Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: I can't understand american voters...

Posted 12 years ago on Oct. 11, 2011, 7:50 p.m. EST by German (82)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I can't understand why so many people of the 99% are voting republicans ... OK, they wan to reduce the taxes, but the taxes of the 1% ... It is unsocial to reduce taxes (which depend on what you earn, what means that it depends at your strength) and to increase the dues, private medical expends, education costs for everybody. This means to help the 1% - while the 99% have to pay for.

It is NOT SOCIALISTIC but SOCIAL to care for the poorer part of the society.

Glad to be born in Europe - health insurance, unlimited illness days, payed vacation, free education, no college loans. The price is to pay higher taxes for paying back my education and to support the poorer part of the society. The benefit is that, if I lose my job I can trust in a social net of benefits, so I won't lose insurance, car or house.

I'm loyal with the 99% percent - but can't understand the american voters. Can anyone explain me why many of the 99% vote for the supporters of the 1% ? Is it 'cause the Tea-Party is supported with billions of USD from the WallStreet billionairs ? Is no one thinking why these billionairs are spending this money ?



Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 11 years ago

Money in politics has created a dangerous game. It got democrats to choose a pro-war and pro-patriot act and pro-TARP bailout democrat in the 2008 primaries instead of the only candidate on stage that voted no on all conservative legislation and actually took the time to try and impeach Bush.

I don't understand why there is any support for the tea party or the GOP and I also don't understand why democrats don't vote for better democrats in the primaries.

If I had to guess, I'd say it has a lot to do with money funneling propaganda played on tv and people eating it up

[-] 1 points by truthows (8) 11 years ago

I cannot explain

[-] 1 points by RastafariAmerican (141) from Yonkers, NY 12 years ago

Jah. Well said. Thank you.

[-] 1 points by MikeyD (581) from Alameda, CA 12 years ago

Absolutely! There are 99% of us and only 1% of them, why isn't everyone on board for just taking what they have?

[-] 1 points by Indy4Change (254) from Columbia, SC 12 years ago

"Is it 'cause the Tea-Party is supported with billions of USD from the WallStreet billionairs ? Is no one thinking why these billionairs are spending this money ?"

I'm not sure it's fair to qualify your question by asserting inaccurate assumptions. President Obama received more in campaign funding from banks and the "evil" rich than did McCain in 2008. The establishment politicians (both D and R) are all fighting for the same progressive agenda - and a lot of the problem stems from complacency and the straight party line ticket pull. Too many people rely on main stream media resources for information so they are fed what they want to hear by their chosen source. Not enough independent thinkers working to find truly cohesive solutions.

[-] 1 points by Shamus27 (84) 12 years ago

Hi German,

Nice to hear from you.

I have been to your county several times & I love it there.

I hate to say this but the reason Americans vote for republicans is basically because that part of the populace is one of three things:

1.Upper Class and only interested in protecting their wealth not matter what the consequences.

  1. Superstitious religious fanaticals

  2. Just plain stupid, backward, uneducated people.

In America the rich have media outlet know as Fox News. Most of it is owned by a conservative extremist known as Rupert Murdoch. You probably have seen him in the news concerning media scandals in England.

Fox news and Murdoch's other media outlets spew out right wing propaganda 24 hours a day in the US and these people believe it.

I wish I could live in Europe, a place where taking care of the people is still something the government prides its self on verses protecting the interest of the rich over all else as the US Republican party does.

[-] 1 points by German (82) 12 years ago

Hi Shamus27, thanks for this compliments. I do also have to say that I liked it in the US - especially the people. But also the historic areas in D.C., Phily,... I think it isn't the worst place to live ;-). It has enough possibilities to improve - as Europe has too.

[-] 1 points by Shamus27 (84) 12 years ago

Keep up the good fight!!!!

Do you understand my comments?

Liebe & Frieden nach Deutschland

(Hop I got that Right;-))

[-] 1 points by German (82) 12 years ago

Hi Shamus,

ya, I understand your comment. That wasn't only right -> but a perfect german ;-).

[-] 1 points by Shamus27 (84) 12 years ago

The said thing is that US multi-national corporations don't pay their fare share in taxes in the US, neither do the super rich. They no longer consider the health and well being of our nation. They control our government to the point of that they even write much of the legislation in Washington. All they want to do is make as much profit as possible regardless of the consequences. That is why we hear so much about cutting every thing from Environmental protections, to health care to education.

Corporations want to diminish the power of government and dumb down the population so people will not realize what is happening.

All they while they cut the taxes of the rich and corporations and raise taxes on the poor and middle class making themselves richer in the process.

It is a pretty sick state of affairs.

Europeans are that greedy, taxes are high but look at what you get; health care, education, great infrastructure and a much better economy

That is why Germany has such a strong manufacturing base and is leading the world in solar energy.

I could go on and on........

[-] 1 points by German (82) 12 years ago

Although here we had tax cuts for the richer ones - starting in the late 90's. But there were to many protests - as the people recogniced what that means to them...

As I liked the US at my visit but saw the deep unfairness and inequity - I'm happy about the last changes and the actual movement.

Hope this movement will be successful.

