Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Okay, So OWS Wins, Now What?

Posted 2 years ago on Jan. 6, 2012, 3:37 p.m. EST by toonces (-117)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The OWS mob is a movement of people who want the government to take from those who work and give it to those who don't.

Will you work and have the money you have earned taken to be given to those who don't?

Will you do your best to drop off the grid and keep the money you earn to spend yourself?

Is wanting to keep and use the money you earn greedy or is it greedy to want the money someone else earns to use yourself?

108 Comments

108 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

How about just ending the current debt-money slave system itself. A system that works only to transfer wealth from the many to the few. This system is so well entrenched that many people can imagine no alternative, as they are hopelessly brainwashed by the current regime of 1% leaches on society. (job-creators, what propaganda,. .)

The answer is not about taking from the rich to give to the poor, it is about removing this parasitic debt-money system that continuously takes from the many, to give to the few. It is about the very nature of the money itself, what it is, how it is created, and the terrible cost of not fixing this hopelessly corrupted system. This current system is only around 40 years old. Many alternatives to the current money system already exist, and only need to be used.

This money system with the built-in skimming of wealth from the many for the benefit of the greedy few is the largest contributing force to the current political and social inequity. Fixing this broken monetary system is the single most effective way to begin to reverse the wealth and power concentration that is causing so many of the problems of today.

http://youtu.be/Dc3sKwwAaCU

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20548) 2 years ago

Well said. Now we have to figure out what to do.

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

Well it seems to be a catch 22, the political system is controlled by the 1% through ruthless manipulations, control of media, and debt, etc. However the way to change the monetary system would be through this political system, so these changes are blocked by the 1%.

Getting the money out of politics could let in real changes to the money system, however this is also blocked by the 1% that control the political process.

Identifying a problem is the first step in solving it. The 100th monkey principle shows that ideas need to reach a critical mass and then they become a collective knowledge of the group. Perhaps just keeping the ideas actively spreading throughout the people will at that tipping point trigger those with all the need ideas to come together and address the issues effectively. Education can only help so I propose more consciousness raising.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20548) 2 years ago

I agree. And, I, too, think getting money out of politics is the first step.

www.getmoneyout.com

See "The Occupied Amendment" of Representative Ted Deutch and Senator Bernie Sanders:

http://www.theoccupiedamendment.org/

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Well, it seems to me that if you resisted the urge to purchase items from those who produce en masse, the money would not go from you to them.

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

It has little to do with what we purchase personally.

The money we now use is created by private bankers, the bankers get to charge interest for creating the money, a simple typing in of values on a computer file, and the interest is not created. This leaves people scrambling to pay back the loan WITH THE INTEREST, that we have to 'win' from some where else, (hence the competitive winner/loosers system we currently "enjoy").

This does not only apply to private car/house loans, more importantly it also is how our governments operate (local, state, fed.). The government spending is not from the current tax collecting, it is from new loans from private bankers, again with interest, the taxes go to pay for previous loans and endlessly compounded interest. Of course since the 1% control these "governments" they wast money spending it on useless war-making, corporate welfare, and crony operated projects. (65% of all US budget now goes to wars and police state apparatus!)

Taxes go higher and higher to pay back the private banksters and all this compounding interest they demand for doing nothing of use (keeping track of debt so they get the interest). We can not get out from under this system by shopping at other stores, the tax system will get us anyway. (or inflation!) The monetary system must be changed, period. It is a slave making system that taken to its ultimate ends would see the banksters holding ALL the money, so obviously, to anyone who takes the time to think it through, it is a hopelessly broken system.

"A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom." - Martin Luther King Jr.

We are past this point!

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

The government ceded their obligation to coin money to banks. It is still a government problem we are discussing.

You can get out by choosing not to borrow or owe.

