Forum Post: First, Identify Them
Posted 12 years ago on Feb. 4, 2012, 8:27 p.m. EST by asauti
(-113)
from Port Orchard, WA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
If you want to create a Revolution against the "Real 1%", you must first identify them.
Who thinks they know exactly who the 1% is?
I consider any individuals receiving bonuses after accepting bailouts to be part of the 1%. They are using substantial influence and power to exploit taxpayers for their own gain. This is why I'm starting to start digital type protests that affect their revenue sources. See more here: http://occupywallst.org/forum/overlooked-ways-to-legitimately-attack-financial-b/
The projected numbers are way off. There are people earning subsistence-level wages siding with the powers that be, and they're not my people. For whatever reason, there are people living in poverty who disparage every other impoverished soul, somehow thinking they're better. They're not my people. It's not so clear cut ...
I think the 1% are those that corrupt government with money. I don't think we should hurt them. We should just change the campaign finance laws so they can't use their money to buy influence in government.
The people running OWS want to create a revolution against the government though. As in overthrow.
And who are "the people that corrupt government with money"?
Anyone, individuals, corporations, lobbyists who donate large sums of money to campaigns. It's very difficult for government officials to not feel obligated to return that favor by supporting or enacting legislation or policies that benefit those large donors that put him/her into office. I'm sure there are often conflicts with those feelings of obligations and the larger public good. At a minimum, even for an official with the highest amount of personal integrity, this must cause a terrible conflict.
It's kind of funny... or scary... I can almost hear in your answer that the "root problem" is ourselves, as "a people".
We allowed this to happen. I think the political process has been so ingrained for so long, we kind of stopped thinking about it. I think we kind of knew that there was some degree of corruption going on. But we somehow thought that it all was working ok anyway. Everything seemed to be going along oh so well. When it really wasn't. Now we see that there has been 30 years of wage stagnation which was brough to light since the horrendous financial crisis. Campaign Finance laws have been degraded. And we see in hindsight that our society has been deteriorating.
Anyone making more than 375,000$ (roughly) is technically part of the 1%.
I'm in the 1%
so what do you consider the 1% is ? ... those with the top 1% income ?
It is not that hard to finure out.
http://www.forbes.com/wealth/billionaires/list
number 38 is rich from chocolates you gotta love that.
Ha, that is a little funny. :)
Goldman sachs, koch brothers, all of the republican presidential candidates with the exception of Ron Paul
Thank you.
Thank you for answering a simple question with your honest opinion.
I find it challenging to "get very far in a discussion" with the many people on this forum, when they ignore simple (non-personal) questions.
I named specific people, but other people in this thread are right too. Anybody who funds political campaigns with kickbacks for later legislative favors is a 1%er.
It doesn't matter to me identifying them now, because we are in a transition period., although some of them may be criminals. After Equality is established and money is no longer the significant factor influencing government, those that attempt to cheat will find the new transparency in government causes that to be risky to themselves. People can agree that there is no good reason to oppose equality.
All People are Equal!.
Currently, money is speech but not much longer.
Sometimes it is very difficult to get anywhere on here.
I did not ask the question of: "Who thinks it matters to identify the 1% right now?"
I asked for your individual perception of WHO "they" currently are.
It's fine if you don't "want to" answer the question. You are not "on the stand". And even if you were, you have the ability to stay silent under the 5th Amendment.
The issue never has been "who", but "what". The 1% is a meme, representing the system of power that enriches and enables 1% of the population to amass 43% of the nation's wealth while the other 99% struggle to get by, and 50% are living at or near poverty. It represents not only an economic, but political elite that is free to make rules for itself that insulate it from consequences of their own actions (like collapsing the economy) while making everyone else pay.
Your request for names is simply misdirection.
My "request for names" is/was simply that - a request.
A request for your perception of "who" is, or part of, the 1%.
If posed to myself, I can answer my own question: I believe that The Federal Reserve and the people behind that organization are part of the 1%. And yes, this is just my opinion. And "an opinion" is all I was asking of you, as well.
And yours words of defining the system of "economic, but political elite that is free to make rules for itself that insulate it from consequences of their own actions" fits perfectly in describing The Federal Reserve.
To be sure, the Federal Reserve is a part of the 1%, but not the main culprit. For all of its (very significant) problems, it still prevented us from entering another Great Depression.
You say: "prevented us from entering another Great Depression".
I would say this country wasn't "prevented from entering" into another depression - it's already in it.
The "tent cities" that are all across America are very similar to the "Hoovervilles" of the Depression era, under President Hoover.
