Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: I do not believe you can build a movement on a lie.

Posted 1 year ago on Nov. 10, 2012, 5 a.m. EST by factsrfun (7065) from Phoenix, AZ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

If OWS depends on convincing people that there is no difference or not enough difference between the two major parties, it cannot succeed.

That is simply a lie, there are huge, important differences, if we start off with a lie what difference does it make what we follow it with?

I think there is another way, a path where we tell the truth warts and all and let the chips fall where they may.

136 Comments

136 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by zacherystaylor (243) 1 year ago

Most of the people that make this argument including me admit that there are some differences, including about social issues that the corporations don't attach top priority, between the parties; but on many of the most important issues like support of corporate control of just about everything and war there are few differences. The alternative candidates that wanted to address these issues were shut out of the debates and the entire corporate media as much as they could get away with.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (7065) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

you seem sincere so let me do a follow up, I know how useless the truth is, you can't tweak it because you don't think it will help you get what you want and at the same time I believe the truth is hugly powerful, I believe we can change the world by telling the truth, but not into something we want, the truth gives you no power to get what you want, you just get what you get, the truth is the truth, no benefit to anyone, that's why politicians don't use it.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (7065) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

"alternative candidates" that's another way of saying political party, you are exchanging one set of political party lies for another if you don't acknowledged the threat the GOP represent The Ds are willing to raise taxes the Rs aren't I thought OWS was about wealth inequality and getting money out of politics almost all Ds support public funding, so the choice is not as bad as those who wish to do the hard work of building a new political party wants to admit, but trading lies is of no interest to me.

[-] 1 points by zacherystaylor (243) 1 year ago

The Democratic Party has done a much better job pretending to look out for the best interest of the public but when it counts they don't come through. A couple examples include the fact that two years ago the Republicans were making it clear that tehy intended to use the filibuster to shut down government; in January of 2011 when they took their first vote in the Senate on the rules for the filibuster they could have set it up so that they couldn't do this; the Democrats chose not to and now they have the same choice to make in a few weeks. Also when it came to protecting the environment the Democrats have been doing just as much to increase off-shore drilling and the keystone pipeline as the Republicans despite more effective rhetoric. And the Democrats are taking almost as much money as the Republicans from the corporations and using that for propaganda that they refer to as political ads.

Some of these alternative candidates that have been shut out of the debates haven't been doing this and they have been doing much more to address the issues. If they rise to power it will be necessary to hold them accountable as well but this duopoly has to be broken if the system is going to be repaired.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

But the Alternative candidates didn't even get 2%

What do you propose we do?

[-] 1 points by zacherystaylor (243) 1 year ago

Vote for them so that they get much more and educate more people about how corrupt the system is. We now have more time, at least when it comes to the elections. But there are other things that need to be done sooner. More protest and education as well as additional ideas would be welcome. I'll try to come up with more but fortunately I'm not the only one plugging away.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I agree more education (& of course votes) But major changes to our election/campaign system is required as well.

https://movetoamend.org/

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

http://www.opendebates.org/

These orgs could improve alternative candidates chances.

election day holidays, mandatory voting for all, and open primaries w/ automatic runoffs could also help.

Peace

[-] 1 points by zacherystaylor (243) 1 year ago

Consider them bookmarked. Another of my favorites is Project Vote Smart; however unfortunately they have been deteriorating. It is important to have these organizations held accountable to the public as well.

The campaign should be treated like a job interview they should be required to fill out their applications of Project Vote Smart questionnaires which should be controlled by the public along with attending debates or interviews also controlled by the public. Instead of public financing of campaigns we should have public financing of the job interview process; which would mean the money goes to the independent candidates and people like Jill Stein won't have to raise much if any money; instead they collect signatures fill out applications and attend the interviews.

http://www.votesmart.org/

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Excellent. Thx. I would agree. And the amount of money needed to campaign is directly related to the length of campaigns. (let's shorten them,) and tv ads. (Let's disallow tv ads. & force weekly debates)

That will go a long way to cutting costs and level the playing field for alternative candidates..

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (7065) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

As long as we have set dates for elections that people can see years in advance I don't think we can shorten them, but maybe outlaw the ads,maybe? they got to be as bad for us as tobacco overall.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Heard Pelosi talk about shortening campaigns yesterday so who knows. Maybe there is hope.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (7065) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

perfection is often the enemy of the good, but it matters not, time for delicateness has passed, I think we must move quickly before all is lost and to do that we must pick up the weapons we find on the battlefield....

[-] 1 points by zacherystaylor (243) 1 year ago

Agreed although I'm going to assume for the sake of argument that you meant "weapons we find on the battlefield" as a metaphor and that you mean to do more to educate the public on issues and other tactics that will do more to reform the system,; especially with a tag name like facts are fun. ;-)

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (7065) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

The weapon in this case is the Ds they are usually the surest way to keep a R from office though Maine and Vermont are notable exceptions.

[-] 2 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 1 year ago

Siding with either party gives them a free pass. Secondly, Chuck Schumer is a democrat but has been pushing the Fed to print money "it's the only game in town" he said to Ben Bernanke during one of the last congressional hearings on the state of the economy. This practice your hero democrat has been pushing for is driving up prices, which is the real killer of the economy, not interest rates or some other line of insignificant bullshit. People can't afford to buy, stores lose money, it's that simple.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (7065) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Failure to do all we can to defeat the GOP is a path to failure overall, the GOP are clearly the party of the 1% if we are unwilling to address that we will not addressing wealth inequality and the promise of OWS will be lost.