[-] 2 points by MrMiller (128) from Sandy, UT 2 years ago

I think you're missing the point. The people at the top of the dog pile, so to speak, are telling us basically that we are somehow better when we're left to fend for ourselves. This movement is made of a ton of people who are saying, essentially, that they would like to be able to see their neighbor be able to live a happy life too. So, if what it takes is to pay taxes, then I'm all for it. I think what should be done is for housing to be made substantially lower in price so that people can afford to pay more taxes. I would gladly pay 50 percent in taxes, provided my housing was cheaper, like rent, so that I wouldn't have to worry about getting put out of a place to live right after losing my job. Look at Sweden. They have a well-functioning society and they pay a lot in taxes. They love it though, cause they care about each other. We here in America would rather see each other die if it meant that we get more money to ourselves. So, what I'm trying to say overall is that I don't care about money so much, I just care about the fact that I don't want to risk not being able to live if I don't have enough. Otherwise, I'd do more charitable work and work for less. But, like I said, the greatest overhead and source of stress in our society or perhaps any other is the sword of paying for housing that's always hanging over everyone's head. I don't expect this problem to ever get solved really, but I know that it's the major source of society's problems, including the pursuit of profit above all else. Otherwise, I'm absolutely sure that more people would work for a hobby or for fun.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

But you have to understand that there are lots of people who paid their houses off. There are also lots of people who bought houses they couldn't afford and there are lots of people out there who bought house to flip for "hugh profits.

I have always owned a home and paid my first on off after 15 years. I now own another home that I am fiancing and have a 3.85 interest rate with monthly payments that are lower then paying rent.

My credit rating is "excellent" because I paid all my bills on time and never defauted on a debt.

[-] 0 points by FarIeymowat (49) 2 years ago

Taxes=slavery

[-] 2 points by flip (6775) 2 years ago

fool - how do you ay for the things that the individual cannot do - roads for instance - if you think hard you might come up with a few more

[-] 2 points by IslandActivist (191) from Keaau, HI 2 years ago

OWS doesn't want to take all of the 1%'s money and use it for specifically themselves, if that was their cause then they are far more delusional than perceived. It's more of a Robin Hood type thing, the money is supposed to be shared equally with everyone. That doesn't mean every one gets to live in mansions, it more of means every one gets to have the basic needs of food, water, health care, and shelter.

People end up on rock bottom for different reasons, it doesn't mean that they are all lazy bums. I don't know why having a low paying job is considered not hard working while people with a high paying job is considered hard working. I don't see why we can't treat people with respect. Whatever happened to the shining city on a hill? The least we could do is help each other out. It wouldn't make sense to put the 1% in debt by taking all of their money and make them suffer, we would just create another 1%.

What's up with mansions made for one or two people anyway? We could surely fit almost fifteen people in there. That is just wasting our resources. The point is, the 1% did a bad job of stimulating our economy since they basically waste their money. And how can we blame them? The 1% should have never had the job of saving America, the whole system doesn't work. All money should either be shared equally, or the monetary system should just be overruled and all resources should be shared equally. But that's just my opinion.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

The government does not stimulate the economy. Business and individuals stimulate their own economy. There are people who are doing quite well at this time. Why don't you become one of them?

[-] 1 points by thelastlegacy (10) 2 years ago

Haha, are you for real? Government constantly stimulates the economy. It is one of it's tasks. If the government exists to stimulate profits for itself or in the interests of others, it will do so. It is one of the reasons government exists!

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Sorry but you are wrong - government doesn't stimulate the economy. If a person owns a company and makes a profit of $1000.00 he can take that money and invest it in his company or hire more employees. He can take that $1000.00 and turn it into $1200.00 or more.

Now if he has to pay that $1000.00 to the government the government can't take that $1000.00 and turn it into $1200.00.

What the government can do is give it to the states for a price, the states in turn then give to the counties and cities for a price and in the end the $1000.00 that a business had to invest in the economy has been reduced to $300.00 to "temporarily" invest in the economy.

So again the government doesn't stimulate the economy - it doesn't make it grow it actually causes it to stagnate.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

The truth is that for all intents and purposes, the money given to government disappears down a black hole. Government produces nothing, government just eats.

[-] 1 points by flip (6775) 2 years ago

one comment dumber than the next here - i need to get a drink - what do you think of computers - the internet? how about nuclear energy, the airlines - abc, nbc and goldman. should i go on. you seem to know nothing of our economic history - time to do a little reading. great depression and world war 2 come to mind - and the post war recession - what were our rulers saying then should i help you or can you find out by yourself?

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

I know that the governmental meddling prolonged the depression in the United States. What was just a depression in the rest of the world was the Great Depression in the United States.

[-] 1 points by flip (6775) 2 years ago

again you do not know history - the first country to exit the depression was sweden - and guess how? you stand history on it's head - the gov't cut spending and raised taxes in 1937 - and what happened - big recession. how did we get out - ww2 - gov't spending - and what was the conversation within the ruling class in 1948 when were slipping back into recession? i will let you answer that one - do some homework - stop reading hayek and open your eyes!

