Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: It is just so simple!

Posted 6 years ago on Jan. 3, 2012, 11:03 p.m. EST by the99areLazy (14) from Benton, PA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

OWSers -W




Companies can pay however much they want to it's CEO or executives, it's their money. There is nothing illegal about it. They have the right to do so. Yes, sometimes it is untheical (bailout bonus spree) but it is still legal.

Banks don't force you to take a loan, deposit your money in their bank, or do any business with them what so ever.

The rich don't have money fall from the sky into their wallets, you put your money there. If you have a problem with a company don't buy from them, plain and simple. You all protest the rich as you go buy the iPhone 4s.

WallStreet did not sink the economy. Many factors sunk the economy, people buying houses they could not afford was one of them. Take off your tin foil hat and stop with the conspiracy theorys that WallStreet killed the economy. WallStreet consists of many companies, so many that it would be imposible to plan a way to sink the economy with out others finding out.

Stop hating on the wealthy. Just because they are succesful and your not is no reason to attack them like you do. YOU took the shitty low paying job, YOU played it safe and did not invest your money, YOU are the reason you are where you are financialy not anyone else. Stop blaming others for YOUR mistakes.

The parks and streets are not just yours. Other people have a right to use the roads you block, and the parks you camp in. Not everyone supports your movement. In reality (something most of you are privy to) a very small number support you. The people who don't have a right to the public land and establishments you disrupt. Thats why you are being arrested, and you deserve it.

There is no ground for this movement. It's a buch of lazy kids and old hippies that want a handout or to just complain. Your not helping the world, your making it worse.




Read the Rules
[-] 14 points by Anachronism (225) 6 years ago

Incredibly delusional post. This, my friends, is the result of a lifetime of capitalist propaganda. A bootlicker of wealth and power.

[-] 6 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 6 years ago

What else could you expect from a person with the moniker, 'the99areLazy'?

That is a fanciful fallacy all by itself.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 6 years ago

OWS has been supporting buying locally and not from corporations since I've been on this forum. All he is doing is making it slightly derogatory

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 6 years ago

You must be a lawyer.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 6 years ago

Fingers crossed

[-] 2 points by alexrai (851) 6 years ago

Yup. Bootlickin' works in the office, why not here?

Like he says Rich People don't have money fall out of the sky... just out of their trust funds, which is totally different.... not. :p

[-] 1 points by opensociety4us (914) from Norwalk, CT 6 years ago

it's almost a caricature

[+] -4 points by kelliwankenobi (21) 6 years ago

You my friend are the delusional one.....In fact you are stupid!

Here are the facts! You can construct a banking system in which no bank will ever fail, in which there's no leverage. But there would be a cost. There would be virtually no economic growth because there would be no credit creation.

We all hear what the media and public feeds us of the housing market crash a couple years ago. Unfortunately the media isn't right and isn't telling the story how it really is. Many believe that bush and republicans destroyed the economy during their term, many believe it was caused by wall street, many think it was caused by irresponsible bank actions, and many believe it was due to irresponsible loaners. Well lets see what really happened. This is my theory, and I have facts and hard evidence combined with logic to prove it and defend it. I'll show a list of steps in numbers showing the accumulation of the events that led up to the crisis.

1) 1977, the CRA was passed by democratically controlled congress and president (Jimmy Carter). Designed to encourage banks to give loans to previously unqualified people.

2) Clinton Revised this act and forced banks to give out loans or pay penalties in 1995. A democratic president.

3) Two major GSE's who have been around for a while become loan buyers. Private banks had no risk when making loans to unqualified borrowers, because Fannie/Freddie bought off loans making a no risk environment for private banks. Since banks are publicly owned, they work for the shareholders and therefore make moves for profit as required by law. The GSE's Fannie Mae and Freddi Mac were created by democrats and are government run.

3.5) In 2003, Republican President George W. Bush attempted to pass a bill to stop the current actions, because he saw what was occuring and new the consequences in the end. The democrats once again, blocked it.

4) Teaser rates for interest were used. So a person on a $30k yearly salary for example (not real numbers) was able to get a $500k loan for a house under almost no interest for the first months of years. Then interest skyrocketed up a huge percentage. The person couldn't afford it and just walked away from the house. The person loses money and gets screwed, the bank loses money and gets screwed.

5) Housing prices before went up based on a bubble, and this bubble wasn't based on capitol like it should, but based on credit...non existant credit. It was a way of using a loan to pay off another loan kind of deal in the end. Houses went for prices above what they were truly worth. The bubble burst...

6) The housing market crashes which is the main caused of the entire recession we just had.

7) Now the same people (not same people but same party) who caused the housing market crash and entire economic recession are trying to fix their mistakes by making even worse mistakes such as the stimulus bill. Yes, people shouldn't have borrowed more money than they can pay back and live in homes out of their reach, but the government should have never allowed such a thing to happen, because they interfered in private affairs between loaners and borrowers. So final conclusion, say what you want, but Democrats are almost solely responsible for the housing market crash and economic recession. They created the GSE's that caused the recession and they stopped the republicans from trying to fix it. Yes bush was a bad president and I agree, he got into too many wars and did a bad job, but he nor the republicans in government caused the recession. Stop watching the communist news network and msnbc, and do some research people, this is what happened and why it happened. And if you can't believe your ears what I said, i'll say it again and in bold words:


[-] 4 points by TLydon007 (1278) 6 years ago


Your REPOST dates back to July.

I fucking hate it when you people fill the forum with your ridiculous chain e-mails. Why don't learn to think for yourselves?? Instead of following what chain e-mails and conspiracy web sites tell you??


[-] 1 points by Anachronism (225) 6 years ago

LOL... Poor people and democrats cause the crash. Bwahhaaaa!

I will agree that banker bootlicking democrats helped, though. Otherwise you are in outer space

[+] -5 points by the99areLazy (14) from Benton, PA 6 years ago

Please elaborate, I took the time to explain all of my oppinions, seems you too ignorant to expain yours. This, my friends, is the result of months of communist principles taught by ows. An ass kisser of those who have no education or clue about the world today.

[-] 1 points by Anachronism (225) 6 years ago

haha... Yup, I'm smoking pot as I write this. What was I doing, er , shit

[-] -3 points by the99areLazy (14) from Benton, PA 6 years ago

I can't tell if your re-trolling my statement about ows being hippies or legit smoking so I will reply to both.

If Re-trolling: It seems your avoiding my question which backs up my statement your uneducated and sucked into this ows conspiracy shit.

If High: Hey man we all say stupid shit when were high. No worries.

[-] 7 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 6 years ago

It always amazes me - it's quite unbelievable really - how these people, who declare this movement unworthy & insignificant & comprised of losers, feel this obsessive compulsion to return here to this forum, over and over, and, over and over, and, over and over....

What is that odor I smell?

[-] 2 points by alexrai (851) 6 years ago

That's the odor of fear... people who have no character but have people kissing their asses anyway. Not because they are creative or unique or interesting, but because they have something people want, money.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 6 years ago

The nose never lies.


[+] -6 points by the99areLazy (14) from Benton, PA 6 years ago

Deodorant, you bums should try it...

[-] 5 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 6 years ago

You're transparent insults mean nothing. You're dialogue is incredulous. No one will believe you, but keep trying, it just means we're getting to you....

[+] -4 points by the99areLazy (14) from Benton, PA 6 years ago

I would hope they mean nothing, if you get offended by someone on the internet I would hate to see you in confrontation in real life...

"You're dialogue is incredulous" Awww shucks your making me blush ;)

If me trying means your getting to me, does you replying mean im getting to you?

[-] 4 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 6 years ago

I'm sure you've fielded this question before, but - why are you here?

Logically speaking, if this site is so insignificant and full of losers. Then there is no plausible reason or need for you to be here wasting your time. So the ulterior motive is obvious...we are getting to you and you are fearful of this movement.....

[-] -2 points by the99areLazy (14) from Benton, PA 6 years ago

Thats a good question, but I have a counter question - why are you here?

I am here because I love debate. Thats the simple answer. But you guys don't debate on the site anymore it seems, you just insult everyone who does not agree with your movement now. So in order to draw a debate I make a rude statement with counter arguments to spark a debate. Thats why I created this post, and it seems to be the only way. I don't fear your movement, you guys have no political or legal ground.