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 1 year ago

Do tell, what is this 'truth' you speak of??

The two parties are 'the same' in that they are just puppets of the real controllers, they do not deviate far from the course the 1% desire,. if they do they end up out of power, or sometimes shot, or worse. Simple system eh?

What vast differences exist between the two 'parties', besides small-ish social issues that do not effect the bottom line for the military-corporate-banksters? The two parties and the elections are there to provided the illusion of participation, weak as voting once every couple years is as participation goes,. but that is all, no real change will ever come from this system (where 'real change' = alterations to the power structures and wealth distributions).

[-] 1 points by gsw (2697) 1 year ago

That's right. Most difference is in liberal Versus consrvative social values. protecting safety net is important, as the people like it, and need the protection. The "right" would rather that be mostly gone, so they could have more of what they value, money. This election showed country as a whole populace like safety net. I think it is only a matter of time unti the house goes more with public sentiment. Gerrymander And money in campaigns can only do so much. The social issues shouldn't be political, but fundamental civil rights we all have.

[-] -2 points by factsrfun (7065) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

A lie is a lie no matter the source, the Greens say "there is no difference" but that is a lie, they tell it because they wish to build a party and so have to, just as the Ds and Rs do I think there is another way where we tell the truth.

Obama wants to raise taxes on the wealthy the GOP does not, that is the difference a group of people which care about wealth inequality would care about. Truth is truth no matter if it hurts.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 1 year ago

Yes, however the truth is, that the level of 'difference' is so small, when put beside the real issues, that the point of calling this a democracy is moot. The "choice" given is no real choice,. yes sure,. we all agree the dems talk a slightly better game than the other party,. however the differences are slight in the actual scale of issues; expanding police state, accelerating resource exploitation, and wall st./corporate bankster corruption gone unchecked, are just a few issues where there is no REAL difference to speak of. The machine rolls on, with either of the two parties in power. That is the point of the line; "there is no real difference" it is not absolute, but it is true!

[-] 1 points by gsw (2697) 1 year ago

Elisabeth Warren in senate as a dem. Bernie Sanders stlill good. Kucinich.

Pretty good dems. Could any of them be electable by whole country for president.

We have to keep on the issues. Maybe one will run. Maybe not.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (7065) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Do you think I couldn't come on here and find something to bitch about the Ds?

I could do it every day, I don't because it is wasted energy and I think if we actually want to change things we should focus our energy where it will be effective, there \can be no "two party system" if we bring down one, and we can actually do that.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (7065) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

This is a pack of lies jph, the Ds want to raise taxes on those making more than $250,000 and the Rs don't OWS said it was about wealth inequality unless that too was a lie, those that support it would admit reality and move on.

[-] 2 points by Marquee (192) 1 year ago

It's not meant to be a lie. Truth is, they both answer to the same corporate masters. They both lie to the people; Romney's openly deceptive and Obama is a smooth talking snake oil salesman.Fundamentally they are the same.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (7065) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Let me be clear OWS right now has stuff on the front page asking for money to help Sandy victims, do they care if I work on the top floor of Bank of America or flipping burgers at McDs?

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (7065) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Anyone who says there is little difference between them is also telling a lie, if I need to go into that I will, want to talk about Kagan v Alito? So telling a lie is telling a lie you tell one for your reason the Ds and Rs tell their for their reasons, a lie is still a lie. We all take money from those that have it, that is a bullshit position it's like saying they eat, shit and breath air we are all more alike than we are different.

[-] 1 points by Misaki (893) 1 year ago

Well, let's see what poor people think.

Do they support the Democratic party? Nope! Most of them are independent. http://www.gallup.com/poll/157607/half-americans-poverty-politically-independent.aspx

Do they have a chance to get their desired policies enacted in Congress? Nope, because the middle class sides with the rich (people look upwards socially) and it ends up being a "tyranny of the majority" against the poor. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Senate_Income_Votes.SVG

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (7065) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

policy by polling? interesting, I think there is a better method, reason

[-] 1 points by Misaki (893) 1 year ago

Reason failed. http://occupywallst.org/forum/a-nonviolent-solution-to-the-political-conflict-in/

But if you like you can sign this petition to fix unemployment without more government spending: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/783/697/872/tell-the-1-how-they-can-help-the-economy/

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (7065) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Let me be very clear about what I am saying in this post. When OWS said the wealth inequality is a problem, money in politics is a problem they were telling truth, some truth that was important and few were telling it, so I became a supporter but when you tell me there is no or little difference between the two parties i know that you are lying and I become suspicious of your motives, there is no way to know your intent as you have proven your willingness to lie, I have no desire to follow a liar, so OWS becomes another tool like the Ds or the Rs, just another organized group more concerned with its existence than the country on whole, we could change the world, but we would have to willing to tell the truth and give up control

[-] 2 points by gsw (2697) 1 year ago

There is a difference in the parties on social issues and who they represent. Also supreme court.

It is a matter of degree, which is a significant difference. What is the same is they both take money for campaigns. And, both want to keep system, debates closed to 3rd party.

Yes truth matters and you have a good point, that neither dems nor repubs will like Ows if we say they equally bad. Ok dems are way better socially.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (7065) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

You seem to forget that the dems also want to raise taxes on the wealthy which directly addresses OWS first concern. You also leave out the fact that most Ds support public funding for elections, taken together it makes one wonder about your motives.

There is a real and important reason we can no longer waste our time waiting and looking for unicorns.

[-] 1 points by gsw (2697) 1 year ago

Well Obama forgot his own promise to raise taxes on rich over last 4 years, due to bad economy and repubs, so that was an easy one to forget difference on.

