pink ribbon stop breast cancer, by raising awareness, how does a giant aids quilt stop aids, it doesn't it raises awareness. The first thing we need to do is wake america up. We are well into phase one, raising awareness of the issues, I can assure you that when it comes time for the presidential debates the two candidates will be debating the issues of corporate influence and the widening gap between the rich and the poor, this was not a main topic at the 2008 debate, so yes making a public spectacle for your cause whatever that is has always been the first step to getting anything done

[-] 2 points by Fraqtive42 (87) from Herndon, VA 12 years ago

It will increase notoriety. This movement is just a start. We can't do everything in one protest.

[-] 0 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

"returning" the country to a true democracy? you do know we are NOT a democracy..right? We are a Republic....

I here this nonsense all the time about "corporations" and how they are lobbying congress or donating to this candidate or that...how exactly does a non-human, inanimate entity do such things? don't worry, it's a rhetorical question.....answer: they don't...it is ALL human beings....human beings own and run corporations....human beings lobby for their interests...some of them happen to own businesses, how do you prevent that...are you going to prohibit anyone who owns or works in commerce from having a say in politics....how long then before the looters of the left destroy the economic system for their selfish "needs" which have no value and rob the value from the production value of the society?

And, as for your "true democracy" what if it goes against what you believe, and becomes "Mob rule" which is why the founders protected against it in the "rules" of government...and why your assertion about a "return" to democracy is a foolish statement...since we have NEVER been a democracy...we only have elements of democratic election of representatives from the federation of states...

[-] 3 points by notforsale (19) 12 years ago

I have heard these exact words echoed time and time again but what exactly does this mean? Who exactly in our society is your enemy? Is it me? Is it your neighbor? Who is it that isn't good enough for you? Who are you? How is making this a world whereby each individual is valued a threat to you or somehow offensive? Who are you? I definitely sense some dismay in your character. Where did it come from? On what grounds should one person be more valued than another? Why should so many people who help make the 1% be scraping by while working an honest days work?

[-] -1 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

No one is a threat to me, except those who intend to extract portions of my income which is my very life, traded, via effort, for that income....

I ask you the same question: On what grounds should one person be more valued than another?....

On what grounds is the "need" of one person to be more valued than the effort of another?

How is it that one person should exert effort and labor to provide for those who do not, or do so at inferior levels, and.....of those who do not, by demanding and receiving a portion of the very lives of those they demand from, while providing no exchange in effort or value proportionate to what they receive.....and yet are considered more worthy of that value than the ones who created it, by you and your philosophy? Tell me the "fairness" in that?

as for the 1%-99% dichotomy, I reject that....and will not give you my consent to include me in your so-called 99% (of which I clearly belong, income-wise, but reject philosophically....the difference between the top 50% and bottom 50% is a MUCH greater chasm in contribution/utilization than that of 99/1)

Those who by choice labor in the employment others get what they agree to receive, and have no cause to demand more, unless they produce more, especially if others will accept the compensation level they do not...your assertion that the "so many people" MAKE the 1% is an incomplete assessment, the organization and creation of enterprises providing goods and services is what separates the high income from the low income...the simple exchange of time for wages is the lowest economic exchange, and as such, carries the lowest compensation level.....one should not expect more at that level, nor should on expect to live abundantly by surrendering simple time for wages...

[-] 1 points by notforsale (19) 12 years ago

Banks my dear friend are a part of the 1% and don't provide anything necessary in today's world. When they are all out of work what will they need and want from me? What have they already needed from me and you even though they are totally useless?

You should educated yourself about society before just wanting to be sure all of the money you make is yours. It is not my greatest joy to give up a portion of my money each year buy I would be much less joyful to have to admit to being greedy and without understanding of those less fortunate than myself.

Many people have very unfortunate events and circumstances befall them. I suppose we could turn a cold hearted blind eye to the plight of others. If that's the world that seems to be the one you'd like to be in then I don't know you. Do you realize that you could potentially be without work yourself? Not everyone in our society has family to lean on. Not everyone is healthy enough to even make friends. Have you educated yourself at all to the world you live in and the people you are sharing the planet with? Not just the dollars you are sharing the planet with but the people....all different people with all different life stories.

