Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: We Need to Go After Individuals Not Corporations!

Posted 1 year ago on May 25, 2012, 10:56 p.m. EST by JoeTheFarmer (2654)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The problem as I see it is that regulations need to target individuals and they do not. Regulations that go after the "corporation" really do nothing. When we target the corporations with fines rather than the individuals that broke the rules we punish the shareholders many of whom are workers with pension funds as well as the regular employees at these companies. There are a lot of ordinary hard working people at these companies.

When someone at JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, or BOA breaks the rules or deceives investors we need to go after the individuals. Going after the "corporation" just hurts the people who trusted these corporations with their money. Meanwhile the guys who broke the rules get a nice salary and bonus to boot. They are free to repeat their risky or even deceitful behavior with no fear of retribution.

Regulations need to target individuals or the process will just continue.

We need to go after the individuals not the corporations.

62 Comments

62 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (9727) 1 year ago

Don't trust coroprations with your money or anything else.

[-] 2 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 1 year ago

Hey Joe! Mitt Romney said corporations ARE PEOPLE. So did the Supreme Court.

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

Well when you think about it, they are a collection of people. Whether your corporation makes umbrellas, cars, or teaches dance, makes drugs, is a farm... there are people involved.

There are two reasons we declare corporations to legally be regarded in the same light as a person.

First, corporate personhood is the legal concept that a corporation may sue and be sued in court in the same way as natural persons or unincorporated associations of persons. I don't have a problem with allowing corporations to sue or be sued.

Second, when we say the Supreme Court "said they are people" we mean that they allow the fourth amendment to apply to corporations. The fourth amendment reads:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

I don't have a problem with allowing corporations to have that right. Remember, and business that is incorporated is a corporation. Let's you have a business that makes candles. I don't think that the government should have the right to walk in unannounced without probable cause and seize you paperwork, wax, wicks, computers. If there is probable cause and they can obtain a warrant I have no problem with the search and seizure if they do not destroy the place.

As for Mitt Romney, when I watch the video it appears he was alluding to the fact that corporations are owned and operated by people and the profits or loses go to people, i.e. human beings.

When we don't consider that corporations are a collection of people, the problem is when we punish the corporation rather than the individuals within the corporation that broke the rules. This punishes the good employees and shareholders and the criminals not only run free but they get a bonus.

[-] 2 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 1 year ago

Obviously, my previous remark was sarcastic in nature. True, corporations are indeed comprised of people and those people each have (or at least SHOULD have a voice in the democratic process). When corporations are allowed to spend unlimited amounts of money to support politicians with agendae that is highly favorable to a particular set of policies that might favor that business at the expense of the individual, then an imbalance in the process exisits, because a disproportionate amount of influence is wielded. Let's face it, most people don't have the time or the inclination to dig deep enough to find out about a candidate. Hell, most eligible voters don't even vote especially in the mid-terms. So sad.

[-] -1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

Call out the instigator!

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

I don't know, I believe if a group of people were given consequences for what their CEO did, I believe this would make share holders more cognizant of what is happening to make their bottom line grow. The most disturbing thing I find with corporate share holders is their tenacity to play the "well i did not know" card. They suck all the profits from a company and then are let off the hook when the company screws over everyone else for said profits. It kinda creates a situation where share holders get their cake and are allowed to eat it too no matter how detrimental the company's actions were. I say if the consequences of a company's malfeasance trickled down to the share holders, they would be more inclined to review what their CEO is doing to make their returns so plentiful. Having cops on the streets and criminals in jail are deterrents to bad behavior, but investors of corporate stock have no deterrents against their enabling of bad behavior.

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

" I believe this would make share holders more cognizant of what is happening to make their bottom line grow"

Most would not have a clue. Most shareholders are average people with a 401k or pension fund and have no idea what goes on.

Do you really think a factory worker in Des Moine Iowa, or a cashier at Walmart has any idea or control over what the company who's shares are in their retirement fund are actually doing? I get several prospectus for my pension funds every year. I believe that most people throw them out without reading them and would not understand them if they did.

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

Sounds like you make a compelling argument for why contractual obligations need to be more regulated. Wow, I love the way your brain works. You skim over maleficence when it makes your case but are all for stellar behavior when it strengthens your case.

Using your logic, those who received mortgages and were hoodwinked to take out bigger loans, are not at fault, they probably did not even read the fine print, so who could blame them. Sheesh, you can always tell an ideologue from a casual observer. The ideologue is conditioned to not suffer from cognitive dissonance no matter how many times he uses double standards. If I remember correctly you defend what the banks did to naive mortgage holders, but it is not a problem when naive corporate stock investors don't know what they are investing in. I guess i know what party you are a member of. You like buying stocks and not being responsible for what the company does to enrich you.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

That is not my logic it is yours.

Stock in a mutual fund in that is part of a pension fund is not a contractual obligation on the part of the factory worker. Also, that factory worker has no power to change what executives at Chase, Fannie May, or Microsoft do.

You remembered partially correct. I did say that the person who signed the mortgage document agreed to pay a monthly amount. Now a salesman may trick you into buying a bigger house than you can afford, a fancy car, a 2 year health club membership that you will never use, a time share condominium, a 2 year cell phone contract to get the free phone...

All of those things may not be "fair" however In the end the person signing the contract is agreeing to pay the monthly amount if they want to keep the fancy car or bigger than I can afford house. I do not remove all blame from the sales person. I also believe we should not remove all blame from the person buying the bigger than I can afford house.

Had the rules not been relaxed, the rules to qualify for the mortgage would have been higher. Before the changes were made you needed a credit score above 600 and put 20% down payment to get the house.