Which brings me to another question - what do you want to accomplish with ows? And don't say awareness.

[-] 6 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 6 years ago

Funny, you insulted us first with your entire opening, calling everyone losers. When I call out your obvious trolling ways, all of a sudden you want to debate.

If you really want to debate, post a respectable topic, and people will debate you. Post inflammatory remarks in your topics and you probably will get insults in return.

If you're original post mirrored the respectful tone you use now, I might have engaged you in debate, but, short of an apology, I will not debate you, only refute your credibility.

[-] -3 points by the99areLazy (14) from Benton, PA 6 years ago

I completly understand, and I was trolling, but do realize that if I posted my point seriously I would have been insulted for my opposite oppinion. I know this because it happened before. If I don't draw in the serious posters on this site with trolling, I only get the imbasils with jaded oppinions who just want to insult rather than debate.

And I belive I have adequetly answered your question, yet you have not answered mine.

[-] 4 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 6 years ago

An excusable justification for your actions is not the same as an apology. I'm waiting.....

[-] -1 points by the99areLazy (14) from Benton, PA 6 years ago

I do appoligize sir, but do try and understand my point of view.

[-] 3 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 6 years ago

Apology accepted. (I'll overlook the insulting username you chose)

Now, in response to your question about why I am here. There is no real short answer. But for essence's sake, I am here to do whatever I can to put this country back on the right track. To make it work for all citizens, and not just a few.

[-] 0 points by the99areLazy (14) from Benton, PA 6 years ago

Thank you. Just one more question and I will leave.

What do you blame the problems of the country today on? Do you agree with ows that it is the businesses and wealthy or do you belive it is the government or something else?

I will respect your desicion if you choose not to answer.

[-] 4 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 6 years ago

I blame all of us. Wall Street, apathetic citizens, consumers, corrupted politicians, etc. I won't lie, I do think banking institutions have the most culpability because they are supposed to be the fiduciaries of the loans they approve. But really, we're past the blame game, imo. It's time for us to all take responsibility and it's time to fix things. The priority problem I see that needs to be fixed is the marriage of business and state. There should always be a separation between business and state.

I am not anti-government, as I consider myself a social progressive. Government programs can and do work, the arguments about them being inefficient are not valid in my view, they are not supposed to make profits, they are supposed to regulate markets and protect us. That doesn't mean I don't think government should try to eliminate wastefulness or strive to work as efficiently as possible.

I also see a need to open dialogues about societal norms - like maximizing profits, taxation policies, etc. We should also be able to have healthy debates about how we measure our economic well-being. One of my prior posts was on the topic of GDP and why do we still use it.

[-] 4 points by philosophersstoned (233) from Gypsum, CO 6 years ago

LEAVE RICH PEOPLE ALONE!!! I can practically see your tears and pained expression, running mascara, etc...

[+] -4 points by the99areLazy (14) from Benton, PA 6 years ago

Only tears and pained expressions I have is from the sounds of lazy protesters begging for handouts.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 6 years ago

For a true insight into just what it is that animates OWS and The 99% please watch the documentary film, "INSIDE JOB", the latest working link : http://documentarystorm.com/inside-job/ .

You've just joined this forum on 3rd. Jan, so one wonders how much genuine reading you have done on this site in a day in order to ascertain just what may actually vex OWS / The 99% and what we may believe. The real reason that you're here of course is to post your pissant link and see who you can get arise out of. Ho hum et ...

honni soit qui mal y pense !!


[-] 3 points by bill1102inf2 (357) 6 years ago

its NOT their money, since all money is debt, and money is backed by the ability of the government to tax the people, its ALL OUR money, get a fucking clue pal.

[-] 0 points by the99areLazy (14) from Benton, PA 6 years ago

Your wrong. Is the money in your bank account yours or everyones?

[-] 3 points by zymergy (236) 6 years ago

"a bunch of lazy kids and old hippies" ... sounds like a winning team, potential energy and experience!

[-] 0 points by the99areLazy (14) from Benton, PA 6 years ago

The word is potential.


[-] 2 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 6 years ago

Government report says richest 1 percent doubled their share of US national income By Barry Grey 27 October 2011

A study released Tuesday by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reports that the richest 1 percent of US households nearly tripled their income between 1979 and 2007 and doubled their share of the national income.

The report also concludes that the top 20 percent of US households increased its share of national income while every other quintile saw its share decline. The top 20 percent received 53 percent of income in 2007—that is, its income surpassed the income of the other 80 percent of Americans. Source: Congressional Budget Office

This documentation of the staggering growth of inequality in the US by the nonpartisan budget analysis arm of Congress highlights the conditions underlying the anti-Wall Street protests that have spread across the US and internationally. The protests have focused on social inequality and the domination of the corporations and banks over the political system and every aspect of life. The burden of this domination has become unbearable for millions of youth and workers under conditions of mass unemployment and brutal cuts in education, health care and other social necessities.

The CBO analysis, based on Internal Revenue and US Census data, closely tracks previous studies on income inequality in the US by private organizations and academic economists, but represents an official government acknowledgment of the sharp increase in inequality. Source: Congressional Budget Office

The major findings of the report include:

• Average inflation-adjusted after-tax income for the 1 percent of the population with the highest income grew by 275 percent from 1979 to 2007. Their share of national income rose from nearly 8 percent in 1979 to 17 percent in 2007.

• For the rest of the top income quintile, average real after-tax income rose by 65 percent.

• For the three-fifths of people in the middle of the income scale, the growth of after-tax real income was under 40 percent. Their share of national income declined by 2 to 3 percentage points.

• For the poorest fifth of the population, average real after-tax household income rose by only 18 percent between 1979 and 2007. Their share of national income was about 5 percent, down from 7 percent in 1979.

The CBO report attributes the increased concentration of wealth at the top primarily to changes in the private economy, including the growth of the financial sector, the increased share of wealth for the rich from capital gains, and sharply higher CEO and executive pay. However, it acknowledges that federal tax policy over the nearly thirty-year period has favored the wealthy over ordinary working people. “The equalizing effect of federal taxes was smaller” in 2007 than in 1979, as “the composition of federal revenues shifted away from progressive income taxes to less-progressive payroll taxes,” the report states.

The CBO also cites the cutting back on cash payments to lower-income Americans, such as Social Security benefits, Medicare and unemployment insurance.

The study defines household income to include so-called “transfer” payments—income from Social Security, unemployment insurance, workers’ compensation, other federal programs, state and local assistance programs, food stamps, school meals, housing and energy assistance, Medicare and Medicaid. Were these sources not included and income defined more narrowly as wages and benefits, the disparities in income would be considerably larger.

Moreover, the study ends prior to the onset of the financial crisis and recession. The past four years have seen a further widening of the social chasm as the Obama administration, on behalf of the corporate-financial elite, has carried out a right-wing program to place the burden for the crisis on the working class and intensify the assault on wages, benefits and social services.

The massive growth of social inequality over the past three decades has been the result of an unrelenting ruling class offensive against the working class. That assault has been carried out under Democratic as well as Republican administrations.

The offensive was launched in earnest with Reagan’s firing of the PATCO air traffic controllers in 1981. That was the signal for more than a decade of wage-cutting, strike-breaking, union-busting and labor frame-ups, made possible by the complicity of the trade union bureaucracy. It deliberately isolated and betrayed scores of bitter struggles in order to break the militant resistance of the working class.

The unions simultaneously adopted a corporatist policy of labor-management “partnership” to integrate themselves into the structure of corporate management and bind them even more firmly to the capitalist state. The strike weapon was abandoned and the unions transformed into business entities whose essential function is to suppress the class struggle.

This went hand-in-hand with the deindustrialization of the US and a huge growth of financial speculation, tax cuts for business and the wealthy, the deregulation of the corporations and banks, and increasingly onerous cuts in social programs.

All of these processes have been accelerated since the Wall Street crash of 2008 and ensuing bailout of the banks. The opposition of the Obama administration and the entire political establishment to any serious measures to address mass unemployment has produced a further impoverishment of broad social layers.

The spread of social misery in the midst of soaring corporate profits and CEO pay is starkly shown in the growth of poverty in US suburbs. The New York Times on Tuesday reported that the ranks of the poor living in the suburbs of US cities rose by more than half between 2000 and 2010. Two thirds of these new suburban poor dropped below the official poverty line between 2007 and 2010.

