Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Poor vs Rich : the battle begins

Posted 2 years ago on Dec. 24, 2011, 9:53 a.m. EST by FriendlyObserverA (610)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The rich have us in chains and taken everything we worked for. What gives them the right to live on our backs. No more. The buck stops here

1% have equal wealth as 150 million ! And we keep letting them take it.

What is OWS about if not fed up with inequality ?

150 Comments

150 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

The top 400 richest people have around $1.5 trillion in assets. That isn't income that's everything they have. Take it all and it would only cover 1 year of deficit spending. We need a better answer to our problems then "hate the rich".

[-] 4 points by JenLynn (692) 2 years ago

Tax the rich?

[-] 4 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

Tax everyone, individual and corporation. Tax enough to pay for what we want to do as a society. We have to stop politicians from playing games pretending there is a simple way out of our problem.

[-] 3 points by flip (5078) 2 years ago

1950 corporate taxes were $1.50 for every $1 raised by taxes on individuals - now it is $.25

[-] 2 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

The history of it isn't relevant to me, it's a matter of being responsible and practical. Determine, as a society, what programs we feel are necessary, then set up a tax structure to pay for them.

No wasting time with slogans, like pay your fair share, or any of this class warfare garbage. We all need to pay if we want the services. If it means taxing corporations more, or the rich, the middle class, the poor, do it. We have to face the fact that things from government are not free.

[-] 1 points by dantes443322 (148) 2 years ago

Tax everyone,

Even the 47 percent who take the benefits and don't pay for anything??? They can't afford it, why tax them?

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

We tax them already, sales taxes, excise tax on certain goods and services. The poor that have cell phones, cable, that smoke or drink already pay tax. Social security is part of that 47% you mention, many of them earn enough to pay tax on a portion of their social security already.

I'm not saying don't tax corporation or the rich. I'm saying that the rich alone don't have enough money to cover what government wants to do. Certainly there is a lot of money that could be obtained from changing the corporate tax structure too. In the end though everyone may have to pay more.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by 420 (40) 2 years ago

You can't honestly believe the richest people in the world willing say how much they have. The US deficit is somewhere, and they did a good job covering it up with 9/11. Wake up people! If the people don't have it and the government doesn't have it, who the fuck has it!?

[-] 1 points by jimmycrackerson (940) from Blackfoot, ID 2 years ago

Totally agree with you right there.

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

It's an estimate of their assets. It's only relevance to me is to point out that the income of the rich (which is what we tax) is not a significant amount of money relative to what we spend.

Most of the deficit has been covered with borrowed money. Currently China holds most of our debt. Asian nations also sell more to us then they buy so they hold a good deal of our wealth.

It is a complex problem, tax the rich all you want, it's a start, but just a small one. There is a lot more to do then just that it if we're going to keep spending more then we collect in tax.

[-] 0 points by Kickinthenuts (212) 2 years ago

"the us deficit is somewhere, and they did a good job covering it up with 9/11". Did the rich also cause my constipation yesterday?

[-] 0 points by Supplysider (53) from Richboro, PA 2 years ago

Better watch it or OWS will want to occupy your bowl to clear that obstruction.

[-] 0 points by Kickinthenuts (212) 2 years ago

Or at a minimum make sure I dont have any more s!?t than anybody else.

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

I don't hate the rich, I hate the feast or famine wealth distribution of America.

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

We have to forget about our hates and solve the problems that we have. reform the tax codes and pay for the social services we feel are necessary for the nation.

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

Pass the salt please. Here's the pepper you asked for. If America were a family dinner table, would there be poverty at the table?

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

I don't know what it would be if we were a family or small tribe, we're not. There are people in need and we've borrowed too much to help them. Time to fix our finances and start paying for what we want to do. Tax corporations more, tax the rich more, tax everyone working more to straighten things out. Get rid of loopholes and deductions, trim what waste you can find, but stop wasting time with useless slogans and petty hates.

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

Many people will understand the relevance of a simple metaphor to convey the meaning of a larger complex issue. I agree with all those things, except slogans, targeted precise language can be very useful.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26676) 2 years ago

I feel the same.

It's not about how many rich there are, nor how rich.

It's about about how many poor there are, and how poor.

[-] 1 points by MichaelB (128) 2 years ago

How do you measure who is poor?

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

Really?

[-] 1 points by MichaelB (128) 2 years ago

If you use income do you add in for any and all assistance. The poor in the US have food, shelter, medical care. I know not everyone has these things, but most do. As a group the poor in the US have more then the poor in most other countries. So what do you do to decide who is actually poor?

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

How do you measure who is rich?

[-] 1 points by MichaelB (128) 2 years ago

Some people use assets some use income, easier with them because it's all their own property or money. With the poor it's hard to say what they have because they get things given to them on top of whatever income they have.

I was honestly wondering where the line is, is it only the homeless that get almost no help that are really poor?

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

the line is being looked down on by society. It seems like you know something about that.

[-] 1 points by MichaelB (128) 2 years ago

I'm certainly guilty of that, I know guys that got a free ride at school, some did nothing some worked hard. I respected the work and effort, without thinking about how poor they were. Have no respect for the ones that had a shot and never worked. Nobody can give you respect, you don't get it unless you earn in.

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

Are you perhaps confusing the concept of understanding with a false notion of respect? Stat: 1 in 2 Americans living in or near poverty. Do you honestly expect anyone to believe that half of Americans are lazy and do nothing? Seriously?