Usually we don't just have compassion because we were necessarily born with it but life has a way of educating us sooner or later if we are awake.

[-] 3 points by WarmItUp (301) 12 years ago

We are clearly a democratic republic, and yes corporations have millions to give toward influencing policy. Those people running corporations should have the exact same influence as the workers cleaning the bathrooms. One vote. Why would you object to not allowing corporations to donate unlimited funds to politicians. don't you want your vote to count the same as those ceo's running the business. So you call democracy mob rule, do you have a better way to run a govenment that I haven't heard of, would you prefer a dictaorship where you don't have to deal with messy democratic mobs having their votes count equally

[-] 0 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

once again for those who refuse to pay attention, or stay on point...a corporation is a legal creation....it does not exist in actuality....person's who own, direct, manage, or control corporations are human beings...an inanimate entity cannot "do" anything.....only a person can make a donation, or vote, or lobby for their own benefit....

Political campaigns cost money, for staff, facilities, advertisement, travel, security, fee's permits, etc, etc....

How do you suppose to pay for such things? Do you intend for the tax payers to foot the bill? or to force private enterprise to give away their services for free? How do you propose to "get the money out of politics"

as if money IN politics is a new thing...FDR was bankrolled by Wall Street bankers....every politician since George Washington has been financed by wealthy individuals....or by their own wealth...what is your solution?

[-] 3 points by WarmItUp (301) 12 years ago

yes you are right it would be best to keep things the way they are. It is much better to have tobacco lobbyists spend billions of dollars buying politicians for over 75 years causing the deaths of half a million people, rather than simply have the science presented and people vote on it. Yes you are right unchecked lobbying is best for the american people. Lets just let the richest people in the world be the only ones with access to congress. you make it sound like we are the only country who have ever tried to hold elections. England has a perfectly good campaign finance program where every single candidate has equal funding. This allows citizens who aren't backed by a particular industry to actually compete fairly in a democracy. And when they get into power they do not have as much reason to push the agendas of those who gave millions to there campaigns. Campaign finance reform is something 99% of americans are in favor of, every poll shows that it is a bipartisin issue, I guess I have finally met that 1 person who prefers corporations to decide what is best for them.

[-] 0 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

I'm sorry...I guess I missed your solution in that callow and accusatory response..maybe you could post that separately?

Anyway, your foolish diatribe, notwithstanding, here are your problems...campaign's must be financed and we aren't some small country like England...we are 40 times that size in land mass, there are unique elements to political campaigns here, because of travel and communication needs. Next, every citizen gets a single vote...despite all the posturing you do about "money in politics" the citizens can vote in, or out, anyone who operates in a fashion which they believe is not in their interest. Also, the SCOTUS has CLEARLY stated you cannot limit the speech of anyone by placing a monetary figure on it, so a new "law" that attempts that won't change anything.....so, the only way around that is constitutional amendment....which is not going to happen, there isn't the support for it you presuppose, and though people when asked broad questions, support some sort of reform,(but it's never discussed "what" reform), it's not a priority for them...perhaps in YOUR circles there is....but those with your general philosophy are the minority...sorry to break that too you.

It's funny how you lump "corporations" together, as if it is some combined leviathan or huge monolith operated with a single objective...corporations are separate and individual, and what is best for one, is, or may not be best for the next...sort of like people. But, in your puerile understanding of things you like to think of them as a single enemy, because critical thinking and reason seem to be quite difficult for your feeble mind....maybe lay of the bong for a day or two......this isn't an academic discussion of theoretical concept with no practical foundation, what happens realistically in the system is something far beyond your self-important theories based on nothing but your wishes.

So, I again challenge you...what is your solution...and don't pass it off to "do it like England"...answer the question or go pound sand...