I did not realize ds support public funding of elections. Thanks for this info. I'll look into it.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7065) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I live in AZ we have had a 14 year battle with the GOP since we passed it in 1998, odd you didn't known that and I agree extending the tax cuts was an outrage and cost the Ds over 60 seats in the House, hope they have learned something from this too.

[-] 2 points by gsw (2697) 1 year ago

you had a 14 year old battle over them being ass holes, public funding, or ?

oh the Bush tax cuts?

yea my family would be afraid of getting deported from AZ and they are citizens. I like AZ.

Repub party should be outlawed for crimes against nation and humanity. and for giving us Bush II and maybe Bush III

http://technorati.com/politics/article/bush-convicted-of-war-crimes/

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (7065) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

We passed public funding for election in 1998 the GOP and Chamber of Commerce has been trying to kill it ever since with the help of the Robert's court they may have succeeded.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/10-238.pdf

[-] 2 points by gsw (2697) 1 year ago

You passed a citizens initiative in that gave matching public dollars to other candidates who reached a certain threshold which triggered the matching funds to equal roughly dollar to dollar a privately funded candidate, and Roberts SC says t,hat not constitutional. I need to finish reading Roberts opinion, ruling. However it does not appear very logical, that it would deny or burden free speech of private funded candidate, .

So again, they are 1 percent rigged rules brought to us by the ass kissing republican tyrants.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7065) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

It is a terrible ruling I think it rivals CU in it's usurping of the the people's will.

They basically say that the people of AZ have no right to match a rich guy dollar for dollar because that would mean he was just wasting his money, and causing someone to waste their money is the same as refusing to let them spend it in the first place to the Robert's court is that insane or what?

[-] 1 points by Misaki (893) 1 year ago

Can Obama Win Over the Billionaires? : The New Yorker

OWS has never stated that it supports the Democratic party.

"The change from 2008 is dramatic: four years ago, as Bloomberg News reported, seventy-five per cent of the campaign donations given by employees of Goldman Sachs went to Obama and the Democrats. This year, the ratio has been nearly reversed, with Democrats collecting just thirty per cent of the Goldman contributions."

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (7065) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

no it hasn't, some supporters do tell the lie that there is no (or little) difference between the two parties they use the fact that they both accept money from Wall Street as evidence of that, however that would make OWS just like the Republicans and Democrats as they were recently raising money for both Sandy relief and debt relief and did not refuse money from Wall Street, so the implication that many try to cast is in and of itself a lie, these lies harm the movement

[-] 2 points by Misaki (893) 1 year ago

Political contributions are used to benefit a party, which harms the other party in votes.

Donations to OWS went to people affected by the disaster or heavily in debt.

It is possible OWS might have received donations from Wall Street during the initial protest period against Wall Street, but this did not stop the protests from occurring. With political donations, the donators expect, and often get, either "access" in the form of phone calls or visits or specific policies like tax breaks.

The Republican party is presented as wanting a smaller government by some people, but this is what the actual candidate had to say: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/05/25/490532/romney-budget-cuts-recession/

He would have kept spending. Just like the Democrats. He would have promised to stop spending in the future... just like the Democrats.

Remember, it was a Democratic president who eliminated the welfare state.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (7065) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Yours as well as the position presented by many is that because the GOP and the Ds both take money from Wall Street they are both flawed, OWS is flawed in the same manner. Often people take money for political parties and use that money to "get out the vote" is that somehow less worthy than relieving debt? Yes parties pick who they are going to "get out" but OWS also picks who gets relief. The overall point that just because you take money you are by definition corrupt is in fact the theroy that is flawed, not OWS or the Ds or the Rs for that matter, all are flawed, but not because they take the money, it's what they do, the Ds are flawed when they don't fight the GOP hard enough, same for OWS.

[-] 1 points by Misaki (893) 1 year ago

I haven't actually said that I think either the GOP or the Ds are flawed.

I also haven't said that I think OWS's debt relief efforts make it better than political parties, just pointed out that the situation is different. The GOP and Ds don't use the campaign contributions to help poor people.

Actually, this explains why poor people are usually independent instead of voting for the Democratic party; it isn't because of maliciousness, just incompetence: http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-problems-in-the-economy-are-not-new-they-are-o/

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (7065) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

1 points by Misaki (743) 2 weeks ago Well, let's see what poor people think. Do they support the Democratic party? Nope! Most of them are independent. http://www.gallup.com/poll/157607/half-americans-poverty-politically-independent.aspx Do they have a chance to get their desired policies enacted in Congress? Nope, because the middle class sides with the rich (people look upwards socially) and it ends up being a "tyranny of the majority" against the poor. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Senate_Income_Votes.SVG

You will have to forgive me if I interrupted this as "flawed" what did you mean?

Is it your position that taking money from Wall Street presents no problem for the Ds or Rs?

Doesn't getting more people to vote help poor people?

[-] 1 points by Misaki (893) 1 year ago

Well, in fact when those donations are spent, on advertisements and so on, it creates jobs.

But it's hard for most people to admit that everyone in a position of influence is so incompetent that they haven't figured out to fix unemployment or other problems that affect the poor, instead of just that the political parties don't want to fix these problems.

Which leads to this thread that was too crazy for anyone to reply to:
http://www.occupywallst.org/forum/the-us-is-1-including-rampage-killings-among-devel/

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (7065) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

again you have claimed that you don't call the parties "flawed" and now you say they don't want to fix unemployment, so perhaps it is your confusing logic that drives people off

[-] 1 points by Misaki (893) 1 year ago

Did people want taxes to be raised on the middle class during the fiscal cliff thing?

