Forum Post: ATTENTION: For those condoning violence saying it's what you need to get the point across
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 4, 2011, 11:26 a.m. EST by ArrestAllCEOS
(115)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
What are a bunch of latte-sipping hipsters with iPads going to do against the military + republican citizens who are armed to the teeth?
Peace is the only way. An eye for an eye only blinds us all.
In our home camp we have told the major and police chief that if violent types take us over, we're out and they can have them. We have our right to peaceably assemble. But that does mean peaceful. When we insist on doing something that breaks another persons rights, its not peaceful assembly anymore. Like for example, if we block a road and it keeps other people from using it. Then we are violating their rights and the police can take back their rights for them. If we take a park and keep the kids from playing in it on the swings, then we are violating their rights and the police can take back their rights that we took. when we blockade a port and close it and keep people from earning their paycheck, we are stealing their rights and the state can come in and take back their rights for them that we took. Just to be clear. peaceful assembly does not equal forceful occupation. We are forcefully occupying. so far the cities are being really good about working with us so we can get the message out by occupying. But in Oakland it went past the fine line, it went into destruction. I'm not going to be part of escalation, and hope that wherever you are occupying, even if you are occupying in spirit, you don't let it happen either.
No violence! We are better than that. You don't have to destroy in order to rebuild.
WE still out number you all!
WE still out number you all!
There is a time when violence is necessary to achieve goals.
After all, when walking softly and carrying a big stick, what do you think the stick is for?
I am a registered Republican, ex Army, OWS protestor who is armed at the protests. I don't believe in violence as a way to get political points across.
You get to speak for yourself - you don't get to speak for large groups just because you happen to be a member of one.
I don't like apple - my phone is Android.
There are times when violence is necessary, but those instances are few. Violence should always be the last resort ( like Libya ). Where it was necessary to oust a murdering dictator.
In a peaceful country (USA) that espouses freedom and equality, peaceful protest/demonstrations and legal steps taken to remove the unworthy from office should be enough.
This is better than violence and gets more attention... Those of you who work in corporate America, particularly in banking, pharmacuticals, major retail, stocks and commodities, big oil, medical fields, etc. YOU should no longer stand behind the hollow words that, "I'm just doing my job." It is time for America's enablers - its employees - to give its fellow citizens some answers. This is not an act of bringing down capitalism, but instead the act of making it fairer and more honest in its dealings with us. Many of you know inside information, e.g., you are aware of training videos and classes designed to show how to dupe the consumer; drugs that are being improperly sold as remedies for things they were never approved for; pricing tricks that have gouged us all. Those of you in these industries know what needs to be exposed - so show your support and just do it. Anonymously is fine, as long as it is done publicly, e.g., send to NY Times; Huffington Post, Nation Magazine; Blogs, etc.
If you want to see corporate America start to pay attention and reduce their levels of criminality, then be a part of doing something besides saying you can't go down and join the Occupy'rs in your city. THIS may be this generations last chance to make the difference that will finally change your future.
That's what bonuses do. Keeps mouths shut!
republican citizens ... wtf!?!
Hopefully by that time the Republicans will wake up too.
Gandhi won his war without violence. So will OWS. We're fighting to save America's prosperity, a empire on the decline since corporations' primary goal is to maximize profits instead of their employees' prosperity. If we gain the support of the 99% then we can change laws. If we just break windows and throw rocks, then America will continue it's decline. Focus on the goal of changing laws, not the cops. Peace.
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 44% of all United States wealth. The upper, 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, some United States wealth was gradually transfered back to the lower majority. This redistribution of wealth continued until the mid seventies. By 1976, the lower 99 percent once again, held 80 percent of all US wealth. This was the recovery. A partial redistribution of wealth.
Then it began to concentrate all over again. Here we are 35 years later. The richest one percent now own over 40 percent of all US wealth. The lower 99 percent are sharing the rest. 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.
It would be more accurate to say that the 1920s private bank monopoly called "The Fed" provided tons of free credit which inflated the economy. Then people realized all the wealth was non-existent... that it was just an empty credit bubble... and the market crashed in 1929 to its real value.