[-] 1 points by misterioso (86) 12 years ago

well first of all when we say that corporations are controlling our government, what we mean is that a small group of people who call the shots at these corporations are able to buy political influence in a way that no average citizen can. I think this is fairly obvious, so enough with the semantic games. The other thing that should be obvious is that what is in the best interest of the executives and the shareholders is not necessarily in the best interest of the workers or the general public. There are a million examples of this dynamic. For instance, wall street has speculated like crazy in the futures markets(food, oil and other commodities) causing prices to fluctuate wildly. A few lucky people have made a killing off this but it has raised prices for consumers. This speculating is not very hard work and its contribution to society is negative. Its not surprising that wall streets biggest lobbying groups have filed a lawsuit against the commodities futures trading commission in attempt to overturn its new rule limiting speculative trading.

" despite all the posturing you do about "money in politics" the citizens can vote in, or out, anyone who operates in a fashion which they believe is not in their interest"

True, but when there are only two major political parties and they are both rolling in corporate campaign money, voting is often a pointless endeavor.  When democrats run for office they talk about how they are going to reform the corrupt system and pursue policies that  help the middle class, however, when they get into office they tend to pursue policies that favor their biggest donors.  Republican candidates  talk about how they will cut spending but when they get into office they increase spending by expanding the corporate welfare state.  In addition corporations enjoy greater access to the policy makers themselves, during Obamas presidency 62 percent of the people who met with the White House office in charge of reviewing regulations were representatives of industry, while only 16 percent represented activist groups.

"a new "law" that attempts that won't change anything.....so, the only way around that is constitutional amendment....which is not going to happen, there isn't the support for it"

Recently six senators have introduced a constitutional amendment that would overturn citizens united. Bernie Sanders has introduced a similar amendment as has Ted Deutch in the house. The public is on their side as 80% of the country oppose citizens united

http://deutch.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=269672

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/11/02/358694/senators-introduce-citizens-united-amendment/

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/198343-sanders-offers-constitutional-amendment-to-strip-corporations-of-first-amendment-rights

http://www.examiner.com/human-rights-in-national/no-more-corporate-personhood-la-unanimous

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2010/02/in-supreme-court-ruling-on-campaign-finance-the-public-dissents/

All this is evidence that despite the lack of specific goals, the Occupy movement is already having an impact. I cant speak for everyone in the movement, but personally I see ending the money based political system that is corrupt to its core, as the main goal. It will be an uphill battle, but if we can get millions of people out in streets united on this issue, you will see significant change. For an in depth analysis of how the system is totally fucked up because of big money, I suggest reading this very good article

http://www.washingtonspectator.org/articles/20111015postedprices.cfm

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

You, as many others have very little understanding of how the futures market works.....a "speculator" cannot determine price...they only bet on what the price of the commodity will be at the end of the contract term, those who guess correctly about the environmental, political, and societal conditions leading up to the contract end win, and those who don't...if they are not hedged in an opposite position they stand to lose massive amounts of money...it's not a bidding war where market prices are increased by the futures contracts....if it were no one would invest anywhere but commodities of necessity and set prices where they desire...but, like with Wheat, which was mentioned in another post on this site, claiming that speculators driving contract prices to $25 a bushel was starving people across the world, the actual market "delivered" prices were less than half the "speculators" contracts and even in rise with that of the dollar valuation in world markets....and NOW are hugely LOWER compared to dollar value...

But, again...what are your solutions? just wait for someone else to do something?

and how do you supose to finance elections....

[-] 2 points by ARod1993 (2420) 12 years ago

My personal beliefe and my impression of the movement really revolve around progrssivism, which to me means two things. In a vague, ideological sense it means a willingness to embrace social progress; that technological change can and should be matched by social change, and that the only important parts of an idea are how many lives it betters and how much it betters those lives. This does not mean that anything goes, but rather that we continually reevaluate the social contract under which we live, and when it fails to serve the people as well as it is able we seek the minimum amount of change needed to rectify that failure. We believe that continuous incremental change is part of life, but that a sudden upending of our world is often counterproductive and should only be used as a last resort.

If you want to talk about what it means to us in terms of policy, it means that we accept that our fortunes rise and fall based on the flow of capital between industries and enterprises, and feel that choking off that flow would be in very poor judgement. I do, however, believe that capital is inherently an amoral force (not immoral, but amoral) and thus should be directed, firmly but gently, toward the enterprises where it can do the most good for the most people.