No, lots of people didn't. (Sort of like eating vegetables.) But it would have allowed the government to spend more to create jobs without a higher deficit. So the fact that both political parties are not doing more to fix unemployment is really just that the middle class does not view unemployment as important enough to increase taxes and government spending.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Indefinite detention laws

Wars

Illegal Drone Strikes

WMD lies

Spying on Americans

World's Largest Political Prisoner Population

Monetary Policy specifically based on giving unlimited resources to Wall Street

Is one worse than the other? Yes. Are they both contributing to what I listed above? Yes.

Anyone supporting any of these failed policies needs to be run out of office.

To give someone a pass because of the letter on their chest is stupid.

[-] -2 points by factsrfun (7065) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

What went wrong? I thought you were going to get us someone not from the two main parties, did your plan fail? I'm not surprised you never did make any sense. Are you pissed that Jill couldn't do what Nader did, and help elect another Bush?

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Right. Thats what we need. More D/R paradigm shit.

The things they are the same on are intolerable. Its that simple.

Unreal....

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Forget the parties! the election is over.

Protest all pols for greentech jobs, economic fairness, tax the wealthy, ending the war on terror. rolling jubilee,

YOU need to put the D/R paradigm aside.!

[+] -4 points by Nowsmichigan (-310) 1 year ago

Protest all pols against greentech jobs. Open up all coal mines and allow more oil drilling. Get America back to work

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

NOT!

[-] -3 points by Nowsmichigan (-310) 1 year ago

You are just like the loser leader in charge. Want to stop all fossil fuels right now and have nothing to take the place of it

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Greentech jobs!.

Transfer all polluting, 19th century fossil fuel subsidies to clean 21st century greentech industry.

Easy peezy.

[-] -3 points by Nowsmichigan (-310) 1 year ago

If you put an end to fossil fuels today then what would power all automobiles, planes, tractors, bulldozers, etc?? Waiting for your answer.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28436) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Trains have electric engines - there are semis working in the ports that have electric engines - why couldn't a bulldozer ?

BTW : Other alternative fuels result in airplane performance penalties. For example, liquid hydrogen (LH2) not only presents very substantial airport infrastructure and airplane design issues, but because of the need for heavy fuel tanks, a short-range airplane would experience a 28 percent decrease in energy efficiency while on a 500-nautical-mile (nmi) mission. However, because airplanes need to carry much more fuel for a long range flight, and Liquid Hydrogen (LH2) fuel is quite lightweight the lighter takeoff weight of the airplane results in an energy efficiency loss of only 2 percent while on a 3,000-nm mission.

From: NASA: alternative fuels for aviation | Energy Bulletin

[-] -3 points by Nowsmichigan (-310) 1 year ago

How would you take a semi cross Country today on electric power?? Without stopping every few hours to recharge?? It is not going to happen, maybe in another twenty or more years

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28436) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Liquid Hydrogen fueled generator to power the electric motor when needed while at the same time it recharge's the battery for continued use.

[-] -3 points by Nowsmichigan (-310) 1 year ago

That will also take years to develop. You folks want to put an end to fossil fuels "right now" but as I stated in the past, there is no present technology that is going to take the place of fossil fuels today

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28436) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

WRONG - We want to replace fossil fuels ASAP. We know that there are gonna be needed changes to make in our infrastructure - THAT IS WHY WE ARE CAMPAIGNING FOR THOSE CHANGES NOW.

The sooner started - the soonest completed.

[-] 0 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

What about all the other manufacturered products that are made from oil?

I guess we need to shut down the country and start over - well if that's your view then you had better live in the country where you will have all the necessities you will need to survive.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28436) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

HEMP PLASTIC | WELCOME TO HEMP www.hempowered.com/hemp-plastics.html Hemp Plastics are an alternative to oil based plastics and can be biodegradable.


[-] 0 points by Shayneh (147) 34 minutes ago

Well lets see - about 99% of all plastics are made from oil maybe 1% is made from corn oil. Do you really think that all plastics can be made from corn oil - then what - the price of food goes up to outrageous prices especially during a drought.

So at present there is little or no alternative

Take away everyones plastic devices and you will see a revolution. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28436) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

There are alternatives to fossil fuel oil products - what product are you worried about? Oh - and by the way - just because fossil oil is stopped being used as a fuel? Why would all use of it need to stop? Just think how much further oil reserves would go if not used as fuel. Besides fossil fuel is running out - why else is the industry working so hard to suck up the last dregs from the bottom of the barrel with processing tar sands and destructive fracking of shale?

Alternatives will be found and used because there is no choice.

[-] 0 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

Well lets see - about 99% of all plastics are made from oil maybe 1% is made from corn oil. Do you really think that all plastics can be made from corn oil - then what - the price of food goes up to outrageous prices especially during a drought.

So at present there is little or no alternative

Take away everyones plastic devices and you will see a revolution.

[-] -3 points by Nowsmichigan (-310) 1 year ago

I say full speed ahead on coal mining and drill / open up more oil wells until an alternative is fully in place (and not just ideas of alternative energy)

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28436) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

End fossil fuel subsidies and fund industry to supply green infrastructure. Place a mandate - outdated power-plants can only be replaced with green tech power-plants. Retiring coal plants to be replaced by thorium power-plants or fuel cell power-plants wind generation or solar generation - but not fossil fuel generation. Fossil Fuel is dying out - and the time for making the changeover to alternatives is NOW.