I can only say: Europe has enough possibilties to learn from the US but the US has enough possibilties to learn from Europe - why wait ?

[-] 1 points by Shamus27 (84) 12 years ago


Check out this video.

I guess what I meant to say it that the government does not respond to the majority of its people. The rich control the government.

I would like to recommend a book for you to read:

"The Third Industrial Revolution" by Jeremy Rifkin

Here are some of his words

"By the year 2001, CEOs of America's largest companies earned, on average, 531 times as much as the average worker which was up from 1980 when that figure was only 42 times greater.

Even more startling, between 1980 and 2005, over 80 percent of the increase in income in the US went into the pockets of the wealthiest 1 percent of the population.

By 2007, the wealthiest 1 percent of American earners accounted for 23.5 percent of the nation's pretax income, up from 9 percent in 1976. Meanwhile during this same period, the median income for non-elderly American households declined and the percentage of people living in poverty rose.

And all during this time the taxes on the wealthiest people in America kept going down"

Our Government in Washington, (The Federal Government) is controlled by these wealthy people, the corporations they control have "Lobbyist" that actually write legislation (Federal Laws) and our congress passes it in return for campaign contributions regardless of what is best for the country or its people.

We call this the "Special Interest" here.

In the summer of 2010 our Supreme Court ruled that Corporations can give any amount of money to any candidate for any election, local, state, or federal.

The case was called "Citizens United" look it up on Google.

The Word Financial Crisis of 2008 is largely because our government relaxed the laws that regulate the US Financial Industry here in the US.

The government did so because the wealthy people that control the financial industry here "Lobbied" and had the laws that should be in place to regulate the financial industry relaxed.

[-] 1 points by Shamus27 (84) 12 years ago

I could not agree with you more.

The problem is our government is not responsive to the people.

That is what the protest are about.

[-] 1 points by German (82) 12 years ago

Sorry but when I read the forum and speak with associate living in the US , I do often hear that more fairness, equal chances, social security, democracy instead of plutocracy,..., is what the protest is about.I would also see many of these coments in this concens: http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com/

Others (as you) say that the protest is only about one thing: "The problem is the government".

It is really easy to say "The problem is the government". It would be just fair - but harder - to say what is the concrete problem. Which decissions, which laws, which...

Sorry but it is to easy to say "The problem is the government" without having a "realistic" vision of how it should be and how the future looks like.

To ask for lower taxes is very popular - everywhere arround the world. But noone want's the cuts in states duties. No one want's less medical benefits, less roads,... It is impossible to reduce taxes while de deficit of the US is about 120% of the GDP and the new indebtedness in the US fiscal year 2011 was 8%.

[-] 1 points by superman22x (188) 12 years ago

Europe is financially doing great right? Everyone except the Germans are doing great as far as I know.

[-] 2 points by German (82) 12 years ago

I wouldn't say that they are doing great. But isn't it possible that Europe could learn from the US while the US could learn form Europe - as both system are having positiv aspects !?

[-] 1 points by superman22x (188) 12 years ago


[-] 1 points by quadrawack (280) 12 years ago

Let me know how Erste group and Dexia are treating you. Sovereign debt got you down?

What's that? You guys are printing Deustchmarks again? What, the Euro not doing it for ya?

Look buddy, I lean republican a lot. It "once" was about limited government, lower taxes, and anti-war. Once upon a time. There are still a LOT of republicans who think that way. Not all of the republicans support the 1%. You have to remember, I live in a nation with a lot of doublespeak, where democrats and republicans are the same sides of one coin of a fascist government.

I think you of all people should remember your history and recognize how difficult that is.

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 12 years ago

The right does a better job of naming and framing issues. They know how to speak "bumper sticker", and the easy to remember, easy to understand becomes the new reality.

We need to get better at explaining. The 1% vs. the 99% is a good start. Corporate "golden parachutes" are really firing bonuses - do a lousy job and you get sent off with extra millions. "Free market" sounds good, but in reality it becomes a fraud market. Thousands of fraudulent mortgages and derivatives crashed our economy while creating more of those millionaires and billionaires.

[-] 1 points by geminijlw (176) from Mechanicsburg, PA 12 years ago

Probably to try and show our votes count. But in the end it doesn't matter who gets in, they are all there for the 1%.

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 12 years ago

"It is NOT SOCIALISTIC but SOCIAL to care for the poorer part of the society."


Your point is an excellent one and it completely undermines the laissez faire people: Germany is the most successful country in Europe. it has powerful social programs, yet, is a capitalist society (I love my VW TDI! :D) and takes care of the people who live there. They don't worry about capitalism vs. socialism, they just have priorities and do what they think is important to take care of their citizens. That's it. In a nutshell. You have decided what basic human rights are.

Thank you. Absolutely. People want to focus on orthodoxy and ideology, rather than the real world priorities and allocation of resources. Finland is another good example:


Thanks for weighing in and putting things into perspective for people who still only think in terms of "We're #1!" and "socialism BAD, capitalism GOOD".