We are currently in what some people call The Great Recession, others call The Lesser Depression. It is extremely bad. (I am, personally, impacted a great deal because of it, and could literally die as a result in the near future - but that's another story.)
However, as truly horrible as this is, it is nothing compared to the Great Depression of the 1930s. Without characterizing our current situation lightly, historical accuracy is still important in my opinion.
Call it what you will. It is a devastating time for the people at the bottom of the "food-chain".
Earlier, you said that The Federal Reserve "prevented us from entering another Great Depression."
Have you seen the movie "Inside Job"?
I agree completely that whatever we call things today, it is, a you say, devastating. I was only comparing numbers. People literally starved to death in great numbers in the early 30s. official unemployment was at 25%. 60-80% of seniors were in dire poverty. Those millions effected today by the Great Recession, Lesser Depression, or whatever, are genuinely suffering. I am among them. (And as I said, I may very well literally die as a direct result unless things improve.) I don't discount that suffering. But there is a difference in scale and between now and 1930. And when discussing these things, I feel it is important to be accurate so our arguments are more credible.
http://www.econ.berkeley.edu/~cromer/Written%20Version%20of%20Effects%20of%20Fiscal%20Policy.pdf
The Federal Reserve pumped hundreds of billions of dollars into bailing out banks. It was certainly ugly, but it was the lesser of several evils. Without that infusion of cash, the entire banking system would have collapsed worldwide. Instead of 12% unemployment, we could easily have seen double that or more.
I know .Iwork for the IRS
Ok then, who would you say the 1% is, right now? You can name them in generalities, if you like, I'm not necessarily going so far as to ask for the first name-last name of "everyone who makes up the 1%".
I have them all,Names adresses etc.My advice to them is that they better shape up.
I'll "play along" with you.
With your "advice to them" that they "better shape up", what exactly would "shaping up" be?
Stop war.feed the poor .take care of sick .shelter homeless.Be a responsible human and stop thinking that human worth is based on monetary sucess.Most important try to leave the world a better place after you leave,not a big ball of shit.
In the end it will be the middle class.
What do you mean by "in the end"?
People can scream "eat the rich"! All they want. But it is ALWAYS the middle class that gets screwed. The politicians of BOTH parties ( sorry all you DNC butt boys) aren't going to jeopardize their major money donors.
The amendment to the STOK bill in the Senate that would hold the Senators to the same rules as their staff's on insider trading went down 2:1. What does that tell you?
No surprise.
I am looking for a distinct answer. I want to know who YOU (and anyone else on here) think is currently the 1%.
I'm looking for an answer based on your individual perceptions.
Please answer just that question and then we can move onto the points that you bring up in your latest post (above).
I think the Treasury is working that problem as we speak
Working what "problem"?
Can you be specific? Please... for the sake of good, intelligent, thoughtful, efficient communication.
building cases on the corruption and fraud that has taken place
Ok, good... I enjoy the discussion.
Did you happen to read my two-part post, here: http://occupywallst.org/forum/printing-presses/
I do have to go for now, but I plan on being back tomorrow.
yeah... I even replied on part 2 ;)
Okay. Anyone that actually pays federal income taxes.
Interesting answer.
Our conversation is now starting to be a real "back-and-forth, give and take" discussion - My favorite kind, so thank you for that.
So, you believe that the 1% are currently "anyone that pays Federal Income taxes".
To me, that would seem to be a lot of people!
Pretty much. Since nearly half the population doesn't pay federal taxes the 1% is most of the rest of us. And since big corporations and the truly rich make major contributions to political campaigns they aren't going to pay anymore. Hell, General Electric makes billions and pays zip in taxes.
[Removed]
Now that you, Bart, have entered the discussion, I imagine you would appreciate it if I "give value to your words". To do this, I must first listen and understand "your words".
You say: "The 1% are not the problem."
So, to do that, I have a question: What "problem" are you referring to?
[Removed]
Well, I do believe there is a 1% in this country (USA), if not the world.
Please read this post and let me know what you think: http://occupywallst.org/forum/printing-presses/
Note: It has two parts.
[Removed]
Ok, yes, I agree with your statements.
However, I do believe that the 1% (specifically, The Federal Reserve) are using "law" (or have re-written "the law") to further their powers and that those "powers" are unconstitutional.
That is "my personal complaint".
[Removed]
You agree, then?
[Removed]
You would rather it be a "more complicated" manner in which I described it then?
Ha, I made a "joke".
To be serious: I understand your point. However, I do believe that the principled mechanisms of "A System" will remain relatively constant, even when that system has grown, over time, to be a much larger and therefore, more complex system.
It's "seeing the forest, despite the trees". Or is the saying: "Seeing the forest, through the trees"?