[-] -3 points by Nowsmichigan (-310) 1 year ago

The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies: All these failed companies also contributed to obama's campaign fund

Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*

SpectraWatt ($500,000)*

Solyndra ($535 million)*

Beacon Power ($43 million)*

Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)

SunPower ($1.2 billion)

First Solar ($1.46 billion)

Babcock and Brown ($178 million)

EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*

Amonix ($5.9 million)

Fisker Automotive ($529 million)

Abound Solar ($400 million)*

A123 Systems ($279 million)*

Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*

Johnson Controls ($299 million)

Brightsource ($1.6 billion)

ECOtality ($126.2 million)

Raser Technologies ($33 million)*

Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*

Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*

Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*

Range Fuels ($80 million)*

Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*

Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*

Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*

GreenVolts ($500,000)

Vestas ($50 million)

LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)

Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*

Navistar ($39 million)

Satcon ($3 million)*

Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*

Mascoma Corp. ($100 million
[-] -3 points by Nowsmichigan (-310) 1 year ago

The majority of obama's greentech adventures have resulted in bankruptcy. The same thing will eventually happen with wind farms, as the money drys up for them also. There is going to be thousands of them idle in farm fields. Wind turbines cost around two million each installed and it will take a lot of years before they pay for there selves

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Greentech!. Electric cars.!

Planes, & big trucks will require a national effort to improve electric engines.

That will come. In a matter of a few years if we make the effort!

[-] -2 points by Nowsmichigan (-310) 1 year ago

It will be years before that would happen. I suspect about twenty or more years

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28436) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Why are you so fanatically against Green Power and Fuel Technology?

[-] -2 points by Nowsmichigan (-310) 1 year ago

I am not but the trillions of dollars that were already wasted on it, makes you wonder???

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28436) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Listen negative nellie - get the facts - Mn with its so far minimal investment in wind-power has already reduced it's demand for oil by 10%.

If you are not against green technology - you might want to consider campaigning against trade practices that undercut American "DOMESTIC" Industry.

[-] -2 points by Nowsmichigan (-310) 1 year ago

I posted all of the green tech companies that went belly up and you do not even mention them, Why??

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28436) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Have you posted all of the successful green tech companies still in operation?

You have a penchant for the negative - maybe you ought to look into that.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28436) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

We need more investment in green technology/industry not less.

An article you might find interesting:

The Role of the DOE in Obama’s Second Term

[-] -1 points by Nowsmichigan (-310) 1 year ago

I am having a hard time finding one, maybe "ice energy"

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 1 year ago

Sunpower; not bankrupt. up 4.57 on the nasdaq today.........First Solar, not bankrupt, up 24.55 today. Johnson Controls, not bankrupt. Without checking your entire list, it seems you are misinformed.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

It can be less than 5 if we make the effort!

We are Americans! The greatest innovators on earth.

We must come together in the street to fight for this effort and all change that benefits the 99%

[-] -2 points by Nowsmichigan (-310) 1 year ago

I say full speed ahead on coal mining and drill / open up more oil wells until an alternative is fully in place (and not just ideas of alternative energy)

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Pres Obama announced closing 1.6 billion sq miles of fed land to drilling in Utah, Wyoming.

Aaaaaah ha ha ha. He waited until after the election. This shuts down much of the land Bush gave to the fossil fuel industry.

He ain't gone far enough. But it is a step in theright direction.

LMFAO!

And we know how tough his EPA has made it for coal plants. LOL

[-] -2 points by Nowsmichigan (-310) 1 year ago

You libs have nothing to worry about since the majority of you do not work anyways. But now their is going to be a lot more hardworking taxpayers that will not be paying in so, you folks will be getting less obummer cash

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

More liberals are working than conservatives. That much is sure.!

And many conservatives are just lazy, fat ass, greedy, selfish, do nothing, corp execs who add nothing to society. Leeches. Takers, not givers. Build NOTHING! Do not earn the obscene pay they get.

They are the problem!

[-] -1 points by Nowsmichigan (-310) 1 year ago

, fat ass, greedy, selfish/////////////////////////////////////////// Talk about being a racist?? you sure are laying it down.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I didn't mention race. I stand with the 99%.

Some 1%'rs support the 99%, but otherwise the real drag on the 99%, & the American economy is the greedy selfish do nothing 1% plutocrats who add nothing and take/hoard so much of our wealth.

No race mentioned.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 1 year ago

Nov 9, 2012 - 9:27AM PT BrightSource actually raising $130M for solar thermal......................http://gigaom.com/cleantech/brightsource-actually-raising-130m-for-solar-thermal/

[-] 0 points by janus2 (-387) 1 year ago

these people are playing with themselves.

[-] -2 points by factsrfun (7065) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

lies are all you got hc, I understand, must be tough these days what with your guy losing and all....

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

I could have hopped on the Obama campaign trail again, factsrfun, but I refuse to support war criminals. You are one of em that just digs your heels in further, the more horrible shit you see "your guy" doing.

The next four years will show you how bad it is. Four more years of lying and fascist bullshit. Great fuckin job. You are quite the asset to a bright future.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (7065) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

You never supported Obama you're just a lying troll, so the only question is why do you still pretend when so many know you.

So you think things would have been better with Romney or are still trying to make people believe in unicorns?

[-] -3 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

I did vote for him in 08, and helped out too.

I think things would be worse with Romney. The entire system is broken, and endorsing them is only delaying the inevitable. We should at least possibly being trying to get some new representation in there after 150 yrs of Democrats and Republicans.