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

You can cherry pick instances all you want, the truth is that for all intents and purposes, the money given to government disappears down a black hole. Government produces nothing, government just eats.

[-] 1 points by flip (6775) 2 years ago

if the depression is cherry picking then so be it - you can have your opinion but you should try to be smarter when you offer it in public. as usual on this site you did not respond to the history - look it up! as to gov't how do you like the gw bridge - how you getting to nyc with out it? and roads and schools - where did you go to school???? waters systems - got indoor plumbing?? should i go on - watching football today - who built the stadium - you are a fool and a tool of those who own you - very sad

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

The Depression was twelve years. To pick a moment and declare that a certain point was the the impetus for what brought us out is a bit misleading. We can, however, look at what was being done to try to bring us out of the depression and see that after 12 years of Keynesian spending, we were no closer to ending the depression than when we started. We can learn from this that when government takes money from the people to "fix" the economy, the economy does not get "fixed" and the people will just be subjected to prolonged suffering.

The truth is that for all intents and purposes, the money given to government disappears down a black hole. Government produces nothing, government just eats.

[-] 1 points by flip (6775) 2 years ago

well you like to say that about gov't eating but you do not like to respond to what i say - can't blame you since there is no good response . indoor plumbing anyone? gw bridge come to mind (it is in ny city by the way - big apple - you've heard of it). did ww2 get us out of the depression - a simple yes or no should do it here. chart the economy through the depression and see what happened in 1937 - go ahead, i'll wait..... now tell me what you found? why was economic activity going up in 1934 and why did it take another big dip in 1938. you could continue if you are up to it to see what happened after the war - why was economic activity slowing down and what caused it to pick up again. anyone with an ounce of sense knows and that is why we have our beloved military - 54 cents on each tax dollar - oh, i imagine you just love that money gov't spends - right tooncy boy (you know that name always makes me think of looney tunes - don't know why). i will agree that the problem with gov't is that it is not truly under democratic control so money is spend on the military and goldman and exxon etc. if you think that the obama stimulus was keynesian spending you have been reading that capitalist rag - the ny times too much.

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

Toonces, put down the crack pipe and read this:

I have stated many times that FDR's policies (designed to partially reverse the record high concentration of wealth) were successful every year but one. I have stated that his policies resulted in economic growth and job creation every year but one. Also that he did in fact, officially end the Great Depression.

The following is an entry from 'looselyhuman' who has gone on record with a similar claim. One source to verify our claims is included. Out of respect for 'looselyhuman', I will post not only the source, but also his entire entry unedited:

Its a good one. Looselyhuman said:

"Revisionist history. Check this out re: FDR's taxes that long outlived him (until 1980-82): http://www.brianrogel.com/the-100-percent-solution-for-the-99-percent

Unemployment declined every year from 1933-1940 except 1938 when FDR listened to the GOP and cut back on the New Deal. GDP grew every year except 1938 as well. The rest of the world was in free fall. There was no trade or commerce and without government spending it would have been total collapse. Then, yes, things took off even more during the Keynesian economic stimulus known as WWII.

Unemployment (% labor force)

1933 24.9

1934 21.7

1935 20.1

1936 16.9

1937 14.3

1938 19

1939 17.2

1940 14.6

Percent change GDP

1933 -4%

1934 15%

1935 10%

1936 13%

1937 9%

1938 -7%

1939 7%

1940 9%

How would you feel about 15% economic growth today?"

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

I bet ten dollars he reasserts his point about government being a black hole, for the umpteenth time.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

I have looked back on my conversation with you and I do not see an instance where I have personally attacked you, yet you seem to feel the need to insult me.

"one comment dumber than the next here"

"again you do not know history"

"you are a fool and a tool of those who own you - very sad"

"Toonces, put down the crack pipe and read this:"

You are truly well versed at the art of insult. For what purpose?

Now, as to the point you brought up:

There was nearly 100% employment in the Soviet Union. There is more to social prosperity than forced employment. I would prefer not to live where the government orchestrates the taking of money from "the haves" to be redistributed to "the have nots", after taking a healthy "cut" for themselves.

Also, when the economy is at a standstill, a 20% increase in GDP can be looked at as a minimal change in the lot of the people as well as being relatively easy to massage.