The problem is this: the American voters are fed apocryphal nonsense from a media machine which often pushes the agenda of the privileged classes. Also, people struggle with difference and don't like to compare what works in other countries. It's much easier to arrogantly assume there's only one right way to do things. We've become increasingly divided as a country, but in general, the philosophy breaks down like this:

Left: Interested in the common wealth and isn't afraid of government involvement in solving social challenges. If someone is in need, it's not necessarily a "fault."

Right: Interested in the individual's wealth, is afraid of government involvement, and talks about the "free market" the perfect solution to society's needs. If someone is in need, they're lazy or somehow faulty.

The truth is somewhere in between; and there are exceptions in all cases, but in general, it's accurate.

Looks like Germany has managed to take care of both! Cheers.



[-] 1 points by mgiddin1 (1057) from Linthicum, MD 12 years ago

Tell me this, German... Are you glad that Merkel is bailing out the PIGs and all of the other nations that have lived beyond their means? Also, she and Sarkozy just announced they would do anything they could to save the failed Euro - which by its very existence is robbing all of the EuroZone nations of sovereignty.

Nice try - they've done a good job in Germany. Too bad they've shackled you to all the other failing socialist countries in debt up to their eyeballs.
Maybe you guys should keep firing up those deutsche mark machines - rumour has it Merkel's going to bail on Europe at the last minute.

[-] 1 points by German (82) 12 years ago

In the moment there are 13 countries "bailing" out 3 other ones, while Ireland does only need a short time help, Portugal and Greece are the problems - but they are that some that they are no problem for the other 13 countries. The problem is that the crises in Greece could infect Italy or Spain, what would be not possible to handle, so the european - and in a second steps the banking system could collapse, what would have incalculable impact on global economy - with a second - bigger - crash after 2008. For Greece the definition of a socialist country could be a ok, while e.g. Ireland came into trouble by helping their banks and by "tax subsidies" to companies as Oracle, Microsoft and Facebook - what has nothing to do with socialist countries.

So. Are we happy about this ? Not really - but for global wealth it seems to be necessary.

[-] 1 points by OldDucker (23) 12 years ago

German, please do us a favor and kick the US troops out of your country. Its your responsibility to defend your country, not ours.

[-] 1 points by German (82) 12 years ago

In fact the US troops are in Europe according to the wish of the US government - as they need the base for reaching some regions in Asia and Africa faster ...

But as the US are a member of the NATO it would be the responsibility of the US to defend Germany, as german and french soldiers defending the US in Afghanistan. I think the US were attacked - and now we are doing our duty to defend our NATO-partner - as we would expect it, if we would be attacked. That is the sense of an alliance, isn't it.

[-] 1 points by OldDucker (23) 12 years ago

NATO has outlived it's usefulness and should be disbanded. Frankly it pisses me off for you to brag about your social benefits when they have been subsidized by US taxpayers for decades. Go invade France again, maybe you'd be doing the world a favor.

[-] 1 points by German (82) 12 years ago

I understand your words, but can't understand your thinking. Sorry. It seems as you aren't informed really well - why do you think that anyone was subsidized by US taxpayers ?

I can't speak for France - but for Germany I can tell you that after WW2 - Germany was forced to take a credit from the US with an interest rate of nearly 25 % p.a. - while the economy (e.g. Swiss) wanted to provide credits for under 10%.

I - and we in general - don't lament on this - we still call you partner, but was this your subsidies ? A really good transaction for a "subsidy" - especially as the US got this money for less than 5 % from Swiss. For being honest - if my banker would make such a quotation the next thing what he could see is me - leaving his bank for the last time.

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 12 years ago

Wow. No wonder other countries think we're jerks. Germany has done pretty well on its own. Perhaps go to another place where myopia is accepted like the Tea Party boards?

German: this is what we're trying to work "with" here in the US. ugh.

[-] 1 points by German (82) 12 years ago

I see ;-)

[-] 1 points by beardy (282) 12 years ago

What country are you from?

Also, enjoy it while it lasts. Everything and everyone is currently subsidized and it is unsustainable.

[-] 2 points by German (82) 12 years ago

Me? From Germany. In the moment our economy is running without any subsidies, so I think this will last a long, long time (the hope dies as the last) ;-). The social net isn't receiving subsidies for centuries - so I think it is sustainable.

BUT this demands a robust and competitive economy.

[-] 1 points by beardy (282) 12 years ago

You guys still owe war reparations to greece.

Also, have fun bailing out the rest of the eurozone.

[-] 2 points by German (82) 12 years ago

We don't pay any reparations to greece. Unfortunately you are right, it seems as a few countries have to bail out e.g. greece - for avoiding a second international crisis as followed by the Lehman collaps. But Greece is just a joke - nearly no economy - and without economy it isn't hard to produce 120 % of debt. We are sometimes joking that the only thing produced in greece are debts.

But Greece is not a really big problem - not in my opinion - if Germany would bailout Greece, without France,... it would increace the debts of Germany by 10 %. But there are about 16 Countries to pay the invoice - so there will remain about 1 or 2 % for Germany. But would you like to pay for someone who even don't want so save ?

