Forum Post: The 1% Are Oblivious To The 99%
Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 2, 2011, 10:48 p.m. EST by eyeofthetiger
(304)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
on the 1% minds we don't even Exist get that word into your heads Exist
Negative.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B3Fw5TPJK8&feature=g-user&list=PLA23B2A1506CCBD99
If the1% continues to choose ONLY to protect their own interests they will definitely loose this revolution! The GOP needs to wake up NOW & start supporting the 99%, who they also serve! PLEASE NOTE: If they choose to NOT recognize & support the people who voted them in office they will systematically be chosen to no longer represent 99%!
people should just not vote
ARE you f-n idiot or what? To vote is the most patriotic part of our society!
and your a Fin PatriFart
What is certain is that 1% will not and cannot depend on the 99% to protect their money from the crooks running the Government. If TEAM-OBAMA(tm) can rob $500 Million USD and get away with the crime then they can do anything. The 1% know that they're the ones being robbed because they have the money, the 99% have no fear because they have nothing left to steal.
Jon Corzine, Obama 'Partner' and Campaign Financier, Subpoenaed on ... ABC News (blog) - 7 hours ago Jon Corzine, whom President Obama once hailed as an “honorable man” and one of his “best partners” in the White House, has been subpoenaed to testify before ... Obama-Biden Economic Guru Corzine Hit With Congressional Subpoena Human Events Congress subpoenas Corzine on MF Global collapse Reuters Briefs: House subpoenas ex-NJ gov on firm's collapse The Detroit News The Hill (blog) - MyCentralJersey.com all 531 news articles »
BBC News Obama's Corzine Problem Huffington Post (blog) - 4 days ago Just a few months ago Jon Corzine was on the short list to be President Obama's Treasury Secretary, but now he's ignoring a request to testify before a ... Corzine, Abelow: Will They Testify on Capitol Hill? Fox Business The face of Wall Street arrogance New York Post Jon Corzine the Face of Wall Street Arrogance CNBC.com all 63 news articles »
Long ago we said, and my guess is its still true everywhere,
MONEY talks and bullshit walks,
When the smoke clears OWS will be seen as a joke,
Sad indeed because there was a real message behind the craziness, but sadly the message was lost.
Like V-for-Vendetta, the message is CLEAR: "SOMETHING IS TERRIBLY WRONG WITH AMERIKKA",
But sadly the 99% don't have a fucking clue what it is, but guess what the 1% know
The 1% doesn't exist, but the 99% don't even have a clue that they really mean the 0.0001%,
In the entire history of humanity the majority at any given time are always wrong. Thus why would anyone want to belong to a majority club?
This movement is mathematically illiterate, it has taken a position of 1% only cuz it sounds good. Back in the 1950's some reporter called the hell's-angels the 1% and they took it as a badge, and put it on their jackets 1%-er came to be a badge-of-honor, an outlaw,
Today given that the 99% are just utter fucking stupid fucking boors, I will predict that in the coming months there will be t-shirt and shit that say 1%-Er and guys selling will get rich, ...
This is ameriKKKa, they love winners and HATE losers,
Just saying,
Yep love Hells Angels Free Charlie Free Charlie Free Charlie
Why do you say that ? Not that I disagree..
why u do dat do you have a lisp? or hair tongue
A man said to the universe: "Sir I exists!" "However," relied the universe, "The fact has not created in me a sense of obligation."
Stephen Crane voiced his OWS opinion, anachronistically, in 1899.
as Kansas says all we are is dust in the wind
We are nowhere near great. I would say okay. And yes, we do exist to them, they know there are cogs that turn out product to make them money. If it wasn't for us, they wouldn't be rich. But then, the question also has to be asked, how did some of them get rich?? By starting out at 99 and working to 1. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and quite a few others started out in a garage with nothing but an idea and whatever they had in their pockets.
those guys are cool they are not snobs there's a difference
BUT they are/were(R.I.P) members of the uber rich that this movement is against. That is one of my issues with this, where's the line?? And yes, they are/were damn good innovators that turned the world on it's ear with what they produced
you are Naive OWS is Naive you have no street smarts when a guy has something to contribute and shares it with the world he is cool when he is selfish self centered and corrupt he is a dick head don't you guys know the difference yet? Geeeeez
I'm not with them. I'm an outsider. I have plenty of street smarts. The question I posed to you was where is the line. Yes, they were "cool", but they also are incredibly rich. So how can you persecute one man for being super rich, but not the other?? Being cool doesn't cut it. I'm sure there is some selfishness to being rich. You wanna look up a cool rich guy, look up Robert Bosch
everyone judges people by how much money they have totally worthless humanity not even humans I judge people on merit not how rich they are
Same with me. A prick is a prick no matter how you cut it. They could have $1 billion or $100. The problem I have though is some think Gates sucks because he's rich, others(like you and me for example) believe otherwise due to their contributions and how they treat their employees. If you can't draw a line and say this is the bad(which some very much are), this is the good (not always the case), everyone ends up as grays, and then the machine stops (corp, occupy, and otherwise)
The "1%" does not refer to individuals, good or bad. It is merely a phrase used to denote how the great disparity in wealth in this country (the biggest such disparity in the developed world) translated into great political power as well. It refers to the fact that there are two Americas, a financial elite who make the rules (and crash the economy) while living their own set of rules without consequence, and the rest of us (the other 99%) who must live by the rules and consequences imposed by that elite.