The Times article, reporting analyses of US Census data by the Brookings Institution, said the increase in poverty in the suburbs was 53 percent, compared with 26 percent in the cities.

Nationwide, 55 percent of poor people in metropolitan areas now live in the suburbs, up from 49 percent in 2000. The newspaper quoted Elizabeth Kneebone, a senior researcher at the Brookings Institution, as saying, “For the first time, more than half of the metropolitan poor live in suburban areas.”

The Detroit metro area had the highest proportion of poor people living in its suburbs at 59 percent in 2010. Cleveland was second with 57 percent.

Meanwhile, the plundering of the economy by the financial aristocracy continues. USA Today reported Wednesday that directors who sit on the corporate boards of Fortune 500 companies will see their pay increase this year by 10 percent from 2010, rising to a median figure of nearly $234,000. The CEOs and retired executives who fill these boards average about 4.3 hours a week on board work, according to a recent study by the National Association of Corporate Directors.

The CBO report on income inequality underscores the total disconnect between the Obama administration and the entire political system on the one hand and the interests and desires of the vast majority of Americans on the other. The political and media establishment is presently consumed with a debate over how much further taxes for the corporations and the rich should be cut and how much more deeply social programs for workers and poor people should be slashed.

The various right-wing policies being advanced on all sides will dramatically increase the chasm separating the top 1 percent from the broad masses of people. On the tax front, Obama and the Democrats are pushing for a bipartisan tax “reform” that would substantially reduce corporate taxes and tax rates for the wealthy.

The Republicans are calling for even more drastic cuts in taxes for the rich, with the contenders for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination advancing rival plans to eliminate entirely income taxes indexed to wealth and replace them with a “flat” tax that would cap rates at between 9 percent (Herman Cain) and 20 percent (Rick Perry). These plans are designed not only to provide a windfall for the rich, but also to undermine federal entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

Both parties are simultaneously proposing rival plans to slash social spending. On Tuesday, Senate Democrats called on the congressional “supercommittee” established to come up with a bipartisan proposal to reduce the federal deficit to adopt the Obama administration’s plan for $3 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade, including $500 billion in Medicare and Medicaid cuts.

[-] 2 points by TLydon007 (1278) 6 years ago

"Companies can pay however much they want to it's CEO or executives, it's their money."

Actually, it's my money.. My pension and holdings are in these corporations. Yet, while my pension may receive tax benefits, my voting rights are stripped from me. Go ahead and look it up. Obviously you know nothing about the system you praise so much as perfect. It has problems and it needs solutions. The fact that you will not even take the time to learn how it allegedly should work only proves the degree of ignorance it takes to defend it.

[-] 1 points by the99areLazy (14) from Benton, PA 6 years ago

Yeah, but not every company is gambling with employees pensions, so how can you blame the system for the few scumbags?

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 6 years ago

Not every priest rapes little boys, either.

Does that mean the church doesn't need to change their system of covering it up?? I mean, just because of a "few scumbags"??

[-] 1 points by the99areLazy (14) from Benton, PA 6 years ago

Then why are you not protesting the government?

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 6 years ago

We are, you assclown.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22863) 6 years ago

Why do you defend the interests of the 1%? Are you part of the 1%? How did they convince you to do this? Why don't you defend your own interests?

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 6 years ago

First of all, I like your ability to manipulate words to provoke a response in like. So I will indulge your need for debate. As for your first claim, that everyone here owns “iPhone 4s,” that is a pretty general statement that you are going to have to back up with data. To your claim that “WallStreet did not sink the economy,” they were the principal winner and they knew beforehand what was going to happen as they leveraged against it, and they took the bail outs given to AIG to pad their bottom line. This is nefarious in my opinion. You may call it capitalism, but I call it horse manure. Especially since it was one of Goldman sacks’ alumni, Paulson, who engineered the bail out that brought the house of cards down. This, especially from the “starve the beast” party, seems a little pre-ordained. To go to the top and address your claim, “The rich don't have money fall from the sky into their wallets.” I’d say they did this time, and they have been receiving these sky droppings ever since supply side, trickledown economics has been the norm. To your claim that “Banks don't force you to take a loan,” I’d say that because the minimum wage in real dollars has been stagnant for many years, loans and credit cards are the only way to provide subsistence when so many are living pay check to pay check. This leads me to your next claim that we “are hating on the wealthy[,] [j]ust because they are successful”, (SIC)—LOL—and I am saying I am not. When you have the government apparatus in your pocket, and others struggle to get by, then the claim that we are “the reason [we] are where [we] are financialy (SIC), falls on its face. Therefore, being a hater is our only recourse. In closing, as a tax payer, your claim that “The parks and streets are not just yours,” well, I’d beg the differ. And as far as making casino capitalism worse, I am guilty as charged.

[-] 1 points by bottom99 (10) 6 years ago


[-] 2 points by HarryCrew07 (433) 6 years ago

There is no necessity to "plan a sinking of the economy" on the part of Wall-street. It has been known for decades, centuries even, that capitalism necessitates bubbles and bursts. These bubbles come, some people get rich, then they burst and people are left confused. Its happened many many times and it will continue to happen as long as capitalism is the economic game of the day.

Plus, its true that banks lowered restrictions on loans. No, they didn't "force" anyone to take out a loan, but they certainly assured every single family that they would be able to pay the loan back. And the system didn't really start to fall apart until people started taking out $500,000 loans to pay off their drug and gambling debt. After these people bankrupted first, the interest rates for homes skyrocketed leaving people unable to continue paying. Foreclosure after foreclosure ensues as the banks attempt to make up for the lost millions given away in their own selfishness to drug dealers and gamblers. No, this is not a conspiracy theory. This is what actually happened.

Unfortunately, its really mostly everyone's fault, especially those who pushed for the lowering of restrictions on loans. You could go into a bank, and simply say "i have a job making x amount of money," and they would sign you a loan for hundreds of thousands. Sounds like the banks were being just as stupid as anyone else. And no it wasn't illegal, because they changed the laws before they did it.

[-] 2 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 6 years ago

"Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society." -Albert Einstein 1949

"The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions." -Albert Einstein 1949

"The United States economy is like a poker game where the chips have become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, and where the other fellows can stay in the game only by borrowing. When their credit runs out the game will stop." -Mariner Eccles Chairman of the Federal Reserve under FDR

You're probably wondering. If these guys were right and the wealth was heavily concentrated just prior to the Great Depression, how did we recover?

That's simple but not well known. There was a partial redistribution from the mid '30's to the mid '70's.

So why are we in this mess again?

"The income gap between the rich and the rest of the US population has become so wide and is growing so fast that it might eventually threaten the stability of democratic capitalism itself." Allen Greenspan testifying before congress in the spring of '05'.

Robert Reich and a dozen more prominent economists have gone on record with similar views.

All that progress made after the Great Depression has been reversed over the last 35 years. The richest one percent now own 43% of America's financial wealth. That's way too much. Its caising economic instability. But they absolutely will not stop.

It's very similar in Europe. The rich are too rich. Period.

Greed kills. It will be our downfall.

[-] 2 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 6 years ago

I have been criticized for my relentless persecution of the rich and my particular brand of protest. I've been told that nothing 'positive' can come from it. Thats a load of albino lobster crap. The truth is just the opposite. Nothing positive can come from our toleration of the rich. That toleration got us in this mess to begin with. It prevents us from doing what must be done in order to reverse this obscene concentration of wealth, save the middle class, and prevent another Great Depression.

Let me put it this way. If everyone felt the way I do about greed, and made a statement to that effect with their wallets, the wealth of this country would be significantly less concentrated in one year. After 5 or 10, we would have the strongest middle class in American history.

Whats that you say? Massive job loss?

No. I'm not proposing that we stop spending our money all together. Just that we stop giving so much to the rich. Support small business more and big business less. The little guy more and the big guy less. Poor and middle class communities more and rich communities less.

I don't believe that one single person out there will take that seriously until they understand the severity of concentration and the horrible downside.

They are even less likely to make that statement with their wallets if they make or accept any excuses for the rich. Like:

"The rich create jobs." "The rich pay more taxes." "The rich 'give back'."


[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 6 years ago

holy smokes !

1% have equal to the bottom 90% ! I did not know it was that high ..

the game plan worked .. that is an American Dream come true !