[-] 1 points by IslandActivist (191) from Keaau, HI 2 years ago

Is this a legit discussion or are you just fooling around? I don't think you even read my post...

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

I read your post. There is just much erroneous information in it that I cannot respond to it all at once.

Take, for instance, your Robin Hood comparison. You have totally mixed up the message of Robin Hood. Robin Hood took the money back from the government who was taking the money from the people. Once he took the money back from the government officials, he returned it to the people who had the money taken from them by the government.

[-] 1 points by IslandActivist (191) from Keaau, HI 2 years ago

I said it's more like a Robin Hood type thing, in which the money that is just lying around is finally used for the citizens. In contrast, the money should be shared equally. Most of my post cannot be labeled incorrect because it's my opinion. I hardly think my post is THAT long, but I'll just give that to you and try to summarize.

I didn't say the government stimulates the economy. The richest 1% is supposed to do this by investing so that the wealth trickles down. That is how our economy is set up. I am doing rather well financially, I'm not here to beg for a job or a home or spare money. I already have this, the problem is that there are more people who do not have this and in most cases they can't help themselves.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Everyone can help themselves.

[-] 1 points by IslandActivist (191) from Keaau, HI 2 years ago

I realize it's difficult for someone who is doing well to accept that most people aren't doing well. The only reason why I'm so good at it is because I can see through a different point of view.

Let's say you graduated you are looking for a job of your particular interest which you have had abundant education, experience, and training for. You go around at employers and each one labels you over-qualified. None will hire you. Now let's say you're middle class. You don't have to worry about anything, but suddenly you and your family falls ill - diabetes, heart attack, cancer - and now your insurance backs off and won't pay, which wouldn't be a problem except you have already drained through your savings due to medical bills.

[-] -1 points by FarIeymowat (49) 2 years ago

"RobinHood" is one of the most immoral stories ever conceived. Obama and his ilk were read that story at bedtime eveynight and really fell under the trance.

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

If RobinHood went to Tahiti with his plunder they would call him Robin' De Hood, and that would be immoral, But that is not what he did so why does he get the bad rap? To those that want to live Globally and think locally, meaning you degrade those who want your taxes while saving the world, You are no worse than those who Think Globally and live locally? I live and think globally so I consume little and take from the rich. I don't believe that is immoral, but I could be wrong.

[-] 0 points by FarIeymowat (49) 2 years ago

Of course it's immoral. Stealing is immoral, regardless of who it is stolen from. I am not a globalist, however we do support a Hatian school, but we try to buy from local farmers as much as possible.

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

Then why did humanity create political and social apparati that do it so effectively? Either through the stock market or taxation, we have created the best robin hoods, any people of any era have ever known. Can't stealing some times be seen as efficacy for doing the right thing? Especially if you are thinking globally? I can't afford locally sustainable food. Do you think maybe someone has stolen my labor or does it just mean I am a lazy good for not who wont work harder for the food I know I should eat?

[-] 0 points by FarIeymowat (49) 2 years ago

TARP was a great theft, Bush promoted, and Obama supported wholeheartedly. They stole from us to bailout wall street bankers. Robin hood in reverse one could say. Steal from the poor to bailout the rich. Stealing any way you cut it is a disgrace. It is wrong to expect a handout from anyone, anyway. Surely you must agree?

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

yes if I can provide for myself, it would be wrong to ask for a hand out. But to say that money to bail out the banks and money to keep unemployment solvent are the same is a little too simple, in my opinion. Bailing out the banks should have kept the money markets open so to keep middle class companies running and hiring. When that did not happen, Obama had to bail out the workers with unemployment. Which thievery, If any, do you think is less reprehensible?

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

Confiscating stolen goods and returning then is not stealing.

If the law permits thievery, it is not a viable law.

[-] 1 points by IslandActivist (191) from Keaau, HI 2 years ago

I would think the opposite would be true.

[-] 0 points by FarIeymowat (49) 2 years ago

He was a fucking thief. Thiefs need jail time, and restitution to the victims

[-] 2 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

Let's see...I think you are in error here.

Jobs is one of the biggest items on the OWS list, hundreds carried signs on marches citing jobs as a major issue.

Maybe you should look around a bit more with less prejudice and see what else you might find.