If you were wondering what site the puppet quote came from, about how we all lose with Obama or Romney, here it is stupid:

http://occupywallst.org/article/ows-updates-week-october-24th/

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (7065) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I think we should stop waiting for things to get better and make them better.

Step One Kill the GOP

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Agreed. We must criticize the parties honestly. For me the Dems are more disappointing because they betray progressive principles when they suport the conservative policies that are at the root of ALL our problems.

So we must protest all pols for change that benefits the 99%.

[-] -3 points by factsrfun (7065) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

If our protest harm the chance of beating a Republican, well have you heard that old saying about shooting your own foot off.

If that means to ensure any criticism contains the positions of both the Ds and Rs and compare them for which is better this informs to criticize one with no mention of the other is to misinform if the implication is that the other would be better when they would actually be worst. To claim that you don't have to play the "two party" game and therefore can attack one while no mention of the other is just another form of lying.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I think I understand what you are saying.

I believe it is conservative policy atthe center of ALL our problems. As such republicans (who proudly push these policies) are far and away more to blame for the inequities that exist between the 99% & the 1%, as well as the war mongering we are engaged in.

The Republicans and their support for conservative policies must be our main target.

I do not believe we must criticize dems everytime we criticize repubs in some misguided effort to be "fair & balanced" (No pun intended)

I will criticize dems if they support the conservative policies and I would submit they can be turned, dragged back from the right and made to serve the 99%.

That is necessary to weed out the bluedog dems, & to elect progressives.

Ihope I did not misunderstand you comment. And I hope I was clear in my position.

Peace

[-] -2 points by factsrfun (7065) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

If we take away one, there will not be two.

Plans within plans.....

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

indeed.

[-] 0 points by oldJim (-96) 1 year ago

OWS was built on the tradeoff of truth for numbers. The core anarcho-communist/marxist element was pushed under the rug, hidden from view, in order to reach a wider audience. This created a popular, but short lived movement. OWS is now dead because of this, but we can wonder if it would ever have taken off in the first place had the creators been forthcoming about the base ideology of the movement. At this point, there's no way to salvage OWS because of this. The name has already been tarnished by mass media. Communism simply can't grab a lot of people in America, not at the moment at least. The only way to move forward is to shed the OWS legacy and start a new movement, a movement built on 100% truth and transparency. We can't a great and transparent society without being transparent and great from the get go.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

You are free to start your own thing then factsrfun.

Go do it. Or be just another armchair quarterback.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (7065) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I know you depend on lies hchc, that's all you got.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

The banks are still robbing, the bombs are still dropping. And they all accepted money from multinational corporations in their elections.

End the wars. End the Fed/banking cartel. Get money the fuck out of politics.

Lies?

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (7065) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

You lie through omission mostly, the Earth still spins too but it has no bearing on who we should support in this or any other election, we must make smart choices in primaries like when Elizabeth Warren won and elections to defeat the GOP wherever we can, you support more corporate control by trying to pull people away from Ds.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 1 year ago

This is not a Democratic party support forum. If you are looking for such a forum you can find it by clicking here. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (7065) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

didn't know you had become The Keeper of the True Path

if you fear the truth so much maybe you should study on that for a bit....

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Or maybe you should take your bullshit Dem nonsense to your local campaign office and get busy.

[-] -1 points by jbgramps (159) 1 year ago

IMHO, There are differences between the two parties, often significant differences in how problems are addressed. However, At this point I don’t think it matters. Our problems are beyond political solutions. Doesn’t matter who the president is.

We are 16 Trillion dollars in debt. No matter how much they raise taxes or cut spending we can’t overcome such a financial crises. Also, The American people are also split, and the right and left hate each other no reasonable discussion is possible. The hate is so strong people would rather see the county go up in flames before talking to the other side.

I think it’s inevitable the economy will fail; causing a depression unlike we’ve seen before. The government will attempt numerous stop gap measures, but that’s just delaying the inevitable. I’ve read that 47% of Americans receive some type of government assistance, excluding Social Security and unemployment. When the checks stop coming do you believe people will understand?

If the economy fails and a depression occurs, politics and causes will become less important. People will follow whoever can provide security and jobs. I know some people here think we will all join hands and sing kum-ba-yah, but cold, hungry, scared people have no interest in singing.

The bottom line is politics can't save us now.

[-] 6 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

Your understanding of the 47% is wrong. Perhaps you're referring to 47% that don't pay Fed Income Tax. Part of this is the elderly and the disabled. The majority of the 47% are the working poor whose earnings are so low that they qualify for EITC or CTC. Because we've decided that taxing them would be counterproductive. These low income tax credits were instituted as part of welfare reform in the 70's and expanded under Pres. Reagan. Who called them the best anti-poverty and job creation measures. Because it incentivizes work rather than expanding welfare rolls. It's provided to ensure that people that can work, even at very low wages, have more money than they would otherwise recieve from welfare.

You may be referring to 49% of the population that has recieved some form of government assistance. However, this includes temporary assistance, unemployment, and very often, food stamps are temporary. But this absolutely includes SS and Medicare. SS and Medicare are not means tested. Everyone over the age of 65, including millionaires, receives SS and Medicare.

The largest means tested program is Medicaid. In 2010 26% of US households were recieving Medicaid. The next largest means tested program is food assistance. 15% recieved foodstamps, SNAP or other food assistance.

The only reason we didn't have a depression was because of these programs. Because unemployment and food stamps keeps food on the table and money circulating through the economy much more productively than bread lines and soup kitchens.

We've had this level of debt before. 100 some odd percent of GDP. We raised top marginal tax rates to 90%. The debt was paid down to a manageable 30% of GDP within 30 years.