[-] 0 points by the99areLazy (14) from Benton, PA 6 years ago

didn't read, too long, sorry.

[-] 3 points by April (3196) 6 years ago

That's lazy. According to your definition, you are now part of the 99%. Welcome! Maybe you'll find some other commonalties here as well.

[-] 1 points by the99areLazy (14) from Benton, PA 6 years ago

I will admit that is lazy, but the difference is that this instance of lazyness is not going to hurt me financialy.

I am already part of the 99% wealth wise.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 6 years ago

Hah! I knew it! Lazy. : )

You should try reading some of it. ModestCapitalist usually has some interesting things to say. All of the caps are a little annoying. He really should type regular lower case.

I don't define the 99% by wealth actually. I define it by corruption.

1% buys their representation in government. 99% are left with the scraps.

So actually, a person could be super wealthy and be part of the 99% so long as they aren't using their money to bribe, legally or illegally, politicians. Or coerce or corrupt government with it. Truth is though, there probably aren't too many of those since our political system is driven by private contributions. That's the problem really.

[-] 1 points by the99areLazy (14) from Benton, PA 6 years ago

I don't like the principle of spamming your oppinion to get it heard. If he would post it once on a thread like everyone else I would read it.

And about what you said about the 1%, you do realize that the number of corrupt scumbag businesses are really slim. Wouldn't it be more effective to protest them specificly than corporations as a whole? Ows is sending a message that if you are wealthy you are a disgrace to America and are a scumbag, which is not true alot of millionares work hard for their money.

I only ask because most detur from the question and say im trying to dismantle the movement and don't answer it. You seem like you can give me a answer.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 6 years ago

I never said the number of corrupt scumbag businesses was large or small. I really don't know. I guess it would depend on how you define "corrupt scumbag".

The political process is driven by corporate contributions, lobbyists, special interests, PAC's with millions of dollars sloshing around. All perfectly legal. Legal corruption. The government is inclined to act in the best interests of those that contribute money to their elections. This has been going on a long time and getting worse. Many many people here believe it is threatening our democracy. It could be why our country has so many problems today. Because government is acting in the interest of the 1% rather than the best interests of the majority of the 100% and the overall best interests of the country.

I think the protest message should be separation of money and state. As it relates to elections anyway. I think we should be protesting for campaign finance reform, for 100% publicly funded elections. Thats just me. But there are lots of people here that want that.

I'm personally not against wealth, I argue in favor of capitalism all the time and think it is the best economic system devised. I have no ill feelings towards corporations necessarily, except Wall Street.

This hopelessly messy movement is filled with diversity. Don't let it put you off. There are alot of good messages and things to learn about.

As far as the message that OWS is sending, it's complicated. That's a whole other subject really. I wonder do you know - that since this movement started there have been four pieces of legislation for campaign reform? For all of the messy garbled diversity of the movement, Washington is at least starting to get it. I find it ironic that Washington, of all places, hears this message, yet many in the MSM do not. I can't help but wonder, is it willful or incompetance? Best you are here to find out for yourself what the movement is all about.

One of these pieces of legislation is from Bernie Sanders.


[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 6 years ago

Don't worry about it....Modestcapitalist cannot back up his assertions.....he will use news stories, blogs, and youtube video as his "source" but nothing official, or anything with verifiable data....you were well to ignore his nonsense...

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 6 years ago

No Scammersworld. Its like I told you before. Some statistics are reported by the government. For example, the income statistics for 2010 which I have quoted many times. Those have been reported by the Social Security Administration. Also the changes in household income over certain time frames. Those have been reported by the CBO. I've made reference to them as well.

But some statistics are ignored by the government and reported only by independent sources. Thats what you have a problem with. You think those independent sources should be ignored unless they lean to the right. I think that all sources should be considered. Especially, when there ARE NO GOVERNMENT REPORTED STATISTICS ON A PARTICULAR ISSUE.

Sorry Scammersworld. I won't just ignore independent sources that don't lean to the right. They are all open to consideration and scrutiny alike. Thats how I roll. I told you before. Deal with it.

Challenge: Provide one confirmed government report to challenge the claim of concentration of wealth in America. Don't forget to cite your 'official' source.

I'm waiting. Tick tock tick tock tick tock.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 6 years ago

See.......just as I said, he claims he has sources, and he casually mentions "independent sources" but never provides them, nor does he ever provide any of the supposed government source citations......

He also bounces around with statistics, and will compare a percentages to specific (from his "sources" and "comprehensive studies") data, or make an assertion using misleading data, such as using income shares to make the point that lower incomes earn less now than in the past, but the raw data points to the opposite, every income level has risen in actual income even when factored for inflation, source: http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2010/average_after-tax_income.pdf).....

and while the higher income levels have risen more, (for various reasons, including a shift from physical capital as the driver of the marketplace, to intellectual capital becoming the new leader......it doesn't take a huge factory full of unskilled and semi-skilled workers to produce products/services any more.....so the lower income levels would naturally not rise as fast as the higher income levels.....it's simple market economics....something our friend modestcapitalist refuses to understand....he's still stuck in the 40's-60's American model...which we can never return to, unless we once again return the rest of the world to pre-industrial, or war-torn economies....sorry, kids...it's now a world market.....don't like that? It's kind of like not liking gravity.....tough shit.....

I don't accept ANY source, right, left, or center that pretends to deal with government, income, or taxation data but provides no verifiable source for it's calculations....

The bottom line is that our dear friend modestcapitalist lives in a fantasy world, and will do all he can to ignore, and veil himself from reality, including fabricating data, and/or accepting the unverified opinions of those he sees as authorities, and their fabricated or misapplied data.....

He never cites an official report, or provides citation to even an official verification.....he claims there is no government reported statistics on things like sales and property tax distribution, but asserts we must accept "independent" (read that as "fabricated") sources for these calculations......sales tax is incalculable, it can only be "guessed" and guesses aren't fact, but rather opinion...and property tax would require researching the title of every property in existence and correlating that tax burden to the income of the owners of every said property...and, without those two categories, sales and property taxes, his whole argument and those of his "authorities" crumble into nothing......Sorry Charlie......

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 6 years ago

Scammersworld. Even with all of your knowledge, I have caught you in at least half a dozen outright mistakes now. For example, you swore that State and local taxes were all progressive. That was dead wrong. Then you swore that real estate taxes were flat (without exception) or progressive (without exception). That was dead wrong too. There were several others. This time, I have caught you in several outright misinterpretations.

I'm aware of the CBO report regarding incomes. Several of them actually. I've addressed the misleading statistics several times on this forum and several times on talk radio.

Do you know where I'm going with this? Do ya? No? Didn't think so. You're too busy taking 'raw data' at face value without even stopping for one moment to consider the following:

Household incomes for the lower four quintiles have risen over the last 30 years adjusting for inflation. But the 'raw data' from 'official' sources is terribly misleading. You would know that if you stopped for one moment to consider a wider variety of statistics.

Did you know that wages for the majority of Americans have actually decreased when adjusted for inflation?

Did you know that household incomes for the lower four quintiles have risen primarily because more households now require second providers or retirees going back to work just to make ends meet?

Did you know that key items like energy, food, and home sale prices are not even considered when core inflation is calculated?

Did you know that housing prices had increased by 56% just from 1990 to 2008?

Did you know that health care expenses had increased by 155% just from 1990 to 2008?

Did you know that a four year higher education had increased by 60% just from 1990 to 2008?

Have you even noticed the drastic increases in the costs of energy and food, which again ARE NOT considered when core inflation is calculated?

Sort of sheds that CBO report in a whole new light doesn't it?

You've repeatedly made assumptions that I don't understand our system. I've proven repeatedly that I do. Like I said, I've even caught you in a half dozen or more mistakes. You're still hoping to catch me in one.

I never even implied that we had the same model of the '40's to the '60's. or the same model of the '70's '80's or '90's. Its been altered drastically in favor of the rich. That has been one of my focal points from the very beginning 6 years ago when this 'kid' living in 'a fantasy world' predicted on air and online that we were heading for a severe economic crisis. Not to mention the springtime market instability of '07', the recession of '07', the failed Bush stimulus, the bankruptcy of one or two of the big three, the limited success of the second stimulus, the short and shallow recovery under Obama, and the coming global depression. I predicted all of it.