To that end we want to see a robust regulatory environment, in which small businesses are allowed to grow and flourish free of most burdens, but in which the natural pressures that lead the markets toward oligopoly and monopoly need to be countered such that the larger a business is, the more difficult it is to continue growing and thus an equilibrium will develop such that economies of scale can be realized without driving the little guy out of business.

It means that we also believe in protecting the environment via direct regulation and by pollution taxes, not because I enjoy placing burdens on our industry but because on some level we all breathe the same air, drink the same water, and live under the same climate, and irreversibly fouling any of these things may be profitable in the short term but is bad for everyone in the long term.

It means that we believe in a strong social safety net for our poor because our economy is strong enough that doing so should not impose an undue burden on those of us who are not poor, and a form of collective poverty insurance (think something similar to Social Security to supplement welfare) is a good idea because as few people should be sleeping on the sidewalk and having to live on spare change as possible. It also means that I believe (at least right now) in some form of economic protectionism until we reset our balance of trade, because a reset balance of trade means more jobs for Americans and thus a route out of generational povery for those who wish to take it and a road to the top for those who are smart enough and ambitious enough to pursue such a position.

It means that we side with the left on most if not all social issues, because I believe that as long as no undue harm comes to people there is no reason to regulate how they conduct their private lives, and that most actual stupidity is either self-correcting or can be corrected at far less of an expense to the community and to the nation than it would take to punish it.

[-] -1 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

I never signed a "social contract" nor is there one in any of the organizational documents of this nation....so, I'll opt out....thanks, although you can contract for my services and effort....if you provide just compensation agreed upon by me...

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 12 years ago

Yeah, a lot of your ilk seem to have that idea. My advice to you if you don't believe you should be subject to a social contract is to move to a place where there isn't one (northern Mexico, Somalia, etc.) and I'd be quite happy to pay for your plane ticket assuming you don't come back. If you don't want to be a part of our society then we honesty don't particularly want you here either.

[-] -1 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

no thanks...if you want a social contract, which doesn't exist in this nation, why don't YOU go to a place where it is prominent, such as Greece, Spain, or France....where the systems are collapsing and double digit inflation is the normal circumstance....I won't buy your ticket there as I don't think you have anything of value to exchange with me for it...and equitable exchange in the only proper contract between men..

[-] 3 points by ARod1993 (2420) 12 years ago

Says the man who drives on public roads, went to public schools, uses technology that derives from public research, calls a public police force when he is robbed, calls a public fire department when his house catches fire, receives public assistance when he is unemployed, and will collect a public Social Security check when he turns 65. Honestly, the arrogance and entitlement of your crowd is just astounding. You receive so much courtesy of your community and courtesy of the government, and yet the first time anyone asks you to start paying your fair share so that the next guy can have what you had, you start bitching about how you have a God-given right to stiff everyone. You people sicken me.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

No...says the man who PAYS for all those public conveniences....and who contributes more to unemployment and Social Security than he will ever receive...who plans never to retire from productive pursuit, and.....your claim we don't pay "fair share" is complete and utter nonsense......when we actually pay larger shares than we receive in EVERY aspect....... I didn't get to where I am, which is not that terribly far above "average" American lifestyle....but is about twice the lifestyle I enjoyed as a kid...and I earned every bit of it, by the successes and failures I created.....

So...YOU take your bitching that I don't pay enough of your share, or pay you enough of my share of earnings (you do understand the word "earn", don't you?)...considering my share of "effort" and "contribution" is so much higher than that of the whining OWS crowd the the income disparity isn't broad enough.....

We earn, and you demand to live of our earnings like a parasite.....then use the services of the government our tax dollars pay 60-90% of as some sort of reason for your entitlement to our resources.....

If you can function, and can produce, and you don't..you haven't earned the "right" to anything...including the basics of life.....life doesn't exist for your need....you exist to fulfill your own need.