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 12 years ago

hah, now, see, no response. germany is an ironic situation, so the right can't easily put you in a pigeonhole! you make good money, you are capitalistic, and you take care of your people.

what is that all about?? :D

[-] 1 points by German (82) 12 years ago

Sorry, but I didn't get what you mean - could you explain it to someone who calls english a "foreign language" -> Thanks ;-)

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 12 years ago

BTW, come see my blog and let me know what you think. I plan to move to Europe in the next 10 years, and want more voices from abroad.


(BTW: the fact that you want to hold Greece to their own debts also infuriates the conservatives, because that means that you're not a dreaded "liberal"!! :D)

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 12 years ago

Heh, thought that might trip you up! Sorry.

The right can't explain the German success story away easily. You don't fit into an easy to define category. They like simple, black and white differences:

Socialism = Bad Capitalism = Good

Germany has both, so they're confused. And when they're confused, they get angry. For example, those other people who were not friendly to you can't talk about the issues, so they attack. That's mainly what the right wing does in this country. Sadly...

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 12 years ago

Because the elections are rigged!!

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 12 years ago

this whole movement is about caring for the poorer part of the society... in fact really about eliminating the poorer part of the society...


[-] 1 points by Vooter (441) 12 years ago

It's because the vast majority of Americans are TV- and sugar-addled retards who automatically grovel before anyone who possesses money and things, completely oblivious to the fact that the people with money and things are not only shitting on them, but laughing while they do it...

[-] 1 points by ascended (5) 12 years ago

The problem is we have all been convinced that things will only work a certain way. By the way, sorry to hear governmental spying is just as bad in Germany as it is in the US. Seems like all free men are under suspicion these days.

Maintaining a healthy society seems like a common sense thing. Unfortunately, the healthcare reform has too much politics attached to it. For example, what does knowing how much gold or silver a person privately own have to do with healthcare? Or a national ID card? Why the big fight about taxes? Just have a flat tax and reduce government size by putting the IRS out of business. By the way, it's not actually common sense as it's not really that common any more (you can quote me on that one).

[-] 1 points by CJ99 (2) 12 years ago

Both Democrats & Republican are owned by special interests and take care of the top 1%.

[-] 1 points by thebeastchasingitstail (1912) 12 years ago

You're not alone, I don't understand it either. I'll be coming to Europe soon.

[-] 1 points by German (82) 12 years ago

What part of Europe will you visit ?

[-] 1 points by thebeastchasingitstail (1912) 12 years ago

Italy & Spain. I do want to visit Germany one day, I have never been.

[-] 1 points by German (82) 12 years ago

Hope you will be able to visit Florence and Rome. One day for Germany isn't a lot - 16 states and much more people and cultures. I guess you will visit Berlin or Munich - perhaps Cologne. Right ?

[-] 1 points by thebeastchasingitstail (1912) 12 years ago

Yes, Berlin & Munich for sure

[-] 1 points by German (82) 12 years ago

Great - a visit at the "Hofbräuhaus" and the "Deutsches Museum" should be part of your program in Munich. In Berlin you should see the "Bundeskanzleramt" (seat of the chancelor) - which is heavily discussed in Germany as it is about 8 times bigger than the White House in D.C. - and the "Reichstag" (seat of the parliament).

[-] 1 points by DirtyHippie (200) 12 years ago

The 1% would have a hard time winning an election with just a core agenda that benefits only the 1%. So they mix all sorts of additives into their koolaid: demonization of minorities, religious themes, and fear. This is referred to in the US as "guns, god and gays." The economic issues are hidden underneath many other topics and most people in the US don't understand financial matters. People are very poorly educated in the US.

[-] 1 points by atki4564 (1259) from Lake Placid, FL 12 years ago

You're right, they are very poorly educated to such an extent that you can't use logic or reason with so many of them because they function on a purely emotional level. You reason with a person who doesn't use reason. It's as if you have to make an emotional argument in support of logical or reasonable process which they don't understand because they don't like to think critically about the complexity of today's problems. They want catchy sound bites, not reasoned analyses. Einstein said that today's problems have to be solved with a higher level of thinking (or logic) than the lower level of thinking (or emotion) that created those problems in the first place. However, the use of logic has no appeal to most people, only their emotions rule with catchy phases like "guns, god, and gays". It's as if you have to make a "guns, god, and gay" argument for them to think logically instead of emotion -- a paradox. However, since paradox is at the heart of all truth, then I don't think the logical people have any other choice than to use emotional arguments that somehow result in the execution of a logical process, such as I have detailed at: http://getsatisfaction.com/americanselect/topics/on_strategic_legal_policy_organizational_operational_structures_tactical_investment_procedures

That kind of logic is too dry for them, they want pizzaz, charisma, and a show to entertain them. They don't want to think so you have to lower yourself to their emotional level and think for them in the background while providing a catchy show to keep their attention. Needless to say, providing entertainment is very difficult for logical people to focus upon precisely because they are focused on logic, not emotion. Nevertheless, the fact remains that must appeal to them emotionally if we are guide them logically (without their understanding the logic).

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

they have been duped and con scammed. simply put, they have identified with the slave owners. similar phenomenon happened with slaves in slave rebellions. plantation slaves had uprisings against the slave owners, and house slaves would even shoot them dead.

Republicans are the house slaves.