I also went on the air last spring with an ABSOLUTE PROMISE that Porter Stansberry's prediction that the US dollar would lose its place as the world's reserve currency by December of 2011 was DEAD WRONG. In fact, I went on the air with an ABSOLUTE PROMISE that Porter Stansberry's prediction would not happen AT ALL as long as we remain the largest consumer market in the world.

Did you make any similar predictions based on your 'raw data'?

Hell no you didn't. As a die-hard conservative partisan puppet obsessed with 'official' sources of data, you simply weren't capable of doing so.

I did and I can prove it. Like I said before, that challenge is on the table.

My position from the very beginning 6 years ago has been this:

America's wealth has been concentrated to a level not seen since the Great Depression. Its very similar in Europe. This concentration has already caused widespread hardship and economic instability. The prosperity of an entire world is being compromised because of greed. Therefore, we should drastically reduce our support for the rich. All of them without exception. We should all do our part to reverse the trend and prevent a global depression.

So you see, I'm under no illusions. I don't expect the 'system' to revert back to any previous model. You would have understood that weeks ago if you weren't so obsessed with 'official' reports and 'raw data'.

We've been through this before.There is no 'official' report by any government entity which calculates total effective tax rates accounting for all Federal, State, and Local taxes and fees. Therefore, independent sources must be considered. None of which cover "every property in existence" or every sales reciept. Thats an impossible standard to meet. Absolutely impossible. Still, comprehensive studies have been done based on 'raw data' from Federal, State, and local sources along with modeling based on actual sales, the tax revenue collected, and simple demographics. Its not an exact science but its close enough.

If your brain cells weren't already occupied with 'official reports' and 'raw data', you would know damn well that I have cited several sources to back up my claims.

Go back and find them.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 6 years ago

and still no sources....just more verbose conjecture......you love to read your own words my friend, but you still haven't provided anything to verify what you say.....it's that simple....

and you assert every time that you have provided such verification in the past, but that has NEVER occurred...not once....

Property Taxes are flat, and there are NO regressive rate State taxes.....(in fact there are MANY progressive rate state taxes), and I said flat or progressive about state and local taxes. I don't have time to check every local tax rate, but I can assume no locality charges lower income persons a greater rate than higher income earners....Now, respond with incompatible assertions about how specific tax credits somehow change the rule of flat property taxes, and please include a breakdown of those taxes by income level (don't worry, I know you cannot)......but, of course, completely leave out the Americans who live wholly on some sort of government assistance and the fact that they are not even required to file or pay ANY taxes, or those who receive refunds in excess of their actual withholding because of the EITC.

Your assertion of the incomes of the wealthy being largely subsidized by the government...how exactly is the math on that possible? considering the total of welfare transfer payments, and the cost of the administrative agencies are 60+% of the yearly budget (and nearly equal to ALL federal revenue collected), defense and veterans affairs is 21%, and payment on the debt just under 5%....so far....87% of spending, I could go on, but why.....you are a fool who will believe what you believe despite any evidence.....oh, and my source...various tables of the US Statistical Abstract, found here: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/

Yes, my neurons are involved with reality, factual data, not some fantasy land where whatever I choose to believe comes true....sorry, your teachers were wrong, you're not special and everything you say isn't correct...there are facts and there is fallacy, and most of what you assert is the later.....

You are a small person, with a small mind, and every attempt to make yourself seem bigger only results in you becoming, and appearing, smaller......

I will not submit to your Onus probandi...it is your burden to prove your assertions, not mine to disprove them.....

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 6 years ago

You really are having memory problems. You said this:

"and still no sources....just more verbose conjecture......you love to read your own words my friend, but you still haven't provided anything to verify what you say.....it's that simple....

and you assert every time that you have provided such verification in the past, but that has NEVER occurred...not once...."

Like I said, you really are having memory problems.

How in holy hell can you forget this?

"Check out this report from Citizens For Tax Justice:


Fucking read it bitch. In the meantime, read this quote from the report:

"The total federal, state and local effective tax rate for the richest one percent of Americans (30.9 percent) is only slightly higher than the average effective tax rate for the remaining 99 percent of Americans (29.4 percent). From the middle-income ranges upward, total effective tax rates are virtually flat across income groups." "

Thats right. Its a portion of a previous post of mine. You followed with an attempt to debunk my source.

You also fail to recall the real-estate loophole which I made reference to allowing wealthier owners of mass acreage to save hundreds of thousands in real estate taxes by selling as little as $500 worth of hay.

About the subsidies. Again, we have already covered this. You just don't remember.

If you continue to display such a poor ability to recall previous exchanges, I will simply paste them in response to your entries from now on.

Like I said, this has all been covered.

I suggest you work on your memory, read all of our previous exchanges, and return when you've got it straight.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 6 years ago

LIke I have said, again and again.....a partisan web site posting is not a reliable or factual source of information.....

I have no memory problems....every exchange is exactly like this one, using nonsense propaganda as a practical source, and the assertion that you have used some sort of actual rational or logical source in the past...and you never have, and never do....plain and simple...

Citizens for tax justice is not a reliable source, it is a partisan website......where do they get their information...if it is a question of taxation there is an official source somewhere in the chain of information, and...if there is NO official source of the information, the information is fabricated......

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 6 years ago

Its getting worse. Now, you can't even remember what you just typed two hours ago:

"just as I said, he claims he has sources, and he casually mentions "independent sources" but never provides them"

Don't try to back your way out now with this 'practical source' or 'logical source' crap. You just swore twice this morning that I hadn't provided ANY sources.

Work on it scammer. Come back when you've got it straight.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 6 years ago

my first post, in this thread, sums it up clearly:

"Modestcapitalist cannot back up his assertions.....he will use news stories, blogs, and youtube video as his "source" but nothing official, or anything with verifiable data....you were well to ignore his nonsense..."

Citizens for tax justice isn't a source....it's a biased, partisan website....

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 6 years ago

Not another inbred meth smoker. Dude, seriously (go back to fucking your cousin, and leave the internet alone).

[-] 1 points by nickhowdy (1104) 6 years ago

You think that all because some criminals can legalize stealing that that will somehow make it right or protect the criminals from true justice...

Because of all this stealing it has encouraged me to get back to my first love...Woodworking..I'll have my second guillotine ready in a few weeks. It's my best work yet!

It's going to be a hot seller on ebay!

[-] 1 points by the99areLazy (14) from Benton, PA 6 years ago

Send me the link! I have some ows protesters up the street, I could put it to good use!

[-] 1 points by bottom99 (10) 6 years ago

I have had a 35 year career of blood, sweat, and tears. I am not lazy. I have done well. "The99arelazy" may just be trying to spur conversation. Something is broken in this country. Just read this AM--from 1970 to 2004 the average "Joe's" salary increased (in constant dollars) by $1,200.00. While the gross domestic product tripled and the top 13,000 earning households salaries increased fifteen-fold. We all prosper when we all prosper. That is not what's happening.

[-] 1 points by the99areLazy (14) from Benton, PA 6 years ago

I agree something is broken, but the wealthy are not the problem. Yes some steal and are crooks, but there are average people who steal and are crooks. You need to go after the system that allows it.

[-] 1 points by bottom99 (10) 6 years ago

I think we are in violent agreement. My frustration is that the wealthy are in a much better position to be heard by those who "manage" the system--politicians. I see political campaign financing as pulling strings behind the scenes. The Supreme Court's decision allowing corporations voices to be heard through campaign financing was a disastrous one.

[-] 1 points by bottom99 (10) 6 years ago

Should not the system hear and guard all of our interests the top, middle, and bottom wage earners?

[-] 1 points by bottom99 (10) 6 years ago

I agree that it should, and I also believe our interests are seldom aligned. I personally believe that the top's interests are covered. I am not convinced that the middle and bottom are.

[-] 1 points by bottom99 (10) 6 years ago

In fact, in their vast misalignment our interests are frequently and diametrically opposed. That is when the alignment choice should go to the majority. The top's wealth and campaign finance practices/laws ensure the top's interests are always considered. I am not convinced that the middle and bottoms' are.

[-] 1 points by AussieBloke (5) 6 years ago

There's no point arguing with people like this who obviously are so brainwashed by the system to see the drastically negative effects that it has on the people within it and the earth on which we live on. No harm in allowing people like this have their say though, it just highlights the ignorance of these people. One day he will wake up.