[-] -1 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

The pay for working is quite a bit better than it is for carrying signs (although I have seen quite a few people of late earning money carrying signs to advertise businesses on corners).

[-] -1 points by DunkiDonut2 (-108) 2 years ago

www.monster.com go for it.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

I, personally, have no need of such services. I've been self employed all my life.

If you don't want to see anything other than your preconceived notions, it's your prerogative.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

You are replying to FriendlyObserverA, A.K.A, computer, A.K.A, thrasymkay poster of porn, A.K.A. a zillion other usernames. He's working with the TV spammers to post nonsense in this forum.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

Doesn't matter, it's not the person I reply for, it's for those who may read and actually have the ability to think.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

Fair enough.

[-] 0 points by FarIeymowat (49) 2 years ago

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Your funny.

[-] 0 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 2 years ago

DunkiDonut2 = long-outed T R O L L

(NOTE: To understand WHAT MAKES A TROLL TICK - AND have a chuckle while you're at it - go to:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/how-trolls-think-trollosophy-exposed/

[-] 0 points by DunkiDonut2 (-108) 2 years ago

A TROLL? So there is 99% and 1%. I'm NOT part of the 99 and not rich. You guys cant count.

[-] 1 points by mirko2 (23) 2 years ago

no society with no solidarity

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

I bet those prep schooled Harvard kids worked very hard for those trust funds in another life...

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

If you actually both to read the very few public statements that OWS has made it should be very clear that OWS wants absolutely nothing from the government. It does not trust the government. It does not expect the government to be able to solve the many grievances it has articulated. It makes no demands on the government. It calls upon the people of the world to organized themselves, not to expect the government to solve problems that governments themselves initiated.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Well, I guess that is cool. As long as the government is not involved, they cannot take money from those who have earned it. Set in the park and complain.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

OWS is really thinking in terms of a post money society and culture. Money, after all, like the state itself, is an historically specific human invention and like the state it was but one more device to maintain a class system and a hierarchal society.

[-] 1 points by Joeboy32 (72) 2 years ago

To cop out and say that "everyone" in the protest are lazy bums, just shows how "lazy" you are to not have taken any real consideration to research the movement in the first place. There are people who quite their jobs to join the protest and others have refused to take a minimum wage job after being in school for 4-8 years to get a degree.

The fact is, "why" should you settle for less when you've aimed high?.

I think, people want to depend on the rich, because they are too "lazy" to established themselves in the same manner as the 1%. I personally, do not need a corporation to determine how far my own life will go, when it comes to success or how I survive for that matter. And besides that, if it weren't for the middle and lower class all around the world, these corporations wouldn't have the success they have today.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

A bunch of dopies and malcontents lounging in parks paid for by the work effort of others bitching that they do not get enough shit handed to them from the efforts of others. You make my point for me, the lazy bums quite (sic) their jobs to gripe in the park. People who think they are too good to work for money they don't feel is up to their standards....

I stand by what I said.

[-] 1 points by ithink (761) from York, PA 2 years ago

I think we have more options than what you have laid out. In fact, we have so many options that it is anyone's guess which direction things will go. My guess is that, in some form or fashion, taxes for the wealthy will not go up in the near future (A minority of the population currently controls politics. This could change, but I do not see it happening anytime soon.) Drop off the grid and keep your money... oh I would love to do this. But I have personally decided, I cannot. I think we have to do what we can to create strong communities - this means riding out the bad weather and my guess is, most people will be inclined to do so. What I would like to see? A cultural shift from knee jerk reaction-ism to long term think tanks. I would like to see a cultural revolution that encourages the 100% to question every aspect of their social conditioning. Only then can we reach and repair some of the root problems OWS has brought to the forefront.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 2 years ago

Great Post !

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

15th. You?

Thanks for the compliment.

[-] 1 points by opensociety4us (914) from Norwalk, CT 2 years ago

"We have a nation of people who want the government to take from those who work and give it to those who don't."

you're a clueless FOX news consuming zombie.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Sorry, I erred in saying, :we have a nation of people". What I actually should have said was that the OWS mob is a movement of people who want the government to take from those who work and give it to those who don't.