According to a 2008 article by David Rothkopf, the world’s 1,100 richest people have almost twice the assets of the poorest 2.5 billion (Rothkopf, 2008). Aside from the obvious problem – that this global elite has their hands in everything from politics to financial institutions – …





To the extent that we, the people, are removed from control over our lands, marketplaces, central banks, and media we are no longer empowered. In practice, those few who do control the land, central bank, media and "free market" are the real rulers of our corrupt and declining "democracy."

Due to propaganda from a corporate-owned and edited media we are kept from knowing, much less debating, the nature of our system. Due to a central bank owned by bankers, media owned by a few global concerns, and trade regime controlled by global corporations (i.e., one designed to remove the people from control over their markets and environments) the vast majority have become little more than latter-day serfs and neo-slaves upon a corporate latifundia.

To restore a semblance of effective democracy and true freedom Americans, and people around the world, need to re-educate themselves as to the true nature of their political and economic systems. Toward this end, OligarchyUSA.com is dedicated to providing old and new information, books, links, reform ideas and debates not easily found or accessed today in establishment media.

OligarchyUSA.com is but one more site and sign of the times as ground-up counter-revolutions arise around the world... all in response to a forced and freedomless globalization courtesy of a ruling global elite perfecting their top-down plutocracy and revolutions of the rich against the poor. In short, democracy is no longer effective today. For this reason, it is toward a restoration of truly effective and representative democracies, and natural freedom, that this site is dedicated.

[-] 1 points by patriot4change (818) 12 years ago

I tried to Post a few days ago that my experience in Germany, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and Belgium was very positive. I tried to explain how your version of 'pseudo-Socialism' was actually more successful than America's version of 'Capitalism/Democracy'. Boy, did THAT piss people off. I had people calling me Communist and Totalitarian and worse. But, in answer to your question, the Republican Party has a 'trick' they use during campaigning. They say, "We love America"... "We're gonna fight them terrorists"... "We're gonna keep government out of your lives"... "We're gonna let business do what business does best". And people in the U.S. eat that crap up! Then, a few months after the Republicans take office... everyone realizes that its just the same old crap all over again. Both Republicans and Democrats need to leave Washington D.C. and simply go home. It's time to come up with something 'different' that will put the U.S. on the right track again.

[-] 1 points by geminijlw (176) from Mechanicsburg, PA 12 years ago

Boy you can say that again. We need our own party, American People party, and vet all those that wish to run for Congress. We need to put more government in the state's, and then keep a close eye on them, with transparency laws. Every law must be on a web site for us to read. Then we need to participate in our government always.

[-] 1 points by patriot4change (818) 12 years ago

I'm beginning to like your idea. At the state level. And "gut" the Federal Govt down to what it was meant to be (protect our Borders and mint Money). Thanks.

[-] 1 points by geminijlw (176) from Mechanicsburg, PA 12 years ago

Can you imagine the increase in our paychecks due to less taxes, as citizens if this were achieved. We would then have to find a job that suited all the political payback recipients that were laid off, maybe street cleaning, or garbage collection, that might fit their skills. Tax reform would be top of the list, simplify it, one tax rate per income, no loopholes.

[-] 1 points by patriot4change (818) 12 years ago

The world would definitely be a better place for all of us. Hey, Federal Government, get the HELL out of our lives!!!

[-] 1 points by German (82) 12 years ago

Very intersting this discussion - especially for me - as we are discussing the different way. That we need more power to the central government in Berlin - or even better in Brussles, instead of many regional parliaments and governments.

Especially as we think that this would give a government more possibilities and the possibilty to react faster.

While in the US the discussion seems to be the other way...

[-] 1 points by atki4564 (1259) from Lake Placid, FL 12 years ago

Why? Because in America the people fear the government while in Europe the government fears the people, and although I'm all in favor of taking down today's ineffective and inefficient Top 10% Management Group of Business & Government, there's only one way to do it – by fighting bankers as bankers ourselves. Consequently, I have posted a 1-page Summary of the Strategic Legal Policies, Organizational Operating Structures, and Tactical Investment Procedures necessary to do this at:




if you want to support a Presidential Candidate at AmericansElect.org in support of the above bank-focused platform.

[-] 1 points by geminijlw (176) from Mechanicsburg, PA 12 years ago

To Atki4564, I thank you for your comment, but on your idea, I would have to say that in the end, down the road, greed will take over. If we have a party, in both state and fed, we will be closer to those making laws, and with transparency it is up to us to police our party, and represent the 99%. We need to teach all of us to pay attention to what our government does. The trouble is we do not have access, nor information of what they do, or half they did would not have gotten done.

[-] 1 points by atki4564 (1259) from Lake Placid, FL 12 years ago

Greed can't take over because all Wealth & Income under the plan is heavily decentralized out of the hands of the top 10% and in all 100% by Occupation and Generation. Therefore, with all the people having significant influence as bank owner-voters, then none of the people can dominant or be greedy. It's a matter decentralization of wealth and income so that no one has the ability or motive to be greedy.