[-] 1 points by the99areLazy (14) from Benton, PA 6 years ago

Your being brain washed by this movement. You need to wake up...

[-] 1 points by nachosrulz (63) from Eureka, CA 6 years ago

the 1% is as good as dead

[-] 1 points by ineptcongress (648) 6 years ago

company money belongs to the owners, not the company, and we call those owners "shareholders." i am not looking for handouts, i want a real change in policies that have clearly failed us.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 6 years ago

There is plenty of ground for this movement. While you lazy-ass rich sit back and suck all the money out of the nation , we the hard working class are not as dull witted as you might think. We have plans of placing a CAP on your ill begained profits and wealth , and while it may be now that it was not attained illegally , in the future it sure will be. If markets want to set up shop and plan to suck out all the wealth .. they will find they no longer have that right. A Cap will be placed on their profits . period. and we the people will reap what we sew .. not you !

[-] 1 points by the99areLazy (14) from Benton, PA 6 years ago

A cap on profits

Thats sums up the out of touch reality morons of ows...

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 6 years ago

enjoy it while you still can.

because with traffic laws we discovered a need for speed limits, and with economic laws we need greed limits.

have a gooood day

[-] 1 points by survivor514 (65) 6 years ago

LOOK OUT !!! The police have switched to something MUCH WORSE now it's called

" D-E-O-D-O-R-A-N-T "

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 6 years ago

You're post reminds me of my very first post here at http://occupywallst.org/forum/what-has-happened-to-us/ . I have modified my positions somewhat since that time, and I'd like to share with you some of the observations that led to my new perspective:

  • The rich enjoy a disproportionate voice in our Democracy and they have used it to benefit themselves at the expense of the average man. The government needs to be returned to the people. See http://www.themultitude.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=47&p=4355&sid=6817a85529001344da2f4f72c7be4e58#p4355

  • We the People have in fact been irresponsible in exercise of our economic power to shape the face of American business, and we need to wield our dollar votes with as much care as our political votes. http://www.themultitude.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=47&p=4356&sid=6817a85529001344da2f4f72c7be4e58#p4356

  • While it is true that many people foolishly signed up for loans they couldn't afford, the complete lack of education we provide our citizens in personal finance management has yielded a large number of people who simply don't know if they can afford something, and they fall victim to the seller. I can't tell you how many people here have told me "I figured the bank wouldn't lend to me if I couldn't afford it." We need to ensure our citizens are educated before tossing them out into our Capitalist system.

  • The Rise of the Machines is displacing a lot of workers. See http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-rise-of-the-machines/ . Furthermore, the idea that all these people can simply get a better high-tech job elsewhere is based on a flawed assumption of unlimited worker mobility; not everyone has the intelligence or financial wherewithal to attend college, and many cannot relocate due to family ties, children in schools, etc.

  • Many of us who say "work harder" see our own success as the product of our own efforts alone. In reality, not all people have the same intelligence, not all have access to the same quality of education, and not all are raised by two parent families who raise their children with values that lead to success.

  • The 2008 meltdown wasn't only caused by the little guy signing up for bad loans. As common when a new technology enters finance, we introduce systemic risk using new tools that are unproven. The idea of blended risk applied by computers at the rating agencies, for example, is sound except the computer algorithms used failed to account for systemic risk; it treated each loan as an independent variable when applying risk statistics and rubber-stamped a lot of bad debt as grade "A." This allowed the bad debt to circulate widely. We clearly need better oversight of the rating agencies to ensure they are considering systemic risk.

  • The meltdown was also somewhat facilitated by government policy regarding Fannie and Freddie who fueled the bubble by raising the conforming loan limit far faster than the 10 year trend in home values. This was likely due in part to pressure from the various trade unions and builder associations contributing vast sums of money to Congress. See http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

  • Huge scams like Bernie Madoff's indicate our oversight of the financial sector is clearly inadequate. Though rare, out and out criminal behavior can cause a lot of big problems, and our regulator agencies need to do a better job at preventing it rather than prosecuting it after the fact.

The bottom line is that I agree with your assertion that people need to make better decisions as consumers when deciding what corporations to do business with and what level of debt they can afford. We do, however, need to provide them the education needed to do so. We also need to retake control of our government so the necessary regulatory framework and enforcement can be put in place and market forces are not manipulated for political gain as happened with Fannie/Freddie. We also need to consider the socio-economic tsunami headed our way due to the continued replacement of human labor by robots and computers.

[-] 1 points by bottom99 (10) 6 years ago

In response to your quote "...I figured the bank wouldn't lend to me if I couldn't afford it." I say, they most likely COULD afford it but when the economy crapped out, and they lost their jobs was when they couldn't afford it. Personal financial experts all agree that we should have six months of income saved and readily available in a savings account. Now, I ask you how many of us have six months of income (or even two) readily accessible in a savings account??? If I lose my job, I'm in trouble just like many of those folks.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 6 years ago

The people I spoke to here didn't have any financial sense. They didn't read personal finance books, and they received no counseling from parents, etc. This was eye-opening for me; I had never imagined we had people so poorly skilled in managing their finances. Many literally depended on the bank to decide whether the loan made sense for them based on a flawed assumption that the Bank's interests were aligned with their own; The banks would lose money if the borrower didn't pay them back. There was a time when there was some truth to this view, but that era ended when Banks started selling off the loans they originate. Today, listening to what the loan selling advises is the same as taking the word of a guy selling a car on CraigsList without ever doing your own research.

As for savings, my family has several years of income saved. I lost all my support structures (parents, grandparents, etc) when I was 19, have never had anything to fall back on, and have this always been a bit obsessive about financial security. My depression era immigrant grandparents told me "we're all slaves, but with hard work, education, savings and investments, we can buy our freedom in later life." They also said "every time you get a pay raise, enjoy half of it and put half away." I followed their advice, and now after 30 years of working, I have significant savings and am nearly free. Not everyone has enjoyed the benefit of such advice, and many of our young today don't even have any connections back to the depression generation, so many of these old lessons have been lost.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago

You must be new here.

This stuff has been dealt with on other threads.

Please, put your BS up one thing at a time, and they will all be analyzed and shown to be pure 100% propaganda, and twisted misinterpetations.

It's truly amazing how effective they have become in recent years.

[-] 1 points by bottom99 (10) 6 years ago

What?!?!? Are you suggesting I question the sound bites I get from Fox news??? Say it isn't so!!!

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago

Yes. I am.

But do believe in the literary genius of Anne Coulter, after all, radiation must be good for you, as it's all natural......................snark.

[-] 1 points by Menton (26) from New York, NY 6 years ago

Wow.... this is got to be the most ignorant, narrow minded posting I have read so far. Those "you" you mock do not lobbying DC to gain even more wealth or establish 'political movements' to get the poor and the middle class to fight amount yourself. (Tea Party/Koch Bros) Your comments mirror the October 1880 letter written by Charles Boycott to the London Times newspaper, complaining about the Co. Mayo, Irleand 'locals' behaviour towards him.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

Rich, no problem. But does how you made your money stand up to scrutiny? Any fraud, any insider trading, etc.? Cause if there is, how does 10 years hard labor sound to you? You can prove to us what a deserving hard worker you are.

[-] 1 points by the99areLazy (14) from Benton, PA 6 years ago

There are scumbag companies, im not saying there are not. But ows generalizes every wealthy business owner as such. Thats the problem.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

I can't speak for every OWSer, but I don't see this movement as being an anti-free market movement. In fact I have only seen a handful of OWSers here advocating that stance, and I've been tuned in here a long time. There have, however, been a lot of well known trolls on this site advocating such ideas, and a lot worse. It seems this site has at last got their kit together. If so, you will get a better window into who OWS is, as well as to the lengths to which our adversaries will go to discredit us.

[-] 1 points by hymie (391) 6 years ago

Protestors can protest however much they want to, its there time. There is nothing illegal about it. They have the right to do so. Yes, sometimes its unethical (interference with small businesses) but it is still legal.

Wall Street is just part of an empire, what's left over of the British empire. They've used underdevelopment as a strategy against nations for centuries. You're taking sides with America's original enemy. Since you're unaware of the history behind it, you just call it conspiracy theory.

The empire found that it couldn't beat America in a fair fight, so it took the covert approach instead. This involved using money to manipulate many aspects of our culture from art and entertainment, to education, finance and manufacturing.