[-] 1 points by opensociety4us (914) from Norwalk, CT 2 years ago

and again, you're a clueless FOX news consuming zombie.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

First of all we are an international movement. The grievances we have and the changes we seek are not merely national but involve fundamental and profound changes in the entire social system internationally. When we win their will be no need for military anywhere, or police forces or even of the more nonviolent forms of coersion such as advertising. There is more than enough wealth on this good earth for everyone to share collectively, without competition. People will be able to spend there time doing what they love and with whom they love.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Please explain to me how anything necessary gets done with you spending all your time doing what you love with whom you love. I know I would not give you food for engaging in that activity.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

What most people love to do, what many people end up only being able to do in their spare time, turns out to be what is most necessary. Take, for example, gardening. How many people garden in their spare time? How necessary is it for somebody to grow vegetables? Of course, there are some jobs that are not intrinsically attractive and yet are necessary like garbage collection. The fact is garbage collectors are not paid nearly what they are worth in terms of their use to society, which is at least as much as your average physician.

A lot of jobs that exist now would not need to exist in a truly loving, democratic and peaceful society. Jobs like the police, prison guards, the military, and the whole bureaucratic apparatus that keeps that in place. There are also the so called nonviolent jobs whose basic purpose it is to keep people blind and ignorant of the oppression under which they operate such as the whole advertising industry.

Once you got rid of all that stuff the actual socially necessary labor time that society would need from each of us would probably not be more than ten or 15 hours a week. The rest of the time we could use improving our minds, making great or mediocre art, fishing or fucking.

[-] 0 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

No competititon? That means no progress, no inventivness.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

I said nothing about either competition or progress. What does it mean to compete? Compete with whom and for what? And what, exactly, is progress? My point was that OWS is an international movement and the initial posting on this thread was framed in national terms.

People compete for all kinds of reasons, the least of which is material gain. The primary reason people compete is to try to better themselves or to do something better than it had been done before, whether that means running a race faster than before or building a better light bulb.

As far as progress goes, I personally would not consider the impoverishment of the majority of the world's population progress by the standards of the Golden Rule, the moral standard on which Christianity is theoretically based.

[-] 0 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

compete with other people regarding invention and discovery. progress? better versions of what already exists or an entirely new invention or discovery.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Human progress is not measured exclusively or even primarily by scientific and technical developments. It is also measured by how human beings interact. The rise of democracy is as important a development as the light bulb or the taming of fire as is the rise of empathy (not mere sympathy), solidarity, and a concern for the rights of the individual regardless of their age, sex, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, politics, religion, creed, social class, intellect, mental or physical status, or state of incarceration. Competition need not be about material advantage, and in fact seldom is and it certainly doesn't need to between nation states, especially if those entities no longer exist. Listen to John Lennon's song Imagine and then just start to imagine. Suspend your disbelief and imagine.

[-] 0 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

you were doing well untill you cited lennon's song.

[-] 2 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

It seems to me that the lyrics of Imagine are absolutely consistent with the values of OWS: Imagine there's no countries, and no religion too. Nothing to die for. A society based on love and justice with no artificial distinctions that divide one human being from another.

[-] 0 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

You're hopelessly naive.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

The Golden Rule is a revolutionary doctrine and if only 10% of the people who profess to be Christians actually practiced it on a regular basis we would be living in a very different society.

[-] 0 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

Why do you think that the "Golden Rule" only applies to Christians?

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

I don't think that the Golden Rule applies only to Christians or that Christians are the only people who can apply it. In fact, it is articulated in some form by virtually every major religion, but it is articulated most specifically by Christianity. Basically, I think if 10% of the people in the world actively practiced the Golden Rule, regardless of their religion or lack thereof, we would live in a very different world. I only single out Christianity in that regard because the Golden Rule is most frequently associated with Christianity even though few Christians actually practice it regularly and consistently, even on the sabbath.

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

It is more than possible, the transformation was well on the way in the mid 1960s and early 1970s... which is why a certain class of non-addictive substances and plants were banned. They have the unfortunate side effect of making people care about each other.

[-] 1 points by burningman2012 (187) 2 years ago

eat the rich.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Is the country doing better under the Bush tax code than the Clinton tax code?
Is the country doing better under the Bush tax code than the Eisenhower tax code?
Rs => YOU CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH

[-] 0 points by FarIeymowat (49) 2 years ago

Tax rates as a percentage of GDP always hover in the 17-20% range, irregardless of tax rates, with a few years, 1944,1945, and 2000, in the 20.5% range. The thiefs in congress have never collected more than 21%, it will never happen. Yet typical spending is 25% of GDP, so the dbt now has become a mountain. Thank you Washington.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

The Obama tax code at this point...