[-] 1 points by MichaelB (128) 2 years ago

No I meant respect, a feeling admiration, for his work and effort and valuing his opinion. How do they determine living at or near poverty? I see a Median of around $44K, and just over a quarter of households earning under $25K. That's based on census data where people are self reporting. It also fails to count things people get from government.

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

You really hate government don't you? If you really want to give respect, go to this page and read the article there.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/inside-the-republican-reichthe-cult-of-calculation/

[-] 1 points by MichaelB (128) 2 years ago

Free anything from the government is a handout, it becomes a trap when anyone wishes to keep it rather then work. We've set up a system where we give people just enough to live and penalize them if they earn any money on their own. It encourages them not to work and traps them in a dependent state.

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

Alternately, we've set up a system that produces great wealth inequity where a small percentage of people live like kings and queens while the rest find work does not pay well enough to provide an adequate living.

[-] 1 points by MichaelB (128) 2 years ago

Hate government? Where did that come from? From the article you sent me to it seems obvious I can't expect much help from government. Voters haven't been paying attention and have let their officials become corrupt, that's obvious too. Government needs to be taken back by the average citizen, but he or she isn't likely to do that if all they care about is getting free stuff and getting all their political news from a slogan or 15 second ad.

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

Oh, so you DO love government social programs and safety nets. I'm sorry, I completely misunderstood all your talk about free stuff from the government. I thought you were telling me that half of America is a bunch of freeloaders.

[-] 0 points by MichaelB (128) 2 years ago

I guess we ran out of replies on this. I don't hate or love government hand outs. We're stuck giving them out because we got people hooked on them. If you're going to say a certain dollar figure means people are in poverty you should include all their income, food stamps, medicaid, heating assistance, everything.

Half of America, no, we have no idea how many are freeloaders, how many are retired collecting Social Security they feel they put into, how many on unemployment are working under the table, how many single moms just need help to finish school and get a job. To just say half the country is anything seems too simple.

[-] 2 points by flip (5078) 2 years ago

and any thought of handouts to the banks - do you have a number for that? we don't need to count the secret loans from the fed - and do not even think of the "they paid us back line" - do some reading before you go with that one! now the banks are just for starters - since they are in the news lately. boeing, internet, computers, abc, nbc - no need to go on right - you are smart enough to get the point

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

Your words contradict themselves. You say you don't hate or love government handouts (yet use the word handout) and then condemn them as a trap. That sounds like you hate them and would like to see them gone. It seems you would want to make the situation worse when America hits a famine, get rid of safety nets and let people starve in the streets.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26676) 2 years ago

It's in their eyes.

There is no "monetary" yard stick to measure it, as much as you'd like to think of it that way.

[-] 1 points by MichaelB (128) 2 years ago

Just that we're setting things up like a war, what makes someone rich or poor? I said in my answer to Jaded above, that the poor in the US do get things from the government. Is it just lack of income that makes you poor?

[-] 1 points by shooz (26676) 2 years ago

Lack of gainful employment, is but one aspect. The feeling of upward mobility is another.

What do you think it is?

[-] 1 points by MichaelB (128) 2 years ago

Not really sure, I agree the things you mentioned can be part of it. If it is there not really things you can take from somebody else.

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

How many poor people does it take to screw in a light bulb? None, they can't afford one.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26676) 2 years ago

They privatized light bulbs around here a long time ago. Replacement, used to be a free utility service.

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

Good point. Lol.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26676) 2 years ago

The corporations couldn't stand a free replacement and recycling program, even then.

This crap is a long time in the making.

[-] 3 points by warbstar (210) 2 years ago

OWS is gaining momentum. The trolls are getting really scared. Keep up the good work my brothers and sisters.

[-] 2 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

I don't think the message is clear, folks. It isn't success that is being maligned; it is an imbalance in the treatment of the income that has created the gap...not great success. Money makes money on money without anything actually being created; the tax structure benefits those whose money makes money, and does not benefit those who actually create something for which they are paid money. CEO's were paid gigantic salaries for creating new ways to manipulate money, ways that led to the crash of the economy, but they still got paid. Where is the fairness in that?

[-] 0 points by BrianMid (132) 2 years ago

How much of that gap is caused by people overspending? Buy a new car every year or two, charge everything. You end up in a hole you dug yourself. That screws up all the average income numbers we use when we talk about rich and poor.

[-] 2 points by flip (5078) 2 years ago

you have no idea what you are talking about - the median household income for the bottom 90% of the population is somewhere around 32k per year -try buying new cars on that - there is a wealth gap and an income gap which causes the wealth gap

[-] 0 points by BrianMid (132) 2 years ago

The truth is people do buy cars on that and that's one of the things that gets them deeper in debt. A 6 year car loan, add in a mortgage and credit card debt and you can create your own deep hole of negative wealth.

[-] 2 points by flip (5078) 2 years ago

not if you are making 500k per year - then you get the car and the house - well the truth is that some of those people have negative equity! no doubt it is true about the poor and the lower middle class but if you think that is the cause of the wealth gap you need to look a bit harder - also for sure easy credit got many people into debt they could not handle but that is a new development - growing wealth inequality has been around for decades. i am sure you can find millions of people who could save a small amount of money but do not because they spend too much but.... i live in a poor area - most of these people drive 10yr old broken down cars - many do not drive - they ride bikes. income inequality is the problem - we are doing a job in az - we are hiring temp workers - we pay the service $13.52 and they pay the men $7.50 per hr - 40 and 50 yr old men with families - live on that and get a new car - not these days!