Surely you must know that both countries and companies operate on covert levels.

[-] 1 points by the99areLazy (14) from Benton, PA 6 years ago

Of course, im not saying there are not scumbag companies, but to the extent that ows makes it seem, it just isn't true. There is not a big business conglomerate working to sink America and keep people poor (that is what I meant by conspiracy therory).

The terms upon which ows is protesting just don't exist or are not something they can legaly have a say in. But by all means if they want to legaly protest, I say thats your choice.

"Yes, sometimes its unethical (interference with small businesses) but it is still legal." I just want to say I respect you for recognizing that it does happen, too many are playing it off that it is not.

[-] 1 points by hymie (391) 6 years ago

Why would you think that there is no conglomerate trying to impoverish people in America? This is what history has been for thousands of years. All the "great" empires - Babylonian, Persian, Roman, British did it. Do you really think today is so different from the last four thousand years that no group of people would have imperial ambitions?

[-] 1 points by the99areLazy (14) from Benton, PA 6 years ago

"not a big business conglomerate"

WallStreet consists of many businesses, for them to plan a strategy to opress and impoverish people without it being leaked to the public is close to impossible. No matter which way you look at it, it just is not plausable. If WallStreet was one company then I would say maybe, but its not. However there are industries that work to keep people buying their products (oil industry) but that is unethical marketing not impoverishment and opression.

I do think our government is working to impoverish people in America, and I know your thinking well how can I deny a business doing it and then say our government is, well its based on past history. The government is keeping us dependent on oil (iraq) and passing laws to opress the peoples speech (NDAA), and many other things. No business has the power to stop free speech, or force people to do anything. You seem very keen on history so you will probably agree, America is following the same pattern as all the "great" empires - Babylonian, Persian, Roman, British.

[-] 1 points by hymie (391) 6 years ago

You do have information leaking to the public, which is where we get conspiracy theory from. However, the owners of the media ridicule the people who research such leaks.

Businesses may not be able to force people to do things, but they can and do buy the media which they use to brainwash people.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 6 years ago

I think the difference between todays society and past societies is that todays society is "more educated"

[-] 1 points by hymie (391) 6 years ago

Unfortunately, I would say today's society is "mis-educated". How else would the policies of some highly educated PhDs in economics result in the economic crisis of today?

Today you have foundations financed by some very wealthy people determining what appears in our text books and classrooms, intended to dumb the population down.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 6 years ago

The ugly truth. America's wealth is STILL being concentrated. When the rich get too rich, the poor get poorer. These latest figures prove it. AGAIN.

According to the Social Security Administration, 50 percent of U.S. workers made less than $26,364 in 2010. In addition, those making less than $200,000, or 98 percent of Americans, saw their earnings fall by $4.5 billion collectively.

The incomes of the top one percent of the wage scale in the U.S. rose in 2010; and their collective wage earnings jumped by $120 billion. In addition, those earning at least $1 million a year in wages, which is roughly 93,000 Americans, reported payroll income jumped 22 percent from 2009.

Overall, the economy has shed 5.2 million jobs since the start of the Great Recession in 2007. It’s the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression in the 1930’s.

Another word about the first Great Depression. It really was a perfect storm. Caused almost entirely by greed. First, there was unprecedented economic growth. There was a massive building spree. There was a growing sense of optimism and materialism. There was a growing obsession for celebrities. The American people became spoiled, foolish, naive, brainwashed, and love-sick. They were bombarded with ads for one product or service after another. Encouraged to spend all of their money as if it were going out of style. Obscene profits were hoarded at the top. In 1928, the rich were already way ahead. Still, they were given huge tax breaks. All of this represented a MASSIVE transfer of wealth from poor to rich. Executives, entrepreneurs, developers, celebrities, and share holders. By 1929, America's wealthiest 1 percent had accumulated 44 percent of all United States wealth. The upper, middle, and lower classes were left to share the rest. When the lower majority finally ran low on money to spend, profits declined and the stock market crashed.

Of course, the rich threw a fit and started cutting jobs. They would stop at nothing to maintain their disgusting profit margins and ill-gotten obscene levels of wealth as long as possible. The small business owners did what they felt necessary to survive. They cut more jobs. The losses were felt primarily by the little guy. This created a domino effect. The middle class shrunk drastically and the lower class expanded. With less wealth in reserve and active circulation, banks failed by the hundreds. More jobs were cut. Unemployment reached 25% in 1933. The worst year of the Great Depression. Those who were employed had to settle for much lower wages. Millions went cold and hungry. The recovery involved a massive infusion of new currency, a public works program, a World War, and higher taxes on the rich. With so many men in the service, so many women on the production line, and those higher taxes to help pay for it, some US wealth was gradually transferred back down to the majority. This redistribution of wealth continued until the mid seventies. By 1976, the richest 1 percent held less than 20 percent. The lower majority held the rest. And rightfully so. It was the best year ever for the middle and lower classes. This was the recovery. A partial redistribution of wealth.

Then it began to concentrate all over again. Here we are 35 years later. The richest one percent now own over 40 percent of all US wealth. The upper, middle, and lower classes are sharing the rest. This is true even after taxes, welfare, financial aid, and charity. It is the underlying cause. If there is no redistribution, there will be no recovery.

Note: A knowledgable and trustworthy contributor has gone on record with a claim that effective tax rates for the rich were considerably lower than book rates during the years of redistribution that I have made reference to. His point was that the rich were able to avoid those very high marginal rates of 70-90% under the condition that they invested specifically in American jobs. His claim is that effective rates for the rich probably never exceeded 39% and certainly never exceeded 45%. My belief is that if true, those effective rates for the rich were still considerably higher than previous lows of '29'. Also that such policies still would have contributed to a partial redistribution by forcing the rich to either share profits and potential income through mass job creation or share income through very high marginal tax rates. This knowledgable contributor and I agree that there was in effect, a redistribution but disagree on the use of the word.

One thing is clear from recent events. The government won't step in and do what's necessary. Not this time. Book rates for the rich remain at all time lows. Their corporate golden geese are heavily subsidized. The benefits of corporate welfare are paid almost exclusively to the rich. Our Federal, State, and local leaders are sold out. Most of whom, are rich and trying to get even richer at our expense. They won't do anything about the obscene concentration of wealth. It's up to us. Support small business more and big business less. Support the little guy more and the big guy less. It's tricky but not impossible.

For the good of society, stop giving so much of your money to rich people. Stop concentrating the wealth. This may be our last chance to prevent the worst economic depression in world history. No redistribution. No recovery.

Those of you who agree on these major issues are welcome to summarize this post, copy it, use any portion, link to it, save it, show a friend, or spread the word in any fashion. Most major cities have daily call-in talk radio shows. You can reach thousands of people at once. They should know the ugly truth. Be sure to quote the figures which prove that America's wealth is still being concentrated. I don't care who takes the credit. We are up against a tiny but very powerful minority who have more influence on the masses than any other group in history. They have the means to reach millions at once with outrageous political and commercial propaganda. Those of us who speak the ugly truth must work incredibly hard just to be heard.

[-] 0 points by neveragain (55) 6 years ago

The occupy movement is not saying anything that wasn't said by Sarah Palin in the 2008 vice presidential debates.....hahahaha

[-] 0 points by PileOfSmegAKAZenDog (-30) 6 years ago

I bet you love big fat rutabagas. Why don't you go hug several of them?

[-] 0 points by wigger (-48) 6 years ago

Don't bother, the folks here are way beyond reality, they live in a dream world in which those who wish to keep what they own are greedy and those who want what they have and propose to take it by force or law are not greedy. Don't waste your time trying to bring them back, just enjoy the show! :)

[-] 0 points by IslandActivist (191) from Keaau, HI 6 years ago

Your view of OWS: rich whiny kids and hippies who buy iPhone 4’s, are jealous of those wealthier than them, blame all of their problems on WallStreet, and are using public property that isn’t theirs. (Adds link to website that claims OWSers are unemployed hippies protesting companies that are producing jobs going bankrupt because they are liberals who elected a socialist president). But wait, isn’t the OWS a bunch of left wing conspirators?