Basically the same thing that happened to us in 2008. It all goes back to leveraging imaginary money that does not exist (credit). Even now the US and EU banks are leveraged 26 to 1 and 53 to 1 respectively.
That bubble will burst and you can thank the Fed, the EU Bank, the Congress, and the Euro-parliament "bailouts" for it when it happens.
Then how do you explain the concentration of wealth in the 20s and 30s, the redistribution from the 40s to the 70s, and the highest concentration ever now?
I see you've got nothing. Oh well. Your statement about there being less concentration of wealth in the 40s,50,60,and 70s is rejected due to lack of citation.
Hey electric boy. Do you have any idea how many debates I've been involved in here?How many points I've made and responded to? Let me put it this way. If our entries so far were compiled into a novel. Yours would be 'Cat in the Hat'. Mine would be 'The Stand'. Others here have written 'War and Peace' but then again, they didn't make some stupid assumption like yours.
The concentration of wealth in the late '20's is well documented. So are the tax increases, jobs program, New Deal, and WWII spending of the '30's and '40's. By the mid '70's the richest one percent were only reaping about 9 percent of all personal income. Much lower than their previous high. Just over 1/3 of what they are today. I don't recall the estimates regarding bottom line wealth in the mid '70's. They havn't been reported anywhere near as often. But I will find them (again) and post them here. Give me a day or two and I will cite the source.
Because of your wise-ass attitude, I won't just post them. I will throw them in your face. That's a promise.
Electric == electrical engineer. Troy == my name.
I've been on the internet since I bought my first modem in 1988. In fact you can find my messages on Googlegroups dating back to the era. I was involved in flamewars while you were probably wearing diapers (or not yet born).
Nice try though to claim you are somehow "more hardcore" than I. :-)
GOOD. Then you should have no problem showing me a link that PROVES your assertion. Every chart I've ever seen shows that rich were no less rich in the 40,50,60, or 70s than they were in the 20s. So just show me a chart that proves me wrong. That's all I'm asking.
BTW as I posted elsewhere the EFFECTIVE tax rate (what's paid after deductions) was only 34% n the 1950s. It's 32% today. Source: politifact.com and dozens of studies. Just thought I'd share that trivia with you.
Peace.
I think you mean 1998. I was online in 88 and things were a bit different. I was just a kid but I remember it well. There was no Internet. No google. Just direct dial bulletin boards.
About the distribution of wealth from the 40s to the 70s: Don't confuse distribution with dollars. Don't forget about inflation. I was referring specifically to distribution of wealth. Relative buying power. Not dollars.
Your figures on income and taxes are wrong. Let me guess. Your sources lean to the right? Post your chart or link showing no redistribution or concentration from the 20s to the 70s (or close) and I'll drop what I'm doing and find those which show otherwise. I haven't gotten to it yet. I'm busy on this site.
I don't like someone telling me my own history. Don't you think that's a bit rude? That's like saying, "You're not really a guy." (shrug)
The internet was born January 1, 1983. I got my first account in 1988... it was limited to email, ftp, and forums, but it was still internet and allowed me access to a wide range of features. - And you're right there was no google, but there was Usenet and those messages are now archived on googlegroups. I've dug-up my old messages from the late 80s.
Even AOL existed back then, albeit under the name Quantum Link.
No not really. You see when you claim the rate was 90% (or whatever) you are talking about the Marginal Rate. That is not what people actually pay after they've taken their deductions. The Effective Rate is much much lower than that. Approximately 34% in the 50s and 32% now, for the top 1%
Sources:
http://elsa.berkeley.edu/%7Esaez/piketty-saezJEP07taxprog.pdf http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jun/29/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-tax-rates-are-lowest-1950s-ceos-/
Alright. I knew most of that about online services except for the origin of AOL and the term 'internet'. I was online in 1988 (atari 300 baud) and I don't remember that term being used once until the early 90s. By then things had changed drastically. Much like today just slower and fewer graphics. But in 1988, it was direct dial. Anyway, you stated the year 1988 and then stated that you had messages on googlegroups dating back to that era. Google wasn't even around until the late 90s. You didn't specify.