[-] 1 points by BrianMid (132) 2 years ago

I don't doubt there is inequality, I don't know how much of it is the fault of corporations and how much is the fault of the person himself. By getting in too deep with whatever loans, or dropping out of school, or got arrested for one reason or another.

[-] 2 points by flip (5078) 2 years ago

that sounds like willful ignorance - called blame the victim - has been done for centuries so you are in good company - mostly rich white men but not always

[-] 1 points by BrianMid (132) 2 years ago

When OWS got started there was a lot of complaining about student loans. If that's why you're in trouble who do we blame? You're trying to tell me all foreclosures are the fault of some bank. There were greedy individuals borrowing on their homes to speculate or keep businesses afloat. There isn't anyone from any bank assigned to go out and force people to use credit cards.

There are people that had things happen and are now in trouble, there were also people borrowed too much when they had no way to pay it back. In that later case they weren't the victims. What I'm saying is I don't know how many people are in each group or if there are a lot where it a little of each, self inflicted poverty and bad luck.

[-] 1 points by flip (5078) 2 years ago

try to get a mortgage from a bank that holds the paper and then tell me about it. try to get a mortgage in 1975 and see what happens - not old enough to remember well then maybe you should read a bit before you start ranting - start with hudson's "the monster" and then tell me about self inflicted. still really has to be willful ignorance since most of this is in the headlines every day - record bonuses for the banks this year - sound good to you?

[-] 1 points by BrianMid (132) 2 years ago

It was easy to get the money when the bubble was growing. What it was like in 1975 or today isn't what got us here. Some of it was greed on the part of the banks in giving and trading poor loans. Some of it was greed on the part of people for taking out loans they couldn't afford, for homes, cars, and whatever toy they put on their charge card.

I don't know how bonuses fit in with the problem. It's a poor move from a public relations point of view, but a banker getting or not getting a bonus doesn't help my ability to pay my bills.

[-] 1 points by flip (5078) 2 years ago

the difference between 1975 and today plays a large part in why we are in thsi mess - lots of blame in a country of 300+ million but get serious about why we are here and who bears the primary responsibility

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

If there was a cap on profits no one would be as deep in debt as they went. Homeowners , students , no one.

[-] 1 points by BrianMid (132) 2 years ago

Might work, too bad if the answer is having government do more of the thinking for us though. We're becoming more and more like little kids that way. I'd rather see people take responsibility for what they do.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

The government has a responsibility. They are representatives of the people. They are only as good as we are.

[-] 1 points by BrianMid (132) 2 years ago

We get the government we deserve i guess.

[-] 2 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

No matter how you look at it, wages flatlined and the upper income levels grew exponentially, before, during and after the crash. Some folks will always dig holes for themselves. But when the ones who work hard and do everything right suffer from a crashed economy caused by reckless speculation in the financial industry, there is an inequality that needs to be dealt with.

[-] 0 points by BrianMid (132) 2 years ago

I would agree that's very true for anyone that lost his job, but if I'm working and able to pay my bills I don't see how you amassing wealth effects me all that much.

[-] 1 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

My amassing wealth affects no one but me. But when one is required to play the game, it would be nice if the game weren't rigged. Just unrig the game and let the play continue.

[-] 1 points by BrianMid (132) 2 years ago

I don't honestly see how things are rigged. It is certainly true that if you can acquire enough money then it starts working for you, at that point I suppose you are considered wealthy. What is your solution? Once you get money ahead someone takes it away?

[-] 1 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

No; I'm saying that the financial industry and corporations in general have promoted (sadly) legislation that favors the corporations and the very wealthy, while placing a proportionately higher burden on the majority of the people. It seems unfair, for instance, that a person who works 40 hours a week pays income tax at an increasing level, but a person who earns money on an investment in a major corporation pays a special "capital gains" rate, which is either one half of the income tax rate or 20% or nothing, depending on legislation at the time. I don't understand why a person who is actually performing a valuable function day in and day out should pay more in taxes than someone who makes money from stock in the company which pays that worker's salary. I believe a lot of this is based on the premise that people who invest are more valuable than people who labor, when in truth, any venture requires both equally. (At least until robots take over a lot of the labor, but that's a whole new worry).

[-] 1 points by BrianMid (132) 2 years ago

That is largely our fault. Too many people vote based on some 30 second TV ad and don't look into any of the laws passed. I've seen some posts here where people are saying OWS should go out and find good candidates to run for congress. Someone from each district where there is an Occupy camp. They'd rather protest, we get the government we deserve.

[-] 2 points by BlueRose (1437) 2 years ago

This is what the Ron Paul supporters and other 1% pawns need to realize. Blacks and Mexican Americans are part of the 99%. Too many people vote for "white politics"/the 1% out of hatred for minorities and women. Stop it.

[-] -1 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

I would have to disagree. Looking at mr Obama

[-] 2 points by LSN45 (535) 2 years ago

If you have not had the chance yet, rent the documentary "Inside Job." Also, check out the book "Republic; Lost" by Lawrence Lessig.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago
[-] 2 points by LSN45 (535) 2 years ago

Thanks! Keep up the good work!

[-] 1 points by sandyed (8) 2 years ago

-Inside job


inside job the movie- free --- 1.5 hours http://www.multiupload.com/7B46GXEHYZ


free video player http://www.vlcmediaplayer.net/


Inside Job' provides a comprehensive analysis of the global financial crisis of 2008, which at a cost over $20 trillion, caused millions of people to lose their jobs and homes in the worst recession since the Great Depression, and nearly resulted in a global financial collapse. Through exhaustive research and extensive interviews with key financial insiders, politicians, journalists, and academics, the film traces the rise of a rogue industry which has corrupted politics, regulation, and academia. It was made on location in the United States, Iceland, England, France, Singapore, and China.