Try crying out, naked, in the middle of the forest that someone should invent and create a society of commerce and technology so you can have it easier than any generation of man in the history of mankind...for damn near free....and see where that gets you....You feeble minded fool.....you would perish in a few weeks if not for the efforts of men stronger and superior in their thinking mind to your own ignorant notions...

[-] 3 points by ARod1993 (2420) 12 years ago

You're talking to someone who came up from the Bronx on a single income and is currently quite happily holding his own at MIT. You're talking to someone whose mother homeschooled him and his sister and gave up the income that would have made a lower middle-class lifestyle available to us so that she and I could get out of those circumstances. You're talking to someone who's been putting in at least 110-hour weeks on academics since he was 14, and whose sister is an honors student at Bronx Science averaging four hours of sleep a night so she can get into a strong college. You're talking to someone whose mother endured the humiliation of the welfare office for three months so that we could get Food Stamps so that my father's layoff wouldn't throw us all in the street and put an end to our bid for success at the last moment.

I dealt with the people on welfare day in and day out, many of whom were beaten and broken and had lost hope. I will gladly pay out of my taxes to see to it that the indignity of starvation isn't thrust on these people on top of everything else. I honestly have no clue whether I will or will not have anything available to me in terms of Social Security, but I know whole chunks of people who are dependent on it now, and I have no problem with paying so that they don't end their lives begging for change in the street. I hopefully will never have to use unemployment (and if things continue for me the way they have been I never will), but I remember that it kept us out of the homeless shelter when all bets were off and without it I probably wouldn't be here, and thus I will pay into it so that others have the same safety net I did.

Your philosophy seems to revolve around the idea that it's every man for himself and that those who are at the bottom do not deserve compassion, for they are Lebensunwertes Leben and leaving them to starve in the event that charities can't cope with the load is the right thing to do. We as a nation have produced so much and have created so much where there was so little that we should be able to spare some of what we have for the less fortunate, and if you really have that little to spare then either you belong receiving a bit of assistance yourself or you're just being a stingy bastard.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

that's great...then you pay...you keep them from the critical limit situation and associated struggle that might be their salvation...you be the one who maintains them in their indignity, and disgrace...I choose not to....

and your list of accomplishments and unspoken argumentum ad verecundiam....entertain me, when you speak of the foolish and impractical philosophy of need, and your use of a Nazi (which was a socialist regimen..albeit a nationalist socialism, still it was a collective philosophy) is further amusement....

Your philosophy appears to be that no man is entitled to that which others determine they are entitled to, because of their, or others, "needs"...arbitrarily determined...of course.

See, I refuse your argument about stingy, greed, and "deserved" rewards......"deserve" is created by the results you create...it's that simple...and greed is the desire for unearned reward....greed belongs to those of you who think you deserve the sweat and effort of other men's labor to sustain those who choose not to support themselves....

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 12 years ago

The existence of someone trying to get by on public benefits is a miserable enough existence as it is, and yet whole groups of people are still living that way. I take no joy from the idea that people are staying on welfare for long periods of time, and I want to see them back on the worker's side of the equation as soon as possible. That seems to indicate that there is a group whom the current system offers just enough to get by but not enough to get off the system. I feel that a more comprehensive system in which GED/college/vocational training are subsidized for welfare recipients with the food and rent aid contingent on a minimum number of job applications per month and/or satisfactory progress in one of the programs I outlined above would be more likely to get people off the dole for good.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

no, your programs and philosophy will continue to increase the numbers on the dole...just as has been the case with the "New Deal" and the Great Society".....the war on poverty has been lost, poverty is the victor, and those with your philosophy feed it and ensure it will remain...

[-] 2 points by ARod1993 (2420) 12 years ago

What's the other option, then? Let 'em starve? You can't honestly tell me that if we were to discontinue social welfare spending that we wouldn't have a mess the likes of which we haven't seen since Watts once people realize that they're going to be let to starve. Private charities can't deal with our poor because there are just too many.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

no, an immediate shutdown is never a good answer, the first step would be to eliminate the penalty for earning money while on benefits.....establishing standards of behavior for those who accept benefits, and expectations that the children of those receiving benefits will be taught correct philosophies and standards of behavior so as to prevent them from needing benefits themselves.....