It denotes how the financial elite has become the power elite: they have hijacked democracy.
The 1% is about a system gone wrong, not the individuals in it. It denotes plutocracy and corporate oligarchy.
Then why stop at this 1%? If it's not individuals, then who are you targeting?? Companies that produce products to help make life easier or the people who run them?? It is the individuals that make these choices, it doesn't matter if they are the lawyers, the CEO's or the guy in accounting that found a way to fudge numbers to pad profits, making the rich richer due to these actions. It muddies the water, thereby killing the line. If you don't know where the line is, then what are you trying to accomplish?? The system is individuals, who by influence from other individuals, makes it decisions. Lots of people live lives without consequences. People rob, steal, and murder and get away with it. Money moves countries, if not, they are broke and considered worthless on the world stage. Look at the Somali pirates, until thy started jacking US boats, nobody really knew about them. Do they get killed for there crimes?? Sure, sometimes, but they still run the Isle largely uninterrupted. We need people with the money to protect our interests or else we are just as open to attack from another country(Native Americans vs. the English, Spanards, Vikings, French, etc ring a bell??). The system is loaded everyone knew and knows about it. So this is either about individuals, the system, or the group of the rich. Which is it??
I think you miss the point.
The issue is about restoring democracy, getting the money out of politics. It is about the financial elite vetting candidates before they even run for office, making a mockery of elections and rendering them as little more that ratifying choices made by them. It is about politicians underwritten by a network of organized wealth that demands payback. It is about how a middle class congressman, if he or she votes the "right" way, ensures a millionaire job for himself upon leaving office.
Nor does it even have to be as nefarious as that. When Boeing calls, the Senator answers the phone. He accepts a lunch invitation with the CEO of CitiGroup. He is, or aspires to be, one of them. But he can receive a petition signed by tens of thousands and ignore it without repercussion.
CEOs of various industries sit on each other's boards. They set policy for vast networks of industries, not simply for their own companies. And together, they wield vast influence on people who are supposed to be OUR representatives, not theirs beyond their individual votes.
Unless and until the entire good old boy network is disempowered, the system will only grow ever stronger and ever more incestuous. Politics and money must get a divorce.
That doesn't imply an end to capitalism. It implies a restoration of it rather than the cronyism that dominates today in which corporations are made into people and can spend more on an election than any one million actual people combined. And by so doing can write their own rules, suppress anti-trust laws, gamble disastrously with the entire economy and come out unscathed while 15 million people pay for it with the loss of their jobs and even control the media to such an extent that many of those jobless remain their loyal supporters.
That is the opposite of the meritocracy at the heart of Capitalism.
I believe in democracy. I would give my life to protect it. But that's not the system we're living in today. Today we have "the 1%" ruling everything and everyone. What we have now is plutocracy, in which the wealthy, not the ballot box, rules the country. That, to me is what OWS is really about.
I don't believe I missed the point. I understand what you are saying. I feel the same way as you, OWS, and the working poor. The problem as I see, though is as long as someone has more than the next guy, there will be corruption. People from the president down to your local police are more easily corrupted with then more power they wield. Just as you said. If someone makes an unpopular vote, they are out. If they take the money, the sky's the limit because they, and their group are now for sale in exchange for the power they need. Power=corruption always have always will. That's one of the reason why, I believe nobody wants to step up as a leader in this whole thing. Have you heard about the people who do try to establish the leader?? Most of them are out to get money out of the city under the guise of "helping" the cause when they want to help themselves. Corrupt. Democracy is a good idea, but that's all it is. An idea. Why do you think other cultures that have tried it ended up cannibalizing themselves?? Corruption isn't a government problem, it's a human problem, and it will never go away.
My apologies for misunderstanding you. I am sad to say I agree with your assessment about the nature of corruption.
I do, however think that something can be done about it. We have (at least I have) in some very important spheres in life, seen people fight the good fight and win. The Civil rights act, the Voting Rights Act, Title IX, Medicare and Medicaid have all been instituted in my lifetime, to name only a few areas of that diminished corruption, and won greater fairness and equality. Democracy has worked in the past.
That doesn't mean when one area of civic life is improved, it stays that way, or that another area doesn't get worse. If left unchecked, corruption will always seek to make gains. It takes constant work to keep it at bay. But my point is that it CAN be kept at bay, and HAS been forced into retreat at various times. Democracy is not only a good idea, but the only idea to have had any success.
OWS does not, in my opinion, seek to end democracy, but to revivify it. It will hardly be an easy task. No one ever promised it would be. But I have faith, based on what I have seen, that it is possible.