This was also our greatest period of prosperity. We built out and invested in our national infrastructure. We invested in education making our public education system the envy of the world. We put men on the moon. We saw our greatest sustained levels of economic expansion in history. With low levels of wealth disparity, and a thriving middle class being the backbone of the country.

Of course, this was before people were told to hate on government. This was also before right wing neo-liberal economics and the fevered irrationality of their supply side and trickle down theories.

[-] 1 points by Ache4Change (3158) 1 year ago

Yes, "people WERE told to hate on government. This was also before right wing neo-liberal economics and the fevered irrationality of their supply side and trickle down theories". Empathy, democracy and cool compassion are what we need more of in this country.

Thank you 'buttercup' for this magnificent, thoughtful and indeed very moving, comment. I have said so before and will repeat it here again - you are a teacher. Your comment should be a proper post really and I ask you to consider that. This is better than any editorial I've read anywhere for years.

To repeat - "The only reason we didn't have a depression was because of these programs. Because unemployment and food stamps keeps food on the table and money circulating through the economy much more productively than bread lines and soup kitchens."

Further - "We've had this level of debt before. 100 some odd percent of GDP. We raised top marginal tax rates to 90%. The debt was paid down to a manageable 30% of GDP within 30 years."

Finally - "This was also our greatest period of prosperity. We built out and invested in our national infrastructure. We invested in education making our public education system the envy of the world. We put men on the moon. We saw our greatest sustained levels of economic expansion in history. With low levels of wealth disparity, and a thriving middle class being the backbone of the country."

I defy ANYONE to read theses words and not feel compelled to at least desire justice and change. I 'Ache4it'! I can not tell you enough Buttercup, just how bolstered and inspired I feel by your comment. You are brilliant and one of the reasons why this forum is SO important, even IF y'all don't realise it!

Never give up! Never stop speaking for the 99%, for us - for me! Your comment is Brilliant! GO OCCUPY!

[-] -2 points by jbgramps (159) 1 year ago

Couple of things. The nation has never had a 16 trillion deficit before, never. Also, I don’t know the exact number of people who receive some type of government assistance. Could be 47%, 49% or whatever; and even it does include all the programs, including SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Snap, food stamps and the list goes on. My point is these people will not be understanding when the checks and assistance stops or is reduced.

We can’t tax high enough or cut government spending enough to handle a 16 trillion budget. Any serious effort to reduce the debt would mean taxing at outrageous rates and cutting significantly social services spending. I just don’t see the US being able to handle the deficit without seriously hurting the masses in one way or another.

[-] 3 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

The $16T, we have not had before. But the absolute dollar amount is meaningless. The % of GDP is what matters. And yes, we have had this before. Debt was 120% in 1940. And it was paid down to 30% of GDP by 1970. The top marginal tax rate was 90% for much of that time. So yes. History shows - we can tax enough.

We don't have a $16T budget. We have a $3.5T budget.

Any serious effort 'should' require relatively outrageous tax rates. Outrageous only relative to recent times and the current political environment. We had top tax rates of 90%-70% for over 50 years. It wasn't considered so outrageous. Even if it was, it wasn't much of a problem. People still worked. People still invested. Rich people were still rich. The economy grew. The middle class thrived. History shows we can tax enough.

Pres. Obama isn't proposing anything even near that. For shits sake he's only talking about 39%. And people act as if it would be the the end of the world as we know it and the earth will spin off it's axis. It won't.

Politcally speaking, will we raise top tax rates enough to maintain needed social services for the poor and working poor, and reduce the deficit? No. Of course not. The wealthy and powerful will absolutely be fed first.

Will the least privileged in society be hurt the most? Yes. Because of the utility value of money. $100 in food stamps to the poor is worth far more than the utility value of $1k to a person making $150k or $10k or more to someone making $250k or greater.

'without seriously hurting the masses' It depends on your definition of 'seriously hurting' I suppose. And your definition of masses. Do you mean the masses living at or below poverty level? Or the masses above poverty level? Will some small amount of increased taxation on someone making $150k or $250k 'seriously hurt'?

'My point is these people will not be understanding when the checks and assistance stops or is reduced.' - why should they be understanding? Why should anyone in this country be understanding? If the richest country on earth cannot provide for some basic level of civilized neccessities of food and health care for the poor, working poor, the elderly, the disabled, the most disadvantaged among us?

While the wealthy have enjoyed 30 years of the lowest tax rates they've ever had in over 100 years. Since the Gilded Age. And still whine about it. Cry like babies about - gasp! 39% on over $250K? Which would still be extremely low historically!!

The thing that's most fucked up is the ridiculous notion that has been systematically and deliberately rammed into the consiousness of the masses. That tax cuts are necessary for growth, especially for the wealthy, and the wealthy are the job creators. And should be treated like some sort of exhaulted deity that we dare not touch their precious, already historically low, tax rates. That in fact, they should be lower still. Pure bullshit.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

"That tax cuts are necessary for growth, especially for the wealthy, and the wealthy are the job creators."

