Forum Post: OWS is the top 1%?
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 9, 2011, 11:57 a.m. EST by Redmist11b
(17)
from Montauk, NY
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Public Forum
2 comments 1 month ago by gsw
1 comments 5 months ago by factsrfun
5 comments 1 year ago by agkaiser
6 comments 1 year ago by grapes
15 comments 1 year ago by gsw
12 comments 1 year ago by BrentWeirick81
30 comments 2 years ago by ChicagoCitizen
48 comments 2 years ago by factsrfun
16 comments 2 years ago by factsrfun
2 comments 2 years ago by ChicagoCitizen
2 comments 2 years ago by ChicagoCitizen
8 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
7 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 years ago by grapes
6 comments 2 years ago by haightashbury98
51 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
5 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
14 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
7 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 3 years ago by agkaiser
6 comments 3 years ago by agkaiser
Purchasing Power Parity
From the article...
This isn't to suggest that protesters have no reason to complain. What also matters is "relative poverty" -- the way individuals perceive their position in a society. On that score, measured by the Gini coefficient, the U.S. ranks pretty poorly compared with developed peers and even developing nations such as India and Pakistan.
I have been to both countries, you can really see what poor is if you leave the US. Particularly in Pakistan, the have and have not's line was very obvious.
Are you saying you want people in the US to be as poor as the people in Pakistan before they start complaining? That sounds pretty harsh and not very patriotic.
LoL no not at all! I meant that here in the US and in Canada being poor is an entirely different animal. I receive 1340 a month from my pension, without my other sources of income I could not survive on it here in the US. Not if I wanted t keep my lifestyle, but abroad I could live well on 1340.00 alone.
I agree. Even in the US cost of living varies from state to state and even county to county depending on your SOL.
Relative comparisons. It's cute, but an invalid argument.
The movement is about moneyed influence in politics in THIS country. The world has problems that the people in the US cannot solve, the citizens of each country should rise up for the same purpose and remove money from politics. It is our duty to show them the way.
Arab Spring was exactly that. The only duty the US has, is to shut up and be relieved that they're not the only ones who get it.
That is what the movement might be to you and others and even myself, but for the leaders and the groups behind the formation of OWS is to bring down the wealthy completely and bring some anarcho-syndalicst utopian society where nobody has anything except what they need.
The leader of the occupations is the idea that 'you are the government'. Look at the top of each forum article. "This content is user submitted and not an official statement." The same thing applies to any statement issued by the people who are running the website.
Ad busters and the original creators of this site did provide the seed of the movement... but it has grown because of the participants, whom are currently a wide demographic not necessarily anarchists, libertarian socialists, libertarians, conservative libertarians, or conservatives.
The movement is attracting all the mentally unstable crazy people in society and embracing them as 'numbers' to bolster their movement. In reality less than .5% of society is really supporting the movement, and the money is coming from the 1% socialist elitists. Its just hypocrisy.
Do you have ANY supporting evidence for this?
Its called math. There are no more than 50,000 protestors across the country. At times certain cities have had more or less. There are 305,000,000 people in the country. 1% would be 305,000. There are not nearly that many protesters. See how i did that?
See I knew you had a hard time looking up facts... the current US population is 312,580,558 according to http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html ...
I would redo the math for you, but at least you got that right.
Now, 99% includes children, students, mothers, fathers, workers and any other group besides you guessed it the 1%... some people can show support of the movement and not actually be a protester... OMG what a concept.
So who defines who is the 99% and who is the 1% ?
its easy... are you in the top 1% of wealth in the nation you currently reside in... if you are, you are not in the 99%^... I thought it was a pretty clear line.
So you believe that the top 1% of wage earners are evil. You judge people based on their income no matter their character. Kind of racist in a way isn't it? Also I wish you folks would quit claiming to represent the entirety of the nation when you don't. It's just a slick slogan thought up by someone and sounds good but it isn't true.
Replied again here, because couldnt to your last post:
Since everything the movement does is decided by consensus, it would appear that those apparently observed OWS people who hate the rich, would not be able to get the required consensus. So until then the idea that OWS as a movement hates the rich, is not going to ever become the official position. So, no reason to worry.
I do hope the signs like "Eat the Rich" and what not, do not scare you. As they are meant as a reference to A Descent Proposal where the author recommends eating babies to feed the irish during potato famines.
Nah I'm not scared. I'm a firm believer and practitioner of the 2nd amendment. But surely you can see how signs like that (and others much worse) could scare people.
I just gave you the definition of 99%... I did not sign any connotation to the slogan.. you did that.
No one views the 1% as evil, we realize they are a diverse group and some have done great honorable things with their wealth. Some have tried to buy politicians to some nefarious end, and it is these people we wish to stop.
Kind of racist would imply actual hate towards these people. No one hates them, we just dont think they deserve to influence our government more than one person one vote.