Anyone receiving benefits will be responsible for producing no more children during the time they receive benefits, and they will be expected to maintain standards of conduct, including the expectation that they will not use drugs, or abuse alcohol/tobacco.

There should be limitations on products that can be purchased with benefit dollars, such as prepackaged prepared foods.....whole food basic ingredients should represent the bulk of the purchases of those receiving benefits....things like rice, flower, whole chicken, beef, fresh vegetables etc are less expensive and more healthy choices, which benefits both taxpayers and benefit recipients....

Then there must be a progressive elimination of benefits given to those who are physically able to take care of themselves.....or those who, because of behavior and lifestyle choices find themselves in bad situations...it's time to stop rewarding bad behavior, and time to stop saying, either directly, or by default, that there is not shame in reckless, foolish, and irresponsible behavior...period

and..finally a transfer of all support to private charities...then, you who believe that those who don't wish to participate should be supported, can set your own rules, and use your own funds to enforce those rules...and learn the truth about people

[-] 2 points by ARod1993 (2420) 12 years ago

Here's the thing; that only works if there are enough jobs there for everyone to be able to do well, and quite frankly there aren't. We have over 9% unemployment right now, a great deal more than that if you count people who have been hunting for long periods of time and simply can't find anything, and only part of that is cyclical. What you also have in a lot of these poorer neighborhoods is a form of structural unemployment; low-skill jobs are going overseas and nobody seems to be willing to do what it takes to bring them back, and yet the school systems continue to churn out people incapable of taking the newer jobs that are opening up to replace the low-skill positions.

When you have a mismatch of that nature you're going to have whole groups of people who simply will not be able to find work no matter how hard they look, and that group is going to be the group that becomes the core of your generationally poor. I would only be willing to look at cuts to benefits if they were coupled with major renewals and reinvestments in our educational programs, and if we began seriously working to augment our existing infrastructure and repair or replace those parts of it that are falling apart.

Why the last one? The last one needs to be done anyway, and requires an incredibly broad spectrum of workers to make happen and thus provides an incredibly broad spectrum of jobs. This includes jobs that require little or no skill (or in fact only requires skills that can be successfully picked up at the job sites) and thus would provide a continuing source of jobs such that your socioeconomic bottom would be able to maintain themselves in the working class and thus not need assistance.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

"Provided" jobs are not the only avenue....wherever an ability meets a compensated need there is a job....waiting for others to create a job for you is a poor practice.....

Low skill jobs go overseas because they can't be provided here any longer economically...and you can dispute that all you like, but it is the truth...the ever-increasing minimum wage eliminates whole sectors of low level jobs that give people their first taste of the workforce at a young age...things like bagging groceries, being a gofor, stockboy, etc, etc...have disappeared from our employment roles, as have the "created" dollars earned by those holding those positions (as opposed to "recycled" dollars created in the public sector and filtered through the government and redistributed, which add NOTHING to the economy as a whole)

on the school system, we agree..but, probably for different reasons...students are not only released without employment skills, but also with a chip on their shoulders about their chances and "fairness"...which creates a job seeker with an attitude that I wouldn't hire to represent my business either.....part of the solution is to stop telling people they have a "right" to things provided by others...including jobs, and to reintroduce "gratitude" into our system for the things people receive....including opportunities and employment....a man doesn't have to "give" you a job, by right....and you should be damn grateful when they do, and seek to provide more effort than you are paid for.....not less, or just enough...that's how you get ahead, not by calling your boss stingy, greedy, evil, mean, rotten, or any of the other idea's that the new job seekers seem to have in their heads these days...

Primary education is free in this country....and so are library cards, people should seek to improve themselves, and benefits should perhaps carry some sort of requirement for that as well...then perhaps those at the bottom would move up on their own initiative...