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

And just why did millions of americans lose their jobs? Do you think it may have been because todays society "wants it all now" and can't wait to build up "equity" in ownership.

Why are there so many foreclosures?
Why is the real estate market flat? Why is the housing building industry flat?

Why, because everyone wanted to own a house they could not afford.

The economy is run by 68% of the people in this country and when they are broke - the economy goes flat.

The people today are up to their eyeballs in debt and can't rub two nickles together. They did what obama did - spend themselves into submission. That's why the economy is where it is today.

[Removed]

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

Instead, read The Road to Serfdom " by Hayek

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

Can you offer a bit of the plot.

[-] 1 points by dantes443322 (148) 2 years ago

What have you worked for? What's your occupation?

[-] 1 points by ReubenBaron (47) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Yes, the battle begins, the Robber Barons of Wall Street go down ... watch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amNO_QJzaQ8

[-] 1 points by elpinio (213) 2 years ago

And what are you gonna do about it? Squat in public squares?

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

We are dumb prey and these are vicious predators. They have taken control of our government and our media and force nonsense into the minds and hearts of good people. In time, I think we can overcome this. Generations will come and go, and violence may come to pass. But I think we can overcome this.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

The class war has been ongoing for generations, until now it's just been one-sided.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

Class warfare. This is what the right wants to label it. I say BULLSHIT!!!

It's called being fair. We used to be fair in this country. post WWII. We can do this and we will. We call paying your fair share. The rich will still be rich for the alarmists in the crowd. They just won't be soooo greedy and WILL start PAYing their share again, just like those golden olden days. Thank you.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

It is exactly what we're about. This is the fight and the goal is clear!!!

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

This is why we are here this is why you are needed.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/inside-job-documentary/

Share, circulate, educate, inspire.

[-] 1 points by reckoning (53) 2 years ago

Bill gates is the problem?? and steve jobs too??

No commie, the average rich is not the problem..

Lobbyist and insiders like Newt are the problem with america..

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Budcm (208) 2 years ago

Widgets

A long, long, time ago a boy named Danny lived in the small community of Bright in Idaho. Danny was a bright young lad (no pun intended!) He felt that he could do better than raising potatoes the rest of his life. And so Danny looked around to see if he could find a need to fill. He quickly discovered the use of the tops of potato plants could be used to make Widgets.

Everyone liked Widgets because they made life much easier. They were quite expensive on the open market and Danny's idea would make them quite cheaply and ensure success.

Danny soon had more orders that he could fulfill so he had to hire people to build Widgets for him. In a short time he realized he had to build a factory. Danny formed a Corporation and encouraged investors to build the factory.

The town of Bright was soon booming. New homes were being built. New businesses were opening up as the population grew. The town looked to the Widget factory for its expenses. The Widget Corporation increased its price of Widgets to cover this cost for the investors had to get a fair return on their investments.

The state soon required a business fee and a license fee for the building of Widgets. The price of Widgets again increased to cover that cost. Not to be outdone the federal government posed a Corporation tax that also increased the price of Widgets.

The increases in taxes were not done. The city of Bright increased their taxes. The state raise their business fee and license fee and the federal government decided that they would have to regulate the quality of Widgets.

The feds sent quality control inspectors and levied a new tax on Widget Corporation for its costs. Soon many regulators were parading around town with their chest puffed out claiming that they were the reason for the success of the Widget Corporation.

The City, the State, most of his employees an the Feds, were now making more than Danny. Danny sold his shares in the corporation and left town. Soon the cost of making Widgets had risen so far out of line that it was no longer profitable to manufacture Widgets in Bright Idaho. The factory closed its doors. Soon afterwards the population began to leave Bright. The new schools closed. The homes became vacant. Empty storefronts lined the streets.

You can still buy Widgets in Bright Idaho. They are not as good as those manufactured there in the past and one could see stamped along one side the phrase "Made in China."

Danny is still around. The last we heard he was making thingamabob's in Michigan, and the town of Bright, Idaho was toying with the idea of using the federal regulators (you KNOW you can't get rid of them!) to regulate jaywalking and spitting on the sidewalks.

[-] 1 points by Budcm (208) 2 years ago

I asked one OWS member why he dislikes those that are rich or even somewhat successful. His comment: "I'm not one of them!" And that pretty well sums it all up.

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

What is the goal of Capitalism?

[-] 1 points by Budcm (208) 2 years ago

Beats hell out of me! I'm not so sure any of them have any goals except gathering power unto themselves. At least I've never seen any. If a person has none, they want it. If they get it, they abuse it. Seems to be the way of things.

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

What do you think the goal should be?

[-] 1 points by Budcm (208) 2 years ago

A real and true answer to what capitalism "should" be must be left to greater thinkers than I am. Capitalism may not even be the best way. Certainly we do not have capitalism in this country, What we have is "protectionism". Capitalism decrees that those who can make a product cheaper and better than anyone else, as determined by the marketplace, would have the opportunity to do so. Someone who has a "better idea" for a product very often is stymied by rules and regulations, often put there by those who already make the product and could not stand the fair competition.

The government itself is often the culprit here, as they license those who follow their line, keeping all others out of the competition. It is the "unfairness" that bothers me most.

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

Poor guy. So misled, lol.