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

and what laws did Obama pass to create the Obama tax code?

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

The Bush tax code expired.Obama and the congress had the choice to set tax code at what they thought would be most beneficial to the country. Obama and the congress reflected and decided to use the tax code adopted by the previous administration and congress. This is undoubtedly "The Obama Tax Law" we are subjected to now.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Sorry I wasn't clear - let me rephrase that so you can answer it specifically-
what laws did Obama pass to create the Obama tax code?

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

He looked over copied the law that President Bush and the Congress passed and passed that law with the newly elected Democratic majority congress. He had majorities in both houses and could have passed any new code he wanted.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

What the hell's this guy talking about?

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (20548) 2 years ago

I don't know. He's wants to keep his low wage for himself, maybe?

[-] 1 points by opensociety4us (914) from Norwalk, CT 2 years ago

LOL!

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 2 years ago

what skills are you offering for these low wages beautifulworld?

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20548) 2 years ago

I don't offer skills for low wages, aries. I'm talking about the guy who posted this thread. I answered you about this in another post. Read about the labor theory of value.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 2 years ago

so that settles it. you have no skills & want everyone else to subsidize you with a comfortable lifestyle.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20548) 2 years ago

No. I said I don't offer skills for low wages. What is so hard to understand about that, aries?

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 2 years ago

so what skills do you offer for high wages?

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20548) 2 years ago

I told you I don't post personal info on the internet. Why do you care so much?

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 2 years ago

I care because it is relevant to the discussion

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20548) 2 years ago

How so? I don't care if I'm talking to someone who is a Distinguished Professor at Harvard or someone who has a 9th grade education and works at Dunkin Donuts. I'm interested in what everyone has to say and don't judge them based on their skills and education, or what they bring to the table, as you put it.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 2 years ago

the point is - skills matter when it comes to what you earn. Unless you are expecting a handout. The person with a ninth grade education shouldn't expect to have the same benefits in life as the Harvard Professor.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20548) 2 years ago

I never said he did. What I said is that he has a right to a living wage.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 2 years ago

he has a right to accept or decline whatever the employer is offering.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20548) 2 years ago

Okay. So when there is high unemployment, I believe Chris Christie can't get it below 9% in the great state of NJ, they'll just decline the job and starve to death.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 2 years ago

that's up to them. No one owes you a living. 9% unemployment. that means 91% are working.

[-] 1 points by iRevolution (54) from Fayetteville, NC 2 years ago

OWS seems to think that wanting to keep your money is greedy. That eliminating the income tax is greedy. No one should have to pay a tax on the fruits of there own labor. They seem to think that it's not right to not want to give your money to the government so they can "Help others" when that's not what government is going, government is wasting money.

[-] 0 points by burningman2012 (187) 2 years ago

no the problem is some people think government can work for people while others think government is there to work for corporations.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Some people think the government can work for the people, when in reality they are advocating the government exercising inordinate control over the freedoms and inalienable rights granted to us by our creator.

Governmental "help" is control and slavery.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by burningman2012 (187) 2 years ago

objectivist bullshit statement.

[+] -6 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

you are a fool.

this movement is in large measure all about holding people accountable - this nation has incurred debt - debt due to war, debt due to the economic collapse - and you would have us refuse to pay that debt.

you would have us tank the economy even further with such nonsense.

Revenue will be raised to meet our common obligation.

And we will hold those accountable for promoting fiscal policy and economic theory that has proven itself a sham.

The movie Inside Job makes it quite clear: Conservatives set to implement financial deregulation as far back as the late 1970s, and part of that process included the appointment to the Supreme Court

  • Conservative Activist Judges

And it is clear - as that process began to bear fruit, Conservatives began screaming about Liberal Activist Judges, and thus distract the public from their process of Activism toward deregulation.

  • repeliKans are liars

  • repeliKans with their process of deregulation have fucked the American public.

  • repeliKans continue to lie about Global Warming

  • repeliKans will soon reap the harvest they have sown

The people are coming. You can't stop it. You can't avoid it. And in fact, you will benefit.

Unless of course, you get in the way. Then there's just no tellin'.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Odd how you resort to insults rather than presenting an argument based on facts.

[+] -6 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

that argument is based on facts.

you don't happen to like those facts.

I don't much care.