[-] 1 points by misterioso (86) 12 years ago

nice try, the european countries that are in the most trouble dont have bigger welfare states than countries that are in good shape. For instance Swedens GDP is now higher than it was before the global financial crisis, Spain and Greeces troubles have more to do with the fact they cant borrow in their own currency

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 12 years ago

can't borrow for what? careful, you'll shit on your own point, if you answer

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 12 years ago

There are as many OWS goals as there are OWS activists. I can speak only for myself, but I do think that my own goals are shared by many. Personally I would like to see a genuinely democratic, just, peaceful and loving society. Many people in OWS have much simpler and more concrete goals. For example campaign finance reform is a goal shared by many though for me any many others such legislative nostrums would not be nearly sufficient enough.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 12 years ago

From my perspective, I only want to see two outcomes:

1) Return POLITICAL power to We The People by getting all money out of politics. Once we have our government back, we can use Democracy to settle the differences between us and decide our path forward the way the Founders intended. See http://occupywallst.org/forum/we-the-people-in-order-to-a-proposal/ and the partial solution now on the floor of Congress at http://occupywallst.org/forum/rep-deutch-introduces-constitutional-amendment-to-/

2) Educate people to use their ECONOMIC power more responsibly. See http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-power-of-the-people/ and http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-rise-of-the-machines/

I don't post links haphazardly. There are a lot of good discussions by OWS folks under each of those I've provided.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 12 years ago

If you understand the 1% v 99% argument, then you know the goal, it is to change the status quo. There are only three ways to approach change. 1) maintain status quo 2) reform status quo 3) transform status quo

I think we can rule out option 1 for the majority of people. Which leaves us with option 2 & 3? I see both camps represented among discussion here. Some think the current system is absolute in corruption and want to transform it. Some people want to reform it. Either way, people want to change the status quo and end up with a new status quo.

Simple isn't it.

[-] 2 points by Anon86 (3) 12 years ago

Yes, but saying you want something different is not productive, and doesn't seem too much better than merely complaining. Offering alternatives, suggestions, or improvements would garner more respect, at least from me anyway.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 12 years ago

How does one go about effecting change? In this case, I think most Americans would agree that ending corruption in politics is a major goal. It was the main platform of the Tea Party group, they dubbed it 'Crony Capitalism'. They took a more direct route to get influence politics and have produced no results to change the system. I think you are simply underestimating the enormous difficulty of the problem and not giving credit to the productivity of protesting, which raises awareness of the problem. (Before Occupy, I had no idea how big the income gap was in this country. But now I am. I had no idea about Citizens United. Now I do) If we could simply write our congressmen and get change, we would. But Washington is bought out, through and through, and works on behalf of big money, not the people. Obama has gotten more contributions from Wall Street than anybody on the Republican side.

The alternatives, suggestions, and improvements are out there, but the two parties aren't doing anything about the corruption.

What needs to be done? Amend the constitution and overturn the Citizens United ruling of the Supreme Court. Public Funded Campaigns. Pass laws that limit lobbyists, etc.

Look into presidential candidates Russ Feingold (D) and Buddy Roemer (R). You'll see a liberal and conservative both wanting to end corruption. Look into getmoneyout.org. Look into the Ted Deutsch Amendment. Look into the brand new formation of the Justice Party. I could go on and on.

So take a hard look and see what is stopping those improvements from being effected and you'll see where the resistance is. How hard are they fighting to keep the status quo? Who is it that wants to stop the people from cleaning up Washington, ending corruption and crony capitalism? Who benefits from Citizens United, which says 'corporations are people' and can contribute unlimited money to finance campaigns without disclosure?

The goal is obvious. The difficulty to achieve it is enormous.

[-] 1 points by TheTrollSlayer (347) from Kingsport, TN 12 years ago

For starters my friend theres 4 video's by Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig speaks on "Money in Politics, http://goo.gl/XEnM3 , which is some of what this movement wants changed.

[-] 1 points by Anon86 (3) 12 years ago

I came on this forum to try and understand the point of view and goals of the people involved with these movements. For the most part, while I personally may not agree with everything, I have gotten the answers I sought. That being said, I would say that your responses FreindlyObserverA have not furthered credibility to the individuals involved. In fact, I would say you have done quite the opposite by furthering the idea that the people involved do not actually know what they are protesting. But to everyone else, thank you for the insight.