[-] 1 points by geminijlw (176) from Mechanicsburg, PA 12 years ago

But that would not be a democracy. What I would like to see is democracy as it was conceived by our forefathers. That everyone has participation, and majority rule. But our government does not really address the needs of the people. It ha gotten overun with special interests, who have taken over our government. We are going to take it back, and we will with OWS. By changing some laws, and vigilence we can all achieve the American Dream. It is the fact that we don't have any representation, but that will change.

[-] 1 points by atki4564 (1259) from Lake Placid, FL 12 years ago

Did you really read and think about what the link said: http://getsatisfaction.com/americanselect/topics/on_strategic_legal_policy_organizational_operational_structures_tactical_investment_procedures It's a DIRECT DEMOCRACY. The "old" Congress is replaced by a "new" Congress of 4,600 Home Town Banks of 65,000 Members, and their related 48 "new" Business Investment Groups (or "new" Congressional Committees) by Occupation and Generation. You can't have a democracy that's any more direct than that. Please READ and THINK before you speak because it makes you look bad in the eyes of other people otherwise. And please don't reply with an insult just because I criticized your critical thinking abilities. I'm trying agree with you logically, not fight you emotionally.

[-] 1 points by geminijlw (176) from Mechanicsburg, PA 12 years ago

I certainly did not mean an insult. I like discussing different ideas with people. I don't think I insulted you, but apologize if you preceived it as such.

[-] 1 points by atki4564 (1259) from Lake Placid, FL 12 years ago

No offense taken, but I hope you will join the group at http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/StrategicInternationalSystems/ too, for every person added is more powerful than the last person added. Remember that any candidate is a straw man; it's the STRATEGY that the people organize themselves behind, in military internet formation, that's important.

[-] 1 points by jonvonleaderhosen (50) 12 years ago


[-] 1 points by jonvonleaderhosen (50) 12 years ago

In America, the bottom 50% of wage earners pay NO taxes after deductions and refunds. The top 1% of wage earners pay 40% of all tax revenues to the fovernment. The reason the rich get tax loop holes is to offset the fact that they are billed twice for the same money due to the nature of business tax law and the capital gains tax. This is something democrats like Obama fails to mention when he is trying to stir up this kind of class warfare in his rhetoric loaded speeches.

[-] 1 points by German (82) 12 years ago

Don't you think, that it is correct that the bottom 50% of wage earners pay no taxes ? How many tax could someone pay - earning 7,50 USD/hr -> 507,504 = 1500 USD monthly income -> as I read at this homepage ?

[-] 1 points by jonvonleaderhosen (50) 12 years ago

Taxes get taken from their check and then when they file their taxes, after deductions and credits they get back everything they paid in, and with the earned income credit for families who make these lower wages; they actually get back more than what they paid in. So, it is like they are receiving a government bail-out, paid by other peoples' tax money, every single year.

[-] -1 points by German (82) 12 years ago

OK - I understood, pretty similar with the european system. But again my question - do YOU think that it isn't correct ?

[-] 0 points by jonvonleaderhosen (50) 12 years ago

I do agree that someone living at or below poverty cannot pay taxes, but I think it absurd that they should demand more from the ones that are paying their share plus the share of the ones that can't afford their share.

[-] 1 points by Skippy2 (485) 12 years ago

This protest has been highjacked by the Democratic party!. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Obama are now in control. If you think I'm wrong just check out how thier minions in the media portray us to America.

[-] 1 points by Ascension13 (46) from Tampa, FL 12 years ago

I don't think even American voters understand American voters. It doesn't really matter who you for for anyway. the 1% are just going to purchase the politicians.

[-] 1 points by karai2 (154) 12 years ago

As I understand it, Germany is doing better than most of the E.U. Good to know it is possible to continue to provide social programs (health, education, unemployment) and still have a reasonably sound economy even in a global downturn. I don't understand the hostility towards such programs that many americans have either.

[-] 2 points by German (82) 12 years ago

Perhaps I can't understand this hostility as I grow up in a society with such programs - which were reduced here to a acceptable level (acceptable from a european view). Sometimes we are looking to scandinavian countries with much better programs and get enviously.

Perhaps it is better without such programs - but I can't believe this. Occupy.

[-] 1 points by patriot4change (818) 12 years ago

Like I said before, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, Germany... you guys survived the formation of the European Union... and you STILL came out ahead!!! I think there is something the U.S. could learn here.

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 12 years ago
[-] 1 points by patriot4change (818) 12 years ago

OH, yeah. I forgot. Finland is a cool place.

[-] 1 points by karai2 (154) 12 years ago

Neither can I.

[-] 1 points by German (82) 12 years ago

Hope that the US get more social - if this is the correct word in AE. I liked the US at my visits - one of the great countries at this planet - but in my opinion it would need more responsibility for one another.

[-] 1 points by karai2 (154) 12 years ago

I hoped that we would move more in the direction of improving the social safety net and making it better for the majority of people but you will get called a "socialist" by some for even talking like this. You guys in Germany probably have a strong social democratic party, even a socialist party there and it's not out of the ordinary. The animosity between parties her is a little scary some times. Hope it gets better.