Well let us say not all of you hate the 1%. Believe me I've seen plenty that do here. I've seen calls for lynching,torture,etc. I used racist for lack of a better term.
I stand corrected on the population. I didn't look it up as it didn't really matter. However with your new number the amount of people as a percentage of society participating just went down. There is not this wide spread support. I know lots and lots of people, i don't know anyone who is even paying attention. I try to get people to pay attention but they don't care. The main stream news doesn't even cover it. Get this concept. OWS is a fringe group with a very small portion of society, being used as a puppet by anarchists and communists, funded by 1%ers. Anyone who is actively camping is either an idiot or a sucker.
What matters is not the size but the growth. My grand-mother didn't start paying attention to her tumor before it was getting pretty serious. If OWS continues to grow, by definition more and more people will get involved. But, in the end does it matter. If they die today they have already done a lot for all of us, and if they die tomorrow they will have done even more.
Disinfo. They are looking at world income distribution. Distracting and irrelevant to the discussion.
I thought you guys said you were a world movement.
I'm going to pretend for a moment that you are serious. Each occupation has to deal with problems in its own country, state, city, etc. I can't spend my time worrying about corruption in the rice trade in Bangalore, India, any more than someone in Wuhan, China can worry about corporate coverups of pollution in the water supply in Indianapolis
Wealth disparity is different in all countries. That is evident by the Gini coefficient. The idea is to get influence of money out of politics... Our slogan works for us, if other movements that self-identify with us across the globe want to use that slogan, are we supposed to tell them no? It is catchy, and it should convey the problem in any nation.
I agree with the money out of politics and getting rid of the damn lobbyist, and I suppose if everyone else agrees with you that's a good thing, but do they?
If they want a democracy that works, they should!
I noticed that Redmist11b doesn't have anything to say when he's confronted with the something other than his own strawmen. I wonder if 11b is 11 Bravo, like a MOS.
Democracy will never work in this country because it's discriminatory against the individuals rights. It is in essence "mob rule" by it's very nature. You may be willing to give up your rights but not I. For example: The entire country votes to deport all OWS people. It was a democratic vote but now you folks are sitting in cells while someone finds a country willing to accept you. I know this sounds crazy but that's exactly how it could work.
Republics have never worked. In fact we tried, between 1776 and 1787.
The idea of rights is actually quite silly in of itself. I'll point you to George Carlin for that.
I cannot give up my rights, I thought that was decided by the court? They can only be taken, and from any individual, government, or corporation at any time...
You are arguing from an extreme. Could it happen, sure... will it, no.
Umm hate to tell you but we are still a Republic. let me say also that when you quote comedians I really can't take you seriously...sorry. As for will it,you can't say one way or the other. Democracy tramples on individual rights. Many of us aren't willing to be lemmings and give up those rights.
Okay, so comedians have nothing worthy to say when it comes to politics... except Glenn Beck or Grover Glenn Norquist... got it. BTW dont you find it absurd that some republicans have signed this guys pledge which circumvents their pledge to the constitution.
My definition of republic is a free for all basically... the most extreme libertarian society where anything goes...
By definition I was wrong, so here it is : a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/republic
how is that not the same as mob rule, and the exact same thing as representative democracy.
Because your democracy would throw the Constitution out the window. By it's very nature democracy cares nothing for individual rights/freedom/liberty. Whatever the majority votes goes and sorry if you get screwed by the vote. Our Republic is based on individual liberties. Your representative democracy could vote to deport a person even though they are a citizen and had done nothing wrong. Yes it sounds silly but it could happen. Do you think the Civil Rights movement would have got anywhere under a rep. democracy at the time? BTW remember who fought for civil rights,the Republicans,who freed the slaves,the Republicans. Who enacted Jim Crow laws,the Democrats,who wanted slavery to continue,the Democrats,who fought the Civil Rights act tooth and nail,the Democrats. I know that's slightly off topic but I wanted to give you food for thought.
Republic: "a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them."
Representative Democracy: "Government. of or pertaining to a system of governance by chosen representatives, usually elected from among a large group, as in representative democracy; representative government."
Do you see how the definitions are pretty much the exact same... your mob rule is in a republic just as it is in a democracy. The ultimate power still lies with the people in both systems. This is axiomatic to my argument.
Your example of a vote to deport could happen under a republic as well, all it takes is the body of citizens to vote another citizen (not necesarrily a vote empowered one) out.
The rest is pretty much statements without any evidence.
I'm sorry,that was my mistake, I thought you were talking about direct democracy which is talked about soooo much here. No it cannot happen in a republic.In our Republic citizens do not make the law,our representatives do. Our Republic lays out the individuals rights. I see your point in the Republic and Rep Democracy being eerily close to the same.
Sounds like the OWSers are going to have to self immoliate now by being part of the 1%. Oh dear what a conundrum.