[-] 1 points by poorguy (3) 2 years ago

I'm definately not in the 1%, however. I will be the first to congratulate any sucessful person. Why do YOU PEOPLE hate success? You guys are fucking crazy. Great Idea, punish success and celebrate mediocrity

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

What is the goal of Capitalism?

[-] 1 points by 4TheHumanSocietyProject (504) 2 years ago

Do you think it is fair to take more then you need and let the rest die. Do you not see that people die every day because we Americans take to much and give to little?

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

Who have you been listening to? Do you have a clue as to what you need to to to succede?

[-] 1 points by 4TheHumanSocietyProject (504) 2 years ago

Care to elaborate on what you mean by succeed. I believe a mans success is not measured in how much he can take but in how much he can give... I honestly don't listen to anyone. Thats the problem with the world they all listen to people. When you just need to Listen to your heart when he's calling for you Listen to your heart There's nothing else you can do I don't know where your going, and i dont know why But listen to your heart before You tell him goodbye

[-] 1 points by Apercentage (81) 2 years ago

Its jealousy. They will deny it to the end. But its what it really is.

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

What is the goal of Capitalism?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Did Washington and Jefferson want to “punish” King Gorge or did they just want some say in their own affairs? If adjustments in income are punishments, then why do America’s corporate boards punish the American worker every year by adjusting their pay up and the workers pay down?

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

Washington and Jefferson wanted freedom from the oppressive chains of government. They wanted a small government footprint that was very limited in the power it would have to steal the property of the citizens through taxation. OWS seems to want to give the government more power to take property from citizens.

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

If this success is based on blind acceptance of a system which only exists because of exploitation, I would not congratulate him/her. I don't blame him/her for this system, but it will soon be the time for the people of the world to accept responsibility for the system we all create in our actions every day. OWS is raising consciousness about this exploitation, and for that I am grateful.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

They were also aware that “government” takes many forms including individual will that’s why they were concerned with citizens sizing control of the government through extreme wealth that’s why they put in checks and balances like the jury verdict and inheritance tax

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

That is why the Constitution specifically protects the people from a government that has too much power over the individual and business.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Indeed it does, and yet the power of Congress to levy tax is not restricted: therefore by definition no tax rate represents “too much power” like say restricting the right of the people to assemble would be.

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

Would 100% represent "too much?" Perhaps a quick read might be in order for you as the Constitution appears to include verbiage that runs counter to excessive taxation...

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Being a citizen of the United Sates is not just "compensation" for paying taxes due?

This of course applies to actions taken against individuals not tax policy. But you know that, in fact this clause should make illegal “orphan provisions” that people like Murdock are always getting written into bills so they make off with more of the treasury.

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

No, just being a citizen is not "just compensation" because we are endowed by our creator with the right to be free from being deprived by government of property without just compensation. Police and military protections are just compensation. Food stamps and welfare checks and unemployment checks are not.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

You could make that your platform, but I'm pretty sure the Constitution does restrict your right to be King.

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

They have been taught that rich people ( people that succeed in business ) are evil. taught that by liberal teachers in liberal colleges. Taught that by tenured teaches that can't be fired.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I would ask you, is it necessary for the King to be evil for Monarchy to be wrong?

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

What is the goal of Capitalism?

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

I will take a stab at answering this.

the goal of capitalism : was really to give everyone a chance to live like a king.. off the backs of others .. this was the whole dream .. to become what we hated .. to become king.

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

"The overall purpose of capitalism is to make and accumulate profits for an investor class who own and control the property of private businesses, i.e., capital. hence the name "capitalism", for it is a system that endows the owners of capital with sovereign control over economic production. . . . In order for the capitalist system to accumulate money for investors in this way and thus be a truly capitalist system, it must include the following essential characteristics:

Private property rights and the private ownership of business enterprise.

The market system.

The social separation of ownership and work.

The profit motive.

The growth imperative

". . .the capitalist system revolves around money. This reinforces the power and control of those in society that have money — namely the wealthy investor class. People without money are essentially powerless in a market system. Capitalism thus created a class separation based on monetary wealth. . . . By definition the owners of capital, the investor class, do not make money by their own work in production. Their income derives from owning capital, and from buying and selling in the marketplace. Capitalists are people whose primary source of income is derived from owning business property. They may or may not perform actual work in production, but such work is not necessary for them to make profits. Profits are paid to owners not to workers. Conversely, workers do not earn their income from owning but from performing actual work. They may or may not earn some income from a share of ownership of business property, but their primary source of income comes from their labor as they work for a wage or salary. Although most small businesses and partnerships are privately owned they are typically not what we would call "capitalist". In these small enterprises there is little or no real separation of ownership and work."

"It should be added that a capitalist investor class must also be a relatively small percentage of the population. If we had an economic system that fully integrated private ownership and work, and the income it generated from ownership was widely shared among the population . . . it would not be capitalist. In fact, we do not have a definition for such a system because it has never existed."

"Since profit-maximization is the ultimate goal of capitalism, businesses can use their size and wherewithal to create an advantageous buyer's market in labor markets and a seller's market in goods and and services markets. Unlike individual workers or consumers who have little or no leverage to influence either labor markets or goods and services markets, large corporations on the other hand wield enormous power and influence, and so the playing field in the cash nexus is not balanced — the scales are tipped in favor of big business."

". . .data also shows that workers earning $15 to $16 on the hour are also producing about $129 worth of goods per hour. This disproportionality between what workers get paid and the value of what they produce stems directly from the goal of capitalism — to maximize profits for investors; maximizing household earnings is not a goal of capitalism."