I promise you beyond any shadow of a doubt, I'm going to post evidence disputing your claims of steady taxes and wealth distribution. There is a truckload of spin out there. I suspect your sources are right leaning and spinning the numbers in order to dispute any claim of effective leading by FDR and any claim of successful wealth redistribution from the mid 40s to the mid 70s. Especially through taxation.
I will dig it up but I want to make damn sure we're on the same page. I am going to post a few statements and my position of 'true' or 'false' right next to them. Please do the same so there are no misunderstandings on either side.
Heavy concentration of wealth in 1920s. True.
Somewhere around 44% for richest 1% by 1929. True. Large tax breaks for the rich in 1928. True. Market Crash in 1929. Duh. Large tax increases. Primarily on the rich in mid 1930s. True. Large increase in money supply during war years. True. Taxes on the rich remained much higher than in 1928. True. Much lower income for the rich as percentage of total by 1976. Around 9%. True. Much lower concentration of wealth (I will have a figure later) by 1976. True. Large tax breaks. Primarily for the rich in 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s. True. In the last 35 years, the income and bottom line wealth in the United States has become more concentrated than ever before. True. The richest 1% have more than doubled their income (after tax/inflation) over same time frame. True. The lower 90 percent (as a group) have remained flat (after tax/inflation) over same time frame. True. The trend continues as we speak. True.
I know it's a pain in the ass but please respond to each statement with a 'true' or 'false'. You can elaborate later. I want to make damn sure there are no misunderstandings on either side.
I will dig up as many of the stats as I can and post tomorrow. The only one that will be tough to find (again) is the stat on bottom line wealth for 1976. I read it once or twice a while back. Didn't memorize the figure.
This is the only part I really care about.
I've never heard that the 1%'s wealth dropped from 40% to 9% from the 1920s to 70s.
You're trying to discount most of my evidence and therefore, most of my argument. You misread at least one line also. Please read carefully and respond to each statement with a true or false. Some figures are with regard to income. Others are with regard to wealth. Please do it. It won't kill you. After all, I am going to spend some time digging up links for all that info. Please post your response. You have nothing to lose.
I'm not interested in your "argument". All I'm interested in is (1) watching the latest episode of Walking Dead before bedtime and (2) whether or not the top 1% were poorer in the 40s, 50s, 60, 70s than in the 20s (as you originally claimed). This graph shows your statement is right:
~20% in 1925
~20% in 1935
~15% in 1945
~11% in 1955
~11% in 1965
~10% in 1975
As for the taxrates in the 20s, 30s, and so on? I don't know because I never dug them up. http://media.canada.com/24be34eb-ecfe-4969-88c2-5aa898db4139/taxes%20graph1.jpg
I explain the concentration by pointing to the Fed (see my original post).
I'm not aware of any redistribution from the 40s to the 70s? The rich were still really really rich. Perhaps you can provide links to prove your assertion?
Thanks :-)
The people need to take back the power to create money.
END THE FED!!!
"What are a bunch of latte-sipping hipsters with iPads going to do"
Wave their wrists & throw a hissy fit?
[Removed]
That will be one loud hiss.
I am sure the sight & sound of it will terrify the well armed militia.
What I need to know is how to hiss with bullet holes in my teeth.
[Removed]
violence never solves anything.
you are so right amen88:
Except for ending Slavery, Fascism, Nazism, and Communism violence has never solved anything.
those that live by the sword, will also die by the sword.
Yea -- so make sure you bring the gun to a sword fight.
the idea that violence begets anything good is a lie.
Memories are short so:
you are so right amen88:
Except for ending Slavery, Fascism, Nazism, and Communism violence has never solved anything.
Be sympathetic to their parents and cousins that are unemployed and starving. Will they mace their parents too? Will they troll their mother's Facebook and harass their little sisters? Most hipsters in the world can't afford a McDonald's meal never mind an IPad. And if they did buy one last year, you wanna put them in jail for having a sympathetic opinion?
They wouldnt survive it! I have seen trained men piss their pants on the MSR, these fools would be eating rounds. But we cant expect them to fight violently, the nature of a parasitic Beta personality is to quit.
[Removed]
"ArrestAllCEOS" was outed as a TROLL ages ago.