Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Do We Want Portion-Controlled Feedings?

Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 12, 2011, 2:50 p.m. EST by April (3196)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Dear Government,

We don't want your insufficient government programs, handouts or so-called solutions to the masses that YOU "say" is going to help us.

Like meager portion-controlled feedings to animals, for the consumption by the 99%. The 99% want to decide what is best for us, by having fair and equal representation in our government. Not a government that is bought and paid for by the 1%. A government that decides when and how much to feed us our meager portion-controlled programs.

You miscalculated the portion-controlled feedings.

The 99% are now starving. Starving for our fair and equal representation in government.

Repectfully, 99% of the People.

Am I wrong?

10 Comments

10 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by Misaki (893) 11 years ago

The 99% are now starving.

Apple disagrees. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/business/apples-tax-strategy-aims-at-low-tax-states-and-nations.html?pagewanted=all

yay for taking quotes out of context

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 12 years ago

I believe you are Correct.

[-] 1 points by koloneci (72) 12 years ago

Everyones heard of the boiling frog anecdote describing a frog being slowly boiled alive. That's if significant changes occur gradually, people will fail to react in time and will suffer the undesirable consequences.

Over the last century, Americans have become accustomed to a high standard of living. Some more than others, some less. We've always had the poor. And even including the poor, our consumption habits have grown indulgent compared to the rest of the world.

This easy living did not come easy, and some would argue we deserve the rewards that come with progress. The resources that enabled the wealth of this country, are increasingly coming from outside our borders. This is putting a strain on the rest of the world who also are enjoying robust economies better lives.

Mass consumption, produces mass inequality. They say, "old habits die hard." And this includes our government as well. To keep this level of consumption, our beloved FED has elasticized the currency to the point where it cannot be stretched any longer. Something is got to give!

In light of the events of the last boom and bust, the good news is, we're not frogs. And finally this time, it is evident we are sensing something is very wrong. Some of us are having a difficult time putting our finger on it, while others know very well what has occurred and what is about to happen. It's simple economics. Either we go through the pain now, or complete destruction later.

It is evident the American people must find a political solution to this urgent matter.

It's a good thing…people are protesting. Scream, shout, sing, beat the drums. We all have different ideas. That's what make us as a Nation, strong! But it is a time to come together.

Let 's go to Washington DC in the millions, and reclaim our lost liberties.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 12 years ago

Strongly agree!

[-] 1 points by jimmycrackerson (940) from Blackfoot, ID 12 years ago

Hell no, you're not wrong.

[-] 0 points by mynameismoe (153) 12 years ago

Your wrong. Why would you even THINK we want to feed YOU, portions or none? I wont feed you sorry butt.

[-] -3 points by YRUSoStupid (26) 12 years ago

Yes, you are wrong on many levels. 1 The OWS doesn't represent more than 1% of the population. 2 Why are you complaining about the "1%" supporting the government with tax revenue, while plenty of the OWS it around on their ass collecting government money? 3 "Portion control" is a nice way of saying communism or socialism, both systems that have NEVER worked and never will. They are complete failures, just like you.

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 12 years ago

Several economists have demonstrated that income inequality has grown more rapidly under Republican administrations than under Democratic administrations. Income-tax policy has been cited as one of several factors that contributed to inequality. Republican President Ronald Reagan reduced the top marginal tax rate from over 70 to 28 percent during his tenure in office, which greatly contrasted with the very high top marginal tax rates in place during the period of great income equality, the “Great Compression”..........................................................................................................................................................................................................

The following table shows the marginal income tax rates for married individuals filling-jointly from 1964-2010, adjusted for inflation. This table demonstrates the trend of declining top marginal income tax rates since 1964. With the brief exception of the 1992 to 1994 fiscal years, the table shows a sharp decline in marginal income tax rates starting in 1964 and continuing through 2003.

Year
1964 23% 34% 56% 66% 76% 77% 77%................................. 1966 - 1976 22% 32% 53% 62% 70%................................. 1980 18% 24% 54% 59% 70%.................................................. 1982 16% 22% 49% 50% 50%.................................................. 1984 14% 18% 42% 45% 50%.................................................. 1986 14% 18% 38% 45% 50%.................................................. 1988 15% 15% 28% 28% 28%................................................. 1990 15% 15% 28% 28% 28%.................................................. 1992 15% 15% 28% 28% 31%................................................... 1994 15% 15% 28% 31% 39.6%.................................................. 1996 15% 15% 28% 31% 36%............................................... 1998 15% 15% 28% 28% 36%................................................... 2000 15% 15% 28% 28% 36%.................................................... 2002 10% 15% 27% 27% 35%................................................... 2004 10% 15% 25% 25% 33%....................................................... 2006 10% 15% 15% 25% 33%..................................................... 2008 10% 15% 15% 25% 33%....................................................... 2010 10% 15% 15% 25% 33%........................................................ Source: Tax Foundation

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 12 years ago

Well, thats why I asked. I appreciate the feedback. But there is no need to be rude. Usually, insults say more about the person that does the attacking than it does about the recipient of the attack.

This has nothing to do with tax revenue. And a recovered economy, low unemployemnt, will do more to bring in tax revenue than the 1% ever will. What I am saying is that 1% is corrupting our fair and equal representation with their money in the political system. And portion control - yes, this means like govt stimulus programs. It does not work. Thats why I say we don't want the government programs. I am arguing against govt programs. That is the opposite of socialism.

Try a little kindness in your life rather than hurling insults. It really does not say good things about your personal character.

[-] 1 points by stevemiller (1062) 12 years ago

I like your name. We are fighting propaganda. Propaganda is the weapon that controls the minds of Americans. read more - http://overthecoals.blogspot.com/

Every person controlled by propaganda, denies being controlled. It is up to each individual in the privacy of his own mind to consider his/her own behavior. If you are unwilling to examine self destructive behavior that is impacting your own ability to get a job, to allow the privileged to transfer your wealth to them by unfair taxation, to poison your air/water/food (remember the BP oil spill), and to bribe the entire congress for laws benefiting them at your expense, then you are a traitor.

Each one of these individuals defensively denies having a weak mind that can be manipulated. It is that defense that backfires. If people understood that their own self destructive behavior which forces them to vote for either of the 2 bribed candidate with the most money. The amount of money raised indicates which candidate has been bribed. When the bag men spread the cash to both Democratic and Republican candidates in the race, its because they don't know for sure who will win the election.

It is stupid and ignorant to vote for any candidate receiving bribes. The reason no American will call the bribes by name is the obvious fact that proves each of the 98% voting for the bribed candidate is in the deep propaganda trance they deny. They are too arrogant to consider they might be bribed. They would rather be thrown into the street with no job prospects than to deal with the trance that drives them to vote against themselves.

Curiosity that examines the irrational behavior is necessary to snap the trance. But the arrogance prevents the curiosity with denial. It is the same as a dog chasing his own tale going round and round.

There can be no end in sight until dealing directly with the propaganda trance begins on a national scale. The alternative will be electing the same crooks taking bribes. Its up to each individual to recognize self destructive behavior.