Alright I think that’s about it. You listen to Rush Limbaugh, yes? Well you are quoting from him, but then the website claims right wings are nutjobs so then you believe Rush is a nutjob, but wait a minute you believe in what he is preaching. Interesting, it’s like you are not only hypocritical but you are in fact making fun of yourself. I have actually seen this post before by countless other users. You do not want a valid argument, you didn’t even provide a ‘valid’ argument you in fact just typed propaganda that is not only unprofessional but do not relate in any way to the movement. Do you know what a political cartoon is? Saying that OWS is a bunch of hippies is the verbal form of a political cartoon. It’s not an argument. What will you say next, that everyone who thinks they should get a raise is unemployed? That anyone who disagrees with the current state of the US is a terrorist from Iran? Try to be rational next time and do some research. Come back with an actual argument and not something you saw on TV or read on the interwebs.

[-] 0 points by the99areLazy (14) from Benton, PA 6 years ago

I typed all of that, I did not quote Rush and he does not own that viewpoint. I don't play the left wing right wing game sorry. I don't really know much about Rush to be honest I don't listen to his speeches or read about him so I don't know if I belive he is a nut job or not. I did not take what I typed from anyones elses post, if you believe I did post the link to it before running your mouth. I counter argueed everything most owsers post about, so tell me how that not an arguement.

The real issue here is your butt hurt I offended you and your deadbeat friends and you have no real counter arguements to bring up. So instead you move to discredit my work by so confidently saying I copy and pasted it yet don't provide a link to where you have seen it elsewhere. Then say I provided no arguments, when I did. Yes, some were oppinions. There is one word to discribe this "cowardly".

Either come back with a link to the work I "stole" which I didn't or get over yourself and argue the well written points I wrote.

(Adds link to website that claims OWSers are unemployed hippies protesting companies that are producing jobs going bankrupt because they are liberals who elected a socialist president). But wait, isn’t the OWS a bunch of left wing conspirators?

Where is that on the website? Your just making shit up.

[-] 1 points by IslandActivist (191) from Keaau, HI 6 years ago

Who's the one who is really butt hurt here? I simply told you that you don't have an argument, so I'm not providing a counter-argument. I love how you generalize and assume. If you don't play the archaic wing terms, then why do you insist on promoting a site that solely relies on it? The thing is, Rush said it first. Which means you're just copying it. Did you actually fly to New York and saw what was happening and then called OWS everything you typed? Nope. Do you know where the website originated from? Nope. You don't know anything about the OWS movement or the anti-OWS movement. Wow you sure are ignorant.

[-] 1 points by the99areLazy (14) from Benton, PA 6 years ago

Way to jump on the defense asshole. Wheres that link I asked for? Oh thats right there is none! Do you know where the ows website came from? Oh wait thats right no one knows who started this shit hole website or movement! Your the one generalizing saying that unows relies on archaic wing term when yet most everthing on there is fact unlike this website.

Next time you post you better have a link to where I copy and pasted someone elses thread like you said otherwise you are discrediting yourself to start.

[-] 0 points by IslandActivist (191) from Keaau, HI 6 years ago

Where's the money I asked for? http://www.facebook.com/pages/Occupy-Reality-Anti-Occupy-Wall-Street/156874467740525 http://occupywallst.org/forum/dirty-stupid-hippies/ http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-you-do-not-represent-the-real-99/ http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2011/11/16/zuccotti_park_liberated_protesters_can_move_back_in_with_parents

I believe the people who started this movement were mentioned around here. Oh wait, yes that would be the nycga. And of course only three articles does compose a website. See this site isn't about being for OWS, it's about politics. These forums are about politics. Notice how every subject isn't 'I love OWS' it's about relevant issues such as Obama signing the NDAA. You want to start a discussion? How about taking about policies rather than all OWS are a bunch of hippies. You should try to compose yourself.

[-] 1 points by the99areLazy (14) from Benton, PA 6 years ago

That Fb page is not part of the website I posted a link too. Sorry thats not grounds for being right. Find it on the website.

There are points I mentioned that are grounds for discussion. Here I will help you.

I said WallStreet did not sink the economy. If you belive it did you can start there by explaining and using evidence why it did.

I said you are in your financial position because of your mistakes not the wealthy. If you think the wealthy made you poor you can argue your point why they did.

I said the people are making the rich wealthy, money just doesn't fall in their pockets. If you belive that money does fall in their pockets you can argue that.

There are 3 points.Go.

Also where is that link to the work I copyied?

[-] 1 points by IslandActivist (191) from Keaau, HI 6 years ago

Your troll was unsuccessful. A troll has to study what they are trolling before doing it, for risk of not only counter-trolling but sounding like a fool. The FB page is the inspiration.

I could argue with you but what would that do? Bump this thread even more? You won't listen to reason. Once I have shut you down you'll say lol hippies and run away. I am sorry to notify you that someone has already done your job. Why don't you make a new post on those three points you want eagerly answered minus the trolling if you want to be taken seriously? You should go over to your local Occupy if you want to argue about OWS fundamentals.

Now if you want to talk to me, then that's a different story.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gKX9TWRyfs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w http://occupywallst.org/forum/can-someone-please-explain-the-practical-goals-of-/#comment-551082

[-] 0 points by the99areLazy (14) from Benton, PA 6 years ago

Calling me a troll now eh? It seems you have taken the defensive again. But I will admit I did troll a little. How is the FB page the inspiration? Are you not generalizing? I belive you tried to bash me for generalizing. However if you want proof of that I will send you the link. Which reminds me where is that link of the work I copyied again? You also said earlier that I had no talking points, but you are now recognizing them indeed as talking points. I think I deserve an appoligy. I have composed myself like you have asked but it now seems you need to aswell.

I will post my three points for someone else to answer since you cannot. I am sorry if I have shut you down, I was just trying to spark a debate.

[-] 1 points by IslandActivist (191) from Keaau, HI 6 years ago

What's up with this defensive? Did I ever say you copyrighted a link? I believe I said you posted here something you watched on the TV or read on the interwebs. How am I supposed to know what you were doing? I don't tend to stalk people. I already said I will not that is n-o-t answer your excuse for an argument because it is not a valid argument. If you want to make a valid argument then go ahead. I will not respond to your propaganda. I will simply waste your time because I find you entertaining. I bet you think I'm part of the OWS too. I'm not really one to be jealous, you could go around asking 1000 people the same thing. I'm simply going to sit here and eat my apple pie. Notice how my tone is uplifting and pleasant, unlike your bashing tone. Good day to you, my dear good sir.


[-] 0 points by the99areLazy (14) from Benton, PA 6 years ago

I see you deleted the portion of your original comment where you said it was copy and pasted and then later down the conversation posted a link to the comment.

In the face of defeat you try and cheat your way to victory. Cowardly.

[-] 0 points by the99areLazy (14) from Benton, PA 6 years ago

I see you changed your links and your orginal comment. Shame. You are no better than the "1%". You lie and commit fraud all the same. You should be ashamed...

[-] 0 points by the99areLazy (14) from Benton, PA 6 years ago

I do appoligize if my tone was bashing, it was not meant to be.

"I have actually seen this post before by countless other users. You do not want a valid argument, you didn’t even provide a ‘valid’ argument you in fact just copied and pasted someone else’s views which are not only unprofessional but do not relate in any way to the movement."

That was your very first post on this thread, it clearly stated that you have seen it elsewhere and I had copy and pasted it.

If you do not find my arguement valid that is fine, but do not let your oppinion overshadow the fact that it is argueable. Belive me I have seen worse points on this forum that still are discussed. But by all means it is your choice.

I do not know if you are part of OWS, and no offense I do not take interest in if people are or are not. If the post pertains to them they reply, and thats all that matters to me. My time is your to waste for every minute of mine you take I equilaly take a minute of yours.

Isn't all information propaganda? OWS was built on propaganda, its what gained them support.

[-] -1 points by JimBeam (152) 6 years ago

If I offered one of the OWSers a job today that put them in the "1%", I wonder how many of them would turn it down?

[-] 1 points by bottom99 (10) 6 years ago

Please do so and come back with the facts of your speculation.

[-] 1 points by JimBeam (152) 6 years ago

First of all it was a question not speculation. Second, how many do you think would turn it down?

[-] 1 points by bottom99 (10) 6 years ago

I would not hazard a guess. It all depends on the salary offered, I guess.

[-] 0 points by the99areLazy (14) from Benton, PA 6 years ago

None, thats what they are protesting for.