Agree completely. This idea is pure garbage. Here's the proof for anybody who would disagree.

http://visualeconsite.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/Income_Corp_CapitalGains_Rates_2011.png

http://stateofworkingamerica.org/who-gains/#/?start=1945&end=1981

http://stateofworkingamerica.org/who-gains/#/?start=1981&end=2008

[-] 1 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

Yeah that shows pretty clearly the results. That tax cuts for the wealthy benefit the wealthy. So far as the growth myth goes, people that try to provide factual evidence that dares challenge 'the myth' - they get rubbed out faster than a Ron Paul campaigner on the OWS forum. Faster than a Tea Party 'Patriot' can say limited government and free market and obstruct legislation in Congress.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/01/congressional-research-service_n_2059156.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-the-loop/post/congressional-research-service-report-gets-pulled/2012/11/05/5bde4ac0-2601-11e2-ac85-e669876c6a24_blog.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/business/questions-raised-on-withdrawal-of-congressional-research-services-report-on-tax-rates.html

[-] 2 points by Ache4Change (3158) 1 year ago

Sorry, I can't help myself but repeat it - "The thing that's most fucked up is the ridiculous notion that has been systematically and deliberately rammed into the consciousness of the masses. That tax cuts are necessary for growth, especially for the wealthy, and the wealthy are the job creators. And should be treated like some sort of exalted deity that we dare not touch their precious, already historically low, tax rates. That in fact, they should be lower still. Pure bullshit." Beautiful! Now where do I sign up for your classes or web-site? Surely it's not a case that if I didn't happened to be on the forum right now, then I would have missed this or your other comments here? Say it ain't so, lol! Never Give Up! Go Occupy!

[-] 3 points by imagine40 (383) 1 year ago

Republicans created 80% of that $16T debt. We will have to raise wealthy taxes to 90%, & cut the military budget by half. But we should not pay the debt on the backs of the 99%.

[-] -1 points by jbgramps (159) 1 year ago

I agree with raising taxes on the wealthy, but that’s a token thing. Just a drop in the bucket to paying off a $16T deficit. Even if we stop all the tax loop holes for corporations and rich folks it won’t do a lot. I agree we should do it. But the real solution is reducing spending. That means cutting spending almost everywhere, military, government bureaucracy and even social services. There is no easy way out of this. Blaming the republicans or democrats accomplishes nothing. Time to start addressing the government spending problem. It’s the only way out.

[-] 2 points by imagine40 (383) 1 year ago

We cannot pay the debt on the backs of the working class. They have already suffered and sacrificed. Logically how can you think that the wealthy does not have enough to pay the debt but the poor and middle class do? The republican talking point that pushes this fallacy must be rejected and denounced. They push this lie to protect their wealthy puppet masters. Don't believe the hype. Use your head. Trust your instincts. The people with all the money can pay the debt they created.

[-] 2 points by Ache4Change (3158) 1 year ago

'The people with all the money can pay the debt they created.' - EXACTLY! Thank you for that and reading this forum is a tonic on a grey sky holiday Go Occupy!

[-] 1 points by imagine40 (383) 1 year ago

Are you being serious or sarcastic? 90% tax rate on the wealthy. Increased cap gains taxes to support SS/public option healthcare, tax idle wealth 5%, eliminate all loopholes, shelters, havens, deductions for the wealthy. Let's see how much we get from that. Maybe some of it can be temporary. If they don't complain about it.

[-] 2 points by Ache4Change (3158) 1 year ago

Sarcastic? I liked and used YOUR words! I honestly think that you will gain here so please read this - http://occupywallst.org/forum/i-do-not-believe-you-can-build-a-movement-on-a-lie/#comment-874847 & happy holiday :)

[-] 2 points by imagine40 (383) 1 year ago

Ok. cool. Sorry I just wasn't sure. .

[-] 1 points by Ache4Change (3158) 1 year ago

Lol, cool, no problem and I do hope that you could take time to read to read Buttercup's excellent link.

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 1 year ago

Many of the 47% recieving assistance are employed. Many can't get enough hours at work and/or they're vastly underpaid. Maintaining their assistance is critical. When people start going hungry they lose it and even our inept govenment can see that.

[-] -1 points by jbgramps (159) 1 year ago

I don’t deny that employed people receive assistance. I also don’t deny that if the US is to significantly reduce the $16T deficit some social service will have to be cut. We can raise taxes out the wazoo, but spending cuts are the only to solve the problem.

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 1 year ago

There's no point is wasting time on this, we know the grand bargain is coming. I don't care about the deficit because I'm not getting paid to fix it.

[-] -1 points by jbgramps (159) 1 year ago

Actually I agree. I can't fix it so to hell with it.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28436) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Nah - just bring the trillions of hoarded money back from off shore - tax it and put it to work doing needed things in the economy - building upgraded green infrastructure.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (7065) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

If Bush had not been President then Roberts would not be there and CU would not have gone the way it did, if you think CU doesn't matter I wonder if you really care about getting the money out of politics.

[-] -1 points by Saesneg (-166) from Linwood, NJ 1 year ago

I get the impression it's all just WWF, just political actors, political puppets that do another's bidding. We do a best choice assessment in the hope that when the individual finally shines through the role of Presidential, that they may favor us. But it never happens - it's never happened for white America and it won't happen for black, brown, or even female America either.

What if we could organize all the non-voters to write in a Noam Chomsky? What if we could hand him 50 million votes? It would certainly get media attention.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (7065) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

If we kill the GOP things will change.

[-] 0 points by Saesneg (-166) from Linwood, NJ 1 year ago

I think there will always be corrupt commanding powers in Congress, but the Republican GOP cannot survive in its present form.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (7065) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

They are bound by a single concept always lower taxes this is like a doctor who always lowers temp, you either WTFU and get away from that doctor/party or die, I hope we are not stupid enough to let the GOP kill us.

[-] -3 points by Nowsmichigan (-310) 1 year ago

How will that change anything?? Where do you think your hero obama got the majority of his campaign funds from??? The 1% now he owes them a favor and they will be getting tax breaks, perks, etc