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

A capitalist is like a king. the king owns everything and profits from the kingdom which work is performed by his subjects. with capitalism the owner is king and profits from all work of his employees. what gets me is that the american revolution was fought to rid this idea . or was it not? perhaps they only fought because they were not allowed to be king? and perhaps no one fights the capitalist now is simply because of the idea they could some day be king? of course the capitalist kingdom is a fractured existence of absolute king.. but still the capitalist holds great power over his kingdom.

the question: is capitalism fair?

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

I think people have not fought against the capitalist for two reasons. One, is like you said, the idea that they could some day be king. The other, the idea of the dream of being rewarded justly for service to the capitalist, or the so-called American Dream.

Is it fair? No. How could any system which produces few kings, or riches, and many paupers, or poverty, be fair.

The argument against that would be to say life is not fair, so quit whining about it. There is some truth to that. Life can be unfair.

But life, or nature, is not conscious of it's coming or goings, it strikes all of us randomly, equally with gifts and curses, fortune and misfortune. Humans are conscious, and aware of our comings and goings, so that argument doesn't hold water to me.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

Capitalism is a man designed system of rules and regulations. Every nation has their own set of rules , also designed by man. These rules need a bit of adjusting from time to time, to improve the overall performance of society. And of course there will be resistance. Many people have taken advantage of these current unfair rules , and they will not want change for they will lose ground. But with the law of democracy we have, we can decide on new rules.

..BTW there is also a third reason: brainwashed .

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

brainwashed or bullying? ....it seems to me anyone who suggests capitalism has serious flaws gets ostracized by the group thinking and labeled with slurs like anti-american, lazy, hippie, etc.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

back during slavery , if a slave ever mentioned freedom he was taken to the learning tree where he was taught the error of his ways ..very quickly.. and now the tyrants don't own slaves , but they will not tolerate any one speaking badly about their capitalist rule.

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

Well, it won't stop us. Capitalism has flaws. There are solutions.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

You're not afraid of the learning tree ! :-]

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

Only a liar would say they are not afraid. But I have much more to fear from the destructive path we continue down than I do from the 'learning tree'.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

well I heard defiance in those words .. just at the mention of "the learning tree" ! ;-]

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

Certainly, nothing brings out the defiance in me like a story about slaves and a learning tree; I hate injustice and cruelty.

[-] 1 points by homer001 (9) 2 years ago

In any serious TV argument over how the rich are over taxed, I want to hear the percentage of income as a total, how they earned it, how much they paid in sales tax, and /half sarc/ how many shares of GS they own.

The point being, they pay more taxes because they set the system up this way, especially on the very high end. And to then complain is silly or worse.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Doc4the99 (591) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

and add America refuses to invest in it's citizens. It's all pay for play. The meritocracy is a lie, unless you are very lucky. Most people who succeed have had successful parents and buy their way in via nepotism.

People like Eisenhower, Regan, Clinton-- wrong or right (i.e. Regan and Clinton policies wrecked our economy), worked their way up. However, those opportunities are long gone and very slim (Obama was/ is nothing more than an academic with very little real world experience). Your best bet is to become an actor/ waiter in L.A.-- because that's all about the US has to offer now a days. Investment in fame and entertainment and celeb gossip...

[-] 0 points by 4TheHumanSocietyProject (504) 2 years ago

The rich will soon see how much money can not save them.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Well said! Ingore the trolls and they will die a natural death, I suggest the best respose to what you don't agree with is no response at all.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

Not sure how you do the math that the Rich 1% have "taken" from the poor 99%, and live off the backs of the lower incomes?......

2007:

GDP: 14.07 Trillion

Total Individual Income 11.90 Trillion

Income of the top 10%: 4.22 Trillion

Income of the top 1%: 2.00 Trillion

Income of the 99% 9.90 Trillion

Hardly "equal" between the 1% and the 99%......

...

2007:

Total Federal income tax collected: 1.12 Trillion

Total FICA tax collected: 870 Billion

Total Corporate tax collected: 370 Billion

...

Federal income taxes paid by the 1%: 442 Billion

FICA taxes paid by the 1%: 36 Billion (4.1%)

Corporate Taxes paid by the 1%: 211 Billion (57%)

...

Federal income taxes paid by the 10%: 812 Billion

FICA taxes paid by the 10%: 221 Billion (25.4%)

Corporate taxes paid by the 10%: 296 Billion

...

Federal taxes paid by the 99%: 300 Billion

FICA taxes paid by the 99%: 649 Billion (74.6%)

Corporate taxes paid by the 99%: 74 Billion

...

A reminder about FICA, it's medicare and Social Security...which was sold as a "Retirement Pension/Healthcare"...but, the cost is clearly borne more by the higher incomes as a percentage of contributions vs number of recipients.....if it's a "pension" then everyone should contribute equally for their own retirement....

How exactly have the 1% taken money from the 99%?

[-] 1 points by Fredone (234) 2 years ago

observe what the 1% contribute to society. Observe the wealth they get each year and already have. Consider the disparity. That's really all you need. The problem is that they use their propaganda machine, bought academics etc. to delude people into believing their bullshit rationalizations about why they get so much more, or to bamboozle people into thinking that they, through some sort of magical, mystical means the predatory behavior they engage in all day is actually somehow contributing back, you just have to squint to see it. Really squint. More than most people can, sorry.

Bullshit. Banking for instance, may have it's place. Certain forms of banking may be productive. But they are not THAT productive.

Secondly, you have to ask even if a certain role in society was very productive, why they got that role instead of others. It usually comes down to unearned privilege, amplified (like capital gains does for money) through one means or another. Not earned.