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 12 years ago
[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

We are fed up with the inequalities of capitalism.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by betuadollar (-313) 12 years ago

The goal of OWS is to create an environment of hate that only the likes of an Obama can ameliorate. It appears to be working.

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

The fear of the reality that they have no real support.

This is my third account due to censorship, and I'm sure it won't be the last.

[-] -2 points by necropaulis (491) 12 years ago

Because there is no "1%" they can effectively put their finger on. One reason is because they know most of the rich made this money through hard ass work. Some are born into or marry into it, but at the end of the day, they didn't just show up from the mist with massive cash. When challenged on this, they will then resort to the corrupt politicians, who they seem to forget, started out just like us. They(most of them) had to work from normal guy to some seat in local government, to the national stage. Did they take money to do this?? Yes, you can't do politics without money. When challenged on this, they will then point fingers at banks(where most of the people broke the banks themselves) and other companies, because they are successful(like the two other groups). Do the companies do bad things every once in a while?? Sure. but then so did you, and so did I, as did the protestors. The 1% figure means nothing. If say, 8 of this 1% die all at the same time, then 8 others(who previously weren't part of this 1%) will rise to the ranks, therefore, because through hard work, and success, they are now "bad".

There is no goal. The reason why is because the is no unified leader (because they don't want to be like "them") to express what the group wants.

[-] 2 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

There is not one person amongst the 1% that knows what hard work looks like.

[-] 0 points by necropaulis (491) 12 years ago

How do you think Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and others got rich?? Robert Bosch?? Just because they have skills you don't(lots of people do), doesn't mean they either don't or haven't worked hard to get where they are. The guy who started Lowe's was in the Army. Walmart started as a corner store. Do some research. And please, name the 1% you are mad at. Specific names, please

[-] -1 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

All of them.

[-] 1 points by necropaulis (491) 12 years ago

That's not an answer. If you can't properly answer, you have no argument.

[-] -1 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

I wasn't arguing.

[-] 0 points by necropaulis (491) 12 years ago

Than you have nothing to say. Is that a better assessment?? I said that the ones who started these companies worked hard to do so(which they did), you say they didn't. I challenge you to name names and you can't so who are you mad at?? Or are you secretly mad at yourself for not having what they have??

[-] -1 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

Well actually I am not mad at anyone. I simply said they don't know what hard work looks like.

[-] 0 points by necropaulis (491) 12 years ago

Who?? If you can't name specific people, then you don't know what you're talking about

[-] -1 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

Wealth is not built on ones own hard work. It is built on the backs of others. Is that what you ment ? when you said their wealth took a lot of hard work.

[-] 0 points by necropaulis (491) 12 years ago

Nope I asked for specific names. So the people who started out in garages, bedrooms, and as corner stores until enough people bought their product to move up, (thereby hire others to help them make money) who backs are these businesses built on?? Does that mean up until you found out there are like minded disillusioned people out there you quit your job?? You might as well, you a robot for the 1%, therefore, you support them, right?? If you have your own business, how many backs do you currently sit on?? If neither of these situations apply, do you suck off the government teat, or live with your parents??

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

Selling for profit ! Do you call that HARD WORK. !

I suppose you also think investors work hard too.

Like I said you don't have a clue about hard work

[-] 0 points by necropaulis (491) 12 years ago

Dude, I work my ass of for 10 hrs. a day in a warehouse. Of course people sell thing for profit. Would you make something for the same money you put into it?? If more than one person at a time wanted your product, you wouldn't be able to supply, and then you would be just as broke as if you never made it to begin with. As for the investors, they come from all over. So yes, they work to. What do you do?? Ever work in retail?? Selling stuff is hard work for little money. Even on the big business end And please, tell me names of these "evil lazy people" you hate so much for the 80th time. Or do you not know??

[-] -1 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

Poor people work a million times harder than the wealthy

[-] 0 points by necropaulis (491) 12 years ago

Not always. What about the poor people who suck off the government teat so they can sit at home and watch TV?? At least the wealthy had to put some time in to get where they are-not counting the ones born into it.

[Removed]