I agree. But the thing with OWS and all of the other areas are going about it the wrong way. That's why I can't get behind it. Things that worked back then only worked because that was the world then. There were less people, and the had smaller problems, so the larger ones-civil rights, etc-were magnified so when they had an orderly assembly (and people sitting in a park for months yelling and screaming, doing drugs, yelling at the cops because you know they can't do anything back, and not even having the common decency to clean up after yourself is not orderly) to get their point across. At this day and age you have to be professional about things. Just like MLK. That's the best thing I just thought of. MLK vs. Malcolm X. MLK was a professional and made more headway, Malcolm X went about things "by any means possible" and discredited the movement in the eyes of people sitting on the fence. It was 2 steps forward and 1 step back. Long ago, good would inherently triumph over evil. These days, though evil's kinda running the show. Not just in Wall St.(which the people there mad at left Wall St. long ago) but even on your street.
I REALLY disagree with your characterization of those who have been active occupiers. I have met quite a few of them and they were ordinary people, on the whole younger than the average citizen, but included middle aged and elderly folks too. The young had more stamina to do that actual camping, but it really represented a good cross section of the country.
(In terms of cleaning up, they did their best, but were denied permits for things like Porto Potties and dumpsters, so problems existed. That was not caused by them, but by the mayors of various cities, for obvious reasons.)
As to occupying a park, the civil rights movement sure as hell did that too. They occupied the National Mall in tents for weeks. Before them, the Bonus Army occupied public spaces, especially in DC, for months. Hoover ordered MacArthur to send in the army and fire on them, killing quite a few.
That Bonus Army occupied the mall in as disorderly a way as these young people occupied Zuccotti Park. They, too were mostly leaderless. They, too, were angry. And the National Mall stank to high heaven. They were protesting the same kinds of issues that today's OWSers are today: A corrupt government supporting the Laizzer-faire economics of the time, , obscene income disparity, economic ruin due to unscrupulous banking speculation, foreclosures, and a government ruled by corporate oligarchy.
It is no different or more corrupt today. and those Bonus Army veterans put a laser light on those issues, helping to usher in the backlash that got FDR elected. They helped, in a small but critical way, to change this country
I think OWS has some serious problems right now, and some serious internal divisions. But if they can resolve those issues, they have a chance at genuinely changing the national dialogue. To some extent they already have, and in an astonishingly short time. If they remain viable, I believe they can help change America for the better again.
I understand the sweep of generations this goes across, and yes, I made a generalization. That is what the rest of "us" see. Like I said, you have to be more professional than this. Get the waste situations setup before you "occupy". It lends a sense of responsibilty, and professionalism. They would be more comfortable with you being there. Report crimes. A woman was sexually assaulted and didn't have the guy arrested, because she thought it would make the "movement" look bad. Which is my next point, security. There are people ODing, freezing to death, and various other problems that a security professional would be needed. In this day and age,the army wouldn't be called, and those protest were about human rights. Being rich is not a right. therefore all the events you and others are referencing hold no water in this particular situation. Poor is not a race or gender. Poor is a choice or fate. As an outsider, with an honest intent on trying to understand, I see this as a failure due to massive mismanagement
People change their minds when they are Bribed All these pricks have to say is Hey I'll give you $10,000 if you say this or do this and that's how most of the 1% operate and do business Washington is run by Bribes No one does something for nothing
It appears the Occupants that aren't famous are doing something for nothing. And I indeed agree, our country is run by the special interest groups. That's the problem. It's not the money, it's the power the money holds. "absolute power corrupts absolutely" I believe people by nature get more corruptable when they get more power, while the shils(us) are left in the cold. Even if there is some way to stop the corruption of government(as in complete overhaul), it will still return. It's human nature.
Then you have to stop the power cold in it's tracks I cannot be bribed unless I have control I march to the beat of my own drummer Always have Always will That's why I'm still single at 53
I'm out of this convo cause it's late where I am, but I appreciate the debate. It's nice to see some are still thinking independently. Have a good evening
That is exactly what I'm talking about. You can't have power and self control at the same time. Neither can a lot of people. We would end up in a state of political anarchy, which would end badly in this country. Or any other for that matter. There has to be order, or else everything falls apart and the strong rise against the weak and we're right back where we started
I can have power and self control it's called discipline those who don't have discipline will fail with power
Most of those with the power lack discipline are the ones you should be fighting. They are not the 1%. They are the puppets who are controlled by less than that. A good example is this whole Bin Laden "war" How many people got into this just for the money vs those that died for basically nothing?? They still prospered. There is no universal karma system. That's why all of these people still walk free today. They made money from blood that was not theirs and thanks to the special interest, they are okay. It's seems those who exercise less discipline wield all the power, from the president, to the mob(I'm talking back in 20's-50's), the the junk peddler who keeps junkies protecting them when the cops roll down the street. I don't see it as a political problem. More of a human flaw. As long as there are two humans on the planet, one will attempt to rule the other
because you people dont matter. you are trying to reform the greatest country on earth.
"you people"? Really? What's with the jingoistic bs? You think it's impossible to improve on "the greatest"? You'll never make it as a captain of industry at that rate, jbob.