[-] 1 points by German (82) 12 years ago

I agree. We divide parties into right-side and left-side. Right-side is less social and more national (in US this would be republicans, while left-side is more social (in US this would be the democrats). We have left-side parties that are more loved by the economy than some right-side parties - ridiculous isn't it ?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 12 years ago

social means to interact with others

[-] 1 points by German (82) 12 years ago

Sorry, in BE (british english) social does also mean to take care for one another, especially for the weaker people. That is what I ment - and I had the opionion that it has the same meaning in AE.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 12 years ago

i see

I'm a little confused by latin endings

ism (zm) n. Informal A distinctive doctrine, system, or theory: "Formalism, by being an 'ism,' kills form by hugging it to death" (Peter Viereck).


so socialism is a doctrine of helping others

[-] 1 points by German (82) 12 years ago

Very similar in german: sozial (english social) - means interacting with people AND to take care for poorer and weaker persons, without making people and income equal. Sozialismus (english socialism) - means a radical system or doctrine that makes the people equal.

I meant this social - to take care for the poorer people. But it does also mean that different activities have to be payed different, the economical challenge is necessary to finance this social engagement. While socialism is normally inhibiting economical competition, as it was in eastern europe -> that is a big different !!

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 12 years ago

i get tired of economic chalanges

I'd rather be engaged in other activities

[-] 1 points by German (82) 12 years ago

But without economic challenge there would be no way to finance the state, your living or any health care,...

[-] 1 points by geminijlw (176) from Mechanicsburg, PA 12 years ago

Both parties are the same, both support the wealthy. Even Obama, who I had trusted and voted for, did not change anything. His adminstration support subsidies to Brazil farmers, just like they do here with our money. It is a system that is broken, we are not represented by either party, they are too busy getting reelected or taking the White House, or feathering their own nests. We will change this, watch, and thans for supporting us, even if you don't understand us.

[-] 1 points by opensociety4us (914) from Norwalk, CT 12 years ago

because many of the 99% falsely believe that any attempts to keep Capitalism from cannibalizing itself through fair-play regulation will keep them from joining the 1% - and the 1% preys on that fear in order to maintain their position.

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 12 years ago

Truth, and good question.

Danke mein freund, btw.

[-] 1 points by Mets (53) 12 years ago

The religious right in this country will vote Republican no matter what the circumstances are because Republican candidates are anti abortion rights, anti gay marriage, and anti atheist.

Republicans also lobby hard for 2nd amendment rights (the right to bear arms), which is a big issue for a lot of people here.

There are several reasons to vote Republican, although none of them are good reasons in my opinion. I basically see them as the "Anti - Progress" party, borderline regressionists.

Ultimately it doesn't matter if you vote Rep or Dem because the they are all bought and paid for.

[-] 2 points by German (82) 12 years ago

A main problem seems to be the "2-party-system". More parties are better for democracy (my private opinion).

[-] 1 points by Mets (53) 12 years ago

I agree. I like how their are so many different viewpoints in European parliments, as apposed to the "Red" or "Blue" that we have here. If we had more political parties we wouldn't have a dominant party in the house that could filibuster any legislation that the other party proposes.

[-] 1 points by German (82) 12 years ago

Has pros and cons... I think more than 2 are useful - but it shouldn't be to many...

[-] 1 points by Chromer (124) 12 years ago

America has been severely dumbed down over the last two or three decades. You ever hear the saying, "If it looks like a duck, if it quakes like a duck, then It must be a duck" This is about the extent of the level of thinking in this country for about 50% of Americans in this country.

[-] 1 points by reaganite (100) 12 years ago

Possibly because the alternative you provide for them is an open sewer populated by people who seem to offer nothing but profanity and hatred.

[-] 1 points by karai2 (154) 12 years ago

This is an image in your mind partially created by the media focusing on certain aspects of protests, combined with your own biases. I will admit the same thing happened with the Tea Party. It is true that the people willing to camp out overnight are unconventional and may challenge your idea of what a "good" person is supposed to look and act like. But to say that people who challenge your views (democrats, liberals or whatever label you give them) want you to live "an open sewer" and only have profanity and hatred offer is pretty extreme, no? If you've been looking at post here carefully, you will see thoughtful posts of people supportive of the protests who you would have a harder time vilifying. What's being circulated right now by detractors in the media and on right wing blogs is not reflective all the people supporting the protestors, frustrated with our current situation as a nation and concerned about our future.

[-] 1 points by reaganite (100) 12 years ago

I've been looking at the posts here with some care for a few days. I am honestly disappointed with the lack of a cohesive set of objectives-no matter that the views here are in many ways the opposite of mine. There are a reasonable number of thoughtful conversations, and I have enjoyed them as well. The truth is that you are defined by whatever you permit to define you. The tea party holds to a standard of conduct that makes it's intended audience comfortable bringing their children to events. (The accusations of racism and spitting were made up by those who hoped their charges would be proven-the opposite happened.) They even cleaned up after themselves. OWS has allowed and encouraged behavior that looks anti-constitutional and bizarre (John Lewis in Atlanta) and the video and pictures of the park in NYC are all that most will see.