The bottom line is that there is no reason at all, from a justice standpoint or even a purely practical one, to allow people to be given or retain wealth in excess of what they created. It only screws up incentives, and more importantly that wealth had to be taken away from whoever did did create it.

So any time you see a banker or other 1%er that has wealth they did not earn, remember the people from whom it was taken, and that you are one.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

I guess for you, it's predatory behavior when one person goes on ahead while others stop or move backward, the simple success of one make them a predator?

The reward of "money" is only a fraction of that created for others......those who have more use more sound financial philosophies with their money...the most important one being, live on less than you earn and save/invest the difference....

Banking is an example, banks only get a small portion, of the production of a successful enterprise, or life.....and over many years pays back the principle and interest....those who are foolish in the use of such instruments don't have banks to blame for their behavior, instead the thing to blame can be found in any mirror....

You mistake "production" with simple "labor"......which are as opposite as any two things can be, simple labor accomplishes a simple goals, or completes a simple task....but, the organization of simple labors into more complex and involved pursuits creates a value that exceeds any of the disparate parts, and accomplishes more than the unorganized combined labors would.....it IS the organization, of which financing is a part, which creates the society we live in, not the simple labor......

The only people given wealth in excess of that they have created is at the bottom...it doesn't occur at the top, and you can provide NO evidence of it happening in ANY free market system.....the wealth of this, and other free nations is created out of the organization of labor, and the products of that organization are FAR in excess of any compensation received by any player in the marketplace......

Why do you assume "bankers" (nice vague term by the way, since there are many categories of banking and finance you attempt to combine into one simple term, and cast you rage upon) did not earn their money...please provide an example of this...just one will do

[-] 1 points by Fredone (234) 2 years ago

No I do not mistake labor for production. I mean actual productivity. Banking can be productive, but it is not that special. I also appreciate the difficultly of deciding exactly how much someone is really producing, however it can certainly be done to a reasonable degree. The banking execs that walked off with millions in bonuses after screwing everything up obviously did not earn those bonuses. The situations we have in which CEOs are getting paid 200 times as much as a typical worker in the company are also stupid and obviously in excess of what they should get after factoring in both are accomplishing, and that other people could do the same thing relatively easily. For example there are probably plenty of workers immediately below them in the hierarchy that could be given a year of training and put in place of the CEO and their actions would lead to about as much, and maybe more productivity.

The appropriate thing to do is to suitably tax 1%ers who are getting tons of money and for which the balance of evidence clearly shows are not earning it all/someone else who gets paid a lot less could do just as well. Tax them massively and then use the money to reduce taxes on the 99% etc..

[-] 1 points by Fredone (234) 2 years ago

Also any artificial barriers to entry to any particular job should be eliminated, to reduce the problem of people getting paid a lot just because they happen to be lucky enough to have a particular job that puts them in a position to have the opportunity to produce more.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

see, I find the difference between large and small business owner/CEO pay levels interesting......a small business owner with 5 employee's at 50 thousand per year that takes an 80 thousand dollar a year salary would be OK, in the opinion of most of the "wealth" and high income haters....at $16,000, per employee wage ratio...BUT, a CEO of a corporation that employes 100,000 people who takes a salary of 10 million, at $100.00 per employee is somehow an excess.....with the same $50,000.00 per year average salary. The CEO has a larger responsibility, and provides for the employment and benefits for more people by way of his decisions on who to hire under him, and the decisions about which way to move the business......even in less, or non-profit years that responsibility still exists, and may be MORE important that the CEO makes the decisions that keep the enterprise in business.....

Your idea of taxing them massively doesn't really work, mathematically.....since the 1% are already paying 28% of all federal taxes...or 588 billion out of 2.1 Trillion......in order to just balance the budget without adding any more spending, you would have to tax the 1%'s income at 112%....hardly possible..

[-] 0 points by survivor514 (65) 2 years ago

The problem is they never actually adress the lies and misleading claims the left drills into their heads such as

1-claiming the bush tax cuts caused the deficits and only benefitted the rich, yet obama wants to extend 80% of the cuts, which is the cost for all but the top 2%, accroding to the cbo. The majority of the tax cuts benefitted the middle class.

2-.The rich have loopholes which allow them to pay less. paying 15% tax on capital gains isNOT a loophole as EVERYONE pays the same 15%.

3- Obama is part of the 1% group they are protesting

4-The biggest lie is that it was a wall street bailout, even though 3 of the top 10 wall street firms went out of business, TARP spent far less than expected, and teh gov't actually earned a PROFIT on their loans to wall street. This was not a bailout but lstructured as loans and equity, so that the gov't was rewarded if there was upside, Hard to call it a wall street bailout when less than 5% of the companies receiving money are actually wall street banks

5-Funny how the left claims Obama saved the auto industry yet complain about the wall street bailouts, never mind that GM and Chrysler still owe the taxpayers about $40 billion.

6-t's pretty hard to take seriously a protest against corporate evil when they are communicating with i phones and facebook, both of which made their founders billionaires,

7-Actually, obama wants to raise taxes on some of those 99%. Top 1% starts at AGI of about $350k so if Obama is raising taxes on anyone over $200k, that includes some of the 99%.

8- Not sure why unions would protest privatizing social security and let a portion be invested in stocks. Must be too stupid to realize that their pensions are outsourced to private managers and mostly invested in stock bonds and other financial assets.

9-Love to argue about the number of people bankrupted by medical expenses, yet they seem unaware that almost 75% of those people actually HAD insurance.

