Forum Post: OWS needs to better define what the "social classes" are
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 18, 2011, 2:12 p.m. EST by JackEdward
(10)
from Anderson, MO
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Can someone please define exactly what the upper, middle, and lower classes are?
99% includes lower, middle and most of the upper. This isn't about "social" classes. It's about the big corporations and big money buying our elected officials so they can rig the game to make themselves richer at the expense of the rest of us. It isn't even all of the 1% that's the problem. It's not about "social" distinctions - it's about the hijacking of our democracy.
Thank you.
Hi Jack. I would like to agree with both of you here. This is about major abuse. We have nothing against great men such as Warren Buffett who are obviously rich, but make the money of their own capital and efforts. These greedy Bank people make money if the Bank wins or loses. They risk nothing of their own money. They are killing the 99%.
Why? OWS is a protest against the greedy bosses there, thieving off of the public. Even in the time I have taken to write this post, they have ruined another 100 or so lives.
I have a question, and not that I'm a conservative or Republican by any stretch of the imagination BUT.. what about all the GREEDY people manipulating the welfare system. What about people who haven't paid rent or mortgage in years because they're too busy smoking crack or buying 50 inch plasma tv's with their welfare money, or collecting food-stamps while working some shady job off the books or selling drugs in the projects. What about perfectly able and healthy lazy people who sponge off of section 8 when they COULD get a job at the super market because they ARE uneducated, there fore don't pose a threat of leaving for something better right away (you know, they aren't considered "over qualified"). How many hundreds of lives do THOSE people ruin and how come there isn't some giant protest against that. The minute welfare reform is mentioned people get extra defensive, but honestly, what fairness is there when a single mother who was battered her entire adult life can't qualify for public assistance because her honest $7.25 an hour job means she "earns to much money" versus a whole pack of 7 or 8 perfectly able bodied adults (i.e. parents, grown ass children, and grown ass grandchildren) are all lying about everything conceivable to keep their section 8 apartment that the government pays rent for while they buy play stations and I-shit and sub woofers and weed and beer??? It seems to me like the greed comes from both ends.
I was just asking a question, not trying to start an argument.
To both of you. It is a matter of degree. These people manipulating the welfare system might get, say, up to $30,000 off the system. These greedy Banking Executives are getting up to $300 million each year from the Bank. They are thieves. I cannot imagine why you keep chasing small fish.
so you are mad at the CEOs and upper management of the big banks, corporations, and buisnesses. That totals to what I would think is maybe a couple thousand people at most. What are your views on small buisness owners? For example, my father owns a carwash and two apartment buildings which totals a little over $3 million. He is definitely not part of the top 1%, but is he a member of the super wealthy you are so enraged by?
Hi Jack. I am no way enraged by your father. In fact, I wish him the best and hope he makes more money. I just get mad at people that get large bonuses and take no risks. Why should they? They do a job that anyone can do. A computer does most of their job anyway. Your father risks his own money, and I have nothing but praise for him.
Thank you for your reply. I am not trying to start heated arguments or pick fights with people who have a different opinion than me, I just want to have a better understanding of what is going on.
I too believe that it was a desgrace for some of the CEOs and corporate big shots who mand the big investment banks and buisnesses that too unnecessary risks with peoples money, to walk away from the mess they created with million dollar severance packages. They got this money from the billions of dollars the Federal Reserve used to "bail out" the banks. I completely understand and agree with your displeasure. Do you think bailing out the big investment banks: ie BAC, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Chase, etc was a good idea? I think it was and I will explain why, but I would like to hear your opinion first.
Cheers, Jack
Probably they had to be bailed out. The government would have been forced into this. Banks hire have entire divisions looking at risk. I cannot understand why they couldn't have protected themselves. I don't entirely blame anyone for the overall collapse of the system. It was like a slow train wreck. I do blame the short selling for a lot of though. As you say, I was upset at the huge bonuses and severance packages given to these gamblers who have no remorse whatsoever. The Bank staff are still paying themselves, not millions, but still 100s of millions each for the top guys, including even traders. I cannot see what skill this take. In a forex deal, for example, the customer just wants the money transfered from one currency to another. He is charged a commission and that is it. Of course the trader will try to haggle with the customer, but that is essentially ripping of the customer.