[-] 1 points by karai2 (154) 12 years ago

It does look bizarre at times. I'll give you that. The Tea Party never camped out for a month, so we don't know what their hygeine would be like :). The people at that protest are experimenting with something called participatory democracy and their meetings follow rules just like congress or and other democratic body. The end of that video from Atlanta shows John Lewis walking away saying something like "Well, their making their effort." He doesn't look offended just confused. You would have to ask him personally, but I doubt he'd say his civil rights were violated. I think people should always hold them self to high standard of conduct with regard to their fellow man. But let's be real the Tea Party never had to resort to civil disobedience because most of their candidates were heavily financed by Wall Street and Conservative PACs. And people on the left have to vote for people who are similarly endowed. I think that's what people are getting tired of. And it may require civil disobedience to fix it.

[-] 1 points by reaganite (100) 12 years ago

Actually one of the few things you have in common with the Tea Party is that the Wall Street and old line Repubs don't like them. My establishment Republican friends don't like Cantor, but they like Romney...they have no idea what to do with Cain, which is why he has so little money. The conservative PACs, yes, but not to the extent your friends may believe. The AFT would like to do the same with you guys. I understand civil disobedience, and many on the right side of the aisle respect it...when it appears so leaderless it can be called pointless, and it is represented by profanity and hate speech, it loses the majority it seeks.

[-] 0 points by Alldeesx3 (23) 12 years ago

The right have had an agenda for quite some time but the left has been quite lazy up until very recently

[-] 0 points by Markmad (323) 12 years ago

The reasons why the economy of these socialistic democratic governments is growing in spite of the global crises are twofold: 1) They do run their entire national corporations and do have endless sources of income and therefore are able to provide free education and free health care for their citizens and; 2) Most importantly they are the economy, they are the market and they do regulate- regulation is order.

[-] 1 points by German (82) 12 years ago

Sorry, but what countries you are speaking about ?

[-] 1 points by Markmad (323) 12 years ago

Brazil, France, Canada, China.

[-] 1 points by German (82) 12 years ago

China - I think you are right Brazil and Canada - I don't know.

France - I think that you aren't right, as it is a free economy - the governing party is social democratic - yes. But that doesn't mean that the state or the nation is social democratic.

I think that free education, free health care,... can also be payed by fair taxes, therefore you need economical competition and challenge. And what you should know is that you can have the same quality of health care is provided for about 1/2 of the cost of the US health care - that is also a result of the common health care.

[-] 1 points by Markmad (323) 12 years ago

In fact they are among the most heavily taxed nations in the world they do pay almost a third of their GDP Brazil 36%, France 33%, Canada 34% and China 25% Versus 22% in the United States and without benefits.

[-] 2 points by German (82) 12 years ago

I think you shouldn't confound (hope it is the right word) high taxes with socialism or with what you described in your comment. And I think that you can't compare it 1 by 1, as you get more security and more return in France - I can't speak about the other countries, but for France (as the company, I'm working for owns a plant and several sales offices in France and part of my family is living in France). For example you should add an additional health insurance and retirement plan to the 22% of US-tax before comparing the taxes of France and US.

And this don't mean that the economy is free, only a free and competitive economy is able to deal with high taxes - without ending as the economies of eastern europe in the late 80's.

[-] 1 points by Markmad (323) 12 years ago

The answer will depend in part by whose version of socialism you are referring to but there is no doubt in my mind which of the two is less humane. And yet I do believe that these socialistic economies that you mentioned eventually will overpower free market capitalism as we know it today and will yield a kinder and more humane free market system given rise perhaps to a mix world economy with a perfect new monetary system; one not based on human capital but conceivably on the environment. What we witness around the world is the result of greed, exploitation and complete disregard for the planet and life in general. This online revolution may well be the one to bring this utopia.

[-] 0 points by LeanneC (62) from Fremont, CA 12 years ago

Well, to start with... it's not so much about lower taxes as it's about a smaller government which would in turn need less taxes. Conservatives in the US believe that a smaller government is the key to retaining the most liberty. We don't want an overly large and overly powerful government telling us what we can and can't do and controlling too many aspects of our lives. The more we ask of them, the more power they have over our lives. Becoming dependent upon any government for basic needs is a very dangerous thing, KWIM?

To us, the federal government is in place to provide national security and maintain federal parks and roads. The state governments are in place to provide social security nets and other social programs (if the people of that state desire as such) and set laws concerning certain rights. Local governments provide education and local fire/police protection and have a few more localized laws.

The smaller and more local the government, the less chance of corruption, the less money is wasted and the more efficient everything is. We know that people are naturally generous and want to help and see each other succeed and that nothing drives productivity like the freedom to create and dream and the basic human desire to succeed.

Now, this is not to say that this is how republicans in office today act... but it goes both ways, our entire government (save very few) are corrupt with power. That's what the Tea Party is about (which is not supported by wall st.) and I think it may be what this movement is about (still not sure!).

Does that make sense at all?

[-] 2 points by German (82) 12 years ago

Sorry, but the Tea Party IS supported by many billionaires - in my opinion it is not important, if this billionaire made his money at the wall street or not. And I wouldn't invest millions of USD without getting anything in return - not that I want to impute something to any politician.

Everybody, who don't avoid to use independent and international news to collect information can prove this.