10- 50 million people don't have insurance is not the same as 50 million citizens cant afford health insurance. Strip out non citizens (legal and illegal), those making over $75,000, those who would qualify for medicaid or medicare and the real number is about 12-15 million, far less than 50 million.

11-learn the difference between income and wealth- being a millionaire does not mean your income is over $250k and we don't tax wealth. The top 1% in income is not necessarily the same top 1% in wealth.

12- The top 1% is not a staic group but a ranking. Implying that the top 1% from 30 years ago are the same people who makie up the top 1% and experienced the increased income shows a complete lack of logic.

13-learn the difference between marginal and effective rates. NO ONE pays the marginal rate, and the effective rate for the top 1% is about 5x higher than the lowest taxpayer

Top 1% pays an average effective rate of 29.5%

earns 19.4% of al pretax income pays 39.5% of all federal income tax pays 28.1% of all federal taxes

The top 20% also pays 42.9% of all ssi tax The top 20% also has an effective average rate of 25.1%, while the bottom 20 % pay 4%, with a negative rate on income taxes.

BOTTOM LINE: Top 20% have an avergae rate SIX TIMES HIGHER than the bottom 20%

http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2010/AverageFedTaxRates2007.pdf

14 The real irony is how the left villifies the Ryan Medicare plan for privatizing the program and relying on vouchers to subsidize premiums. Yet they blindly support Obamacare, which 1) legally forces everyone to purchase insurance from the same universe of private firms they claim aren't qualified and too greedy to run Medicare and 2) relies on a voucher like system of premium payment support to those who can't afford the in...

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

Regardless, this top 1% and many of the people in the top 5-10% are only so because of the exploitation of resources and peoples.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

Absolutely.

[-] -1 points by Farleymowat (415) 2 years ago

All men are not created equally. Some are smart, some are not. Some work hard, some are lazy. We do all have the right to pursue liberty and happiness. I don't make very much money. For me that would not be a pursuit of happiness. I do make enough though, so my neighbors don't have to help me. I would feel guilty if I did not try to make it on my own, expecting others to pull my weight. I am not talking about unemployment and the regular safety nets that have been in place for years. I am talking about the people I know that are out of work, or underemployed and don't make looking for work a number one priority. The work market is tough, but two of my sons have found work, and have had many job interviews this year. One of them is not happy with his pay and keeps looking, and interviewing.

[-] 2 points by flip (5078) 2 years ago

Wage slavery refers to a situation where a person's livelihood depends on wages, especially when the dependence is total and immediate.[1][2] It is a negatively connoted term used to draw an analogy between slavery and wage labor, and to highlight similarities between owning and employing a person. The term 'wage slavery' has been used to criticize economic exploitation and social stratification, with the former seen primarily as unequal bargaining power between labor and capital (particularly when workers are paid comparatively low wages, e.g. in sweatshops),[3] and the latter as a lack of workers' self-management (which criticizes the job choices that an economy allows).[4][5][6] The criticism of social stratification covers a wider range of employment choices bound by the pressures of a hierarchical social environment (i.e. working for a wage not only under threat of starvation or poverty, but also of social stigma or status diminution).[7][8][9]

Similarities between wage labor and slavery were noted at least as early as Cicero.[10] Before the American Civil War, Southern defenders of African American slavery invoked the concept to favorably compare the condition of their slaves to workers in the North.[11][12] With the advent of the industrial revolution, thinkers such as Proudhon and Marx elaborated the comparison between wage labor and slavery in the context of a critique of property not intended for active personal use.[13][14]

The introduction of wage labor in 18th century Britain was met with resistance – giving rise to the principles of syndicalism.[15][16][17][18] Historically, some labor organizations and individual social activists, have espoused workers' self-management or worker cooperatives as possible alternatives to wage labor.[5][17]

[-] -1 points by necropaulis (491) 2 years ago

They don't live on our backs, You buy their products, and use their services. They use that money to buy out other businesses, therefore making them richer. Where's the inequality in that?? I see people complaining about how unfair it is, but nobody mentions when the "evil 1%" comes out to say that they should be taxed more (it has happened, and not because of OWS screaming in streets). Not that any of it matters, because I think, within the next decade or so, we all will be equal. There's too much fake money being thrown around from person to person, country to country. Nobody knows where all this money is going(don't say the "1%", because you know it's not true), or where it's supposed to come from (yet again, leave the "1%" out of it). Eventually, this whole planetary money system is going to fall into itself like a dying sun.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

Yes they live off our hard working backs.

And they live high high high lifestyle.

[-] 0 points by necropaulis (491) 2 years ago

Then don't buy their stuff or use their services. Don't work for them if you feel like doing the extensive research on who really owns your employer. Even the bulk of your "99%" lives the high life. That's why the whole 99% number is stupid. You have multi-millionaires amongst you. Regular millionaires and so on. These people aren't worrying about the next phone bill, either.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

Is that your solution !

Don't buy stuff. Don't work for them.

Come back when you have something better.

[-] 0 points by necropaulis (491) 2 years ago

Well, that's how they got rich to begin with. selling and doing stuff. You even said hard working backs. That would imply workers, right?? To make the stuff they sell, and do the services they need done

Working for independently owned places, and buying local doesn't make you work for them.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

Merchants don't make the stuff they sell. Try again with something better next time.

[-] 0 points by necropaulis (491) 2 years ago

Who said anything about merchants?? And, yes some merchants do make their own stuff. Do some research before you keep spouting the same stupid rhetoric. You sound like an idiot. Make an actual rebuttal, or are you too brainwashed??