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

I guess I should have said the board of directors should be held responsible for what the CEO does, considering it is them that are made whole when the company files bankruptcy. All the little investors, the ones whose retirement is contingent on stellar performances, are left out in the cold. So you are right they maybe should not be held responsible.

Besides, most board members are members of many, many different companies, so being hit with financial consequences for CEO performance would not poverty stricken them. It would just make them more apt to weed out bad behavior.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

It sounds like you are finally understanding my post.

What has to happen is an investigation into wrong doing and holding the people who did wrong accountable. It may be the board knew nothing about it. When you have 100,000 employees it is hard to oversee them all. If the CEO or board turns out to be involved by encouraging bad behavior then yes they should be held accountable.

I just feel that the current system of fining the "corporation" and doing nothing to the perpetrators solves nothing and does not discourage further rule breaking.

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

One of the fundamental characteristics of "corporations"
is the corporate "veil"
as long as corporations can pump billions into our political system, keeping their very thoroughly paid for personhood rights, the obvious logic of holding humans liable even though they work inside the "veil" will not happen


.......................................support a constitutional amendment to end corporate personhood


[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

Corporation are not people.

Again it is not the corporation that is breaking the rules. The corporation is a bunch of shareholders mostly hard workers with pension funds, 401k, mutual funds..

It is people within a corporation that break the rules and should be accountable not the shareholders.

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (5688) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Isn't that one of the main tenets of incorporation? Shielding the individuals from liability?

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

Yes it is but not from criminal activity.

The idea is that If you have a gymnastics school and someone falls of the beam they cannot take your home away. If you own a restaurant and someone slips they cannot take your home away.

If you deceive your clients through a ponzi scheme built on lies like Bernie Madoff you go to jail.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (5688) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Good point. Thanks.

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

Why not do both? It seems that corporations could use the individual as the scapegoat to protect monolith from any responsibility in most if not all cases.

Why not both? Corporations aren't totally clean are they?

When corporations don't meet their bottom line, who pays the price for that? Should the workers be compensated for the corporations bad moves, or worse yet, their corruption? (Oh that's right, it won't be them, it just those bad apples, just make them pay and all is business as usual.)

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

It seems you did not understand my post.

Corporations are not people. Corporations don't make decisions people do. Corporations do not break rules, people do.

When you fine a corporation the misused their clients money and lost a good portion of it you only hurt the people that were hurt in the first place the people who put their money in the bank or mutual fund.

Fining the corporation does nothing to the person who broke the rules. Fining and inditing the individuals that broke the rules will make them think twice about breaking the rules.

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

Many times corporations encourage their "people" to cheat, and if they don't, in a right to work state, your fired. So, you really think the corporation comes out clean as long as they lay blame on subordinate. Which would be a clever loophole for the corporation to never take the blame for anything carried out in it's name, just find an individual (scapegoat) to lay the blame on. Hell we couldn't blame to company for bad customer, after all they are just people.

Don't corporations have some responsibly in training their employees on ethical conduct. Doesn't the employee really represent the company and their image as a company or do they only represent themselves under your idea since they are ultimately responsible for everything with the company taking a back and absolving themselves of such trivial matters like responsibility.

It seems to me you want to protect the company and screw the employee. Don't these companies have enough power already. They can fire at will, what more do want, if they make bad investments they lay off employees, they owe the employee nothing, how responsible is that.

I would be for all parties involved sharing equally in the blame game. Making a generalized statement that the company is never responsible for what it's employees do is catering to the rich as I see it.

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

"It seems to me you want to protect the company and screw the employee"

You definitely did not understand the post. I want to protect the honest employees, shareholders and folks with money in the bank or fund. and go after the rule breakers. A bank teller at Chase is not responsible for what some guy in England did! Why sling mud at her?

Corporations are not people.

Corporations cannot encourage their people to do anything. Corporations are shareholders usually hard working people with pension funds, 401ks IRAs, mutual funds...

A person working within a corporation however can encourage their subordinate to do something illegal. That does not mean they need to do it. If they do then they broke the law and the person that told them to do it is a conspirator. We need to go after the people not the shareholders.

Is it really that hard to understand?

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

If a company makes a bad product that's unsafe and kills my child, I can't sue the company who has the money, I have to sue some employee that couldn't handle his job and is blamed for not putting some screws tight enough. Problem is this employee has no money. Good luck with getting blood out of a stone. But, hey, thank god we protected the shareholders why burden them with someone else's tragedy, pass the buck until it disappears. The claimant is just trying to milk the system for their dead child anyway, tell them to get a job and get their own money. Shareholders have families too.

In your view the company would never have be liable for nothing ever again. They don't have to stand behind their product, the employees do. It's their responsibilities collectively to insure the product isn't defective or unsafe. You know the same ones who are told to cut corners, keep costs down, come in under budget or your fired. Your direct boss, in most states, has the right to fire at any time. He says do something, if you value your job you do it.

I have seen this in my own personal work experience. Ethics comes from the top down. Not the other way around. If the company doesn't take the time and train employees on proper ethics who's to blame then? Still want to blame the employee?

If a company has crappy customer support, do you blame the company and not do business with them?

Or, in your exceptional view, you still love the company realizing the individual employees are crappy, not the company. So you continue doing business with them because it's not their fault the employees refuse to listen to them. Is this right?

You are protecting the company. You believe all these liability suits should be thrown out?

Do you hate it when the company has to pay out millions of dollars because their product caused the deaths of innocent children?

Wouldn't it be nice if it could be pinned on employee who's total net worth is 100K dollars. And the shareholders can realize more profits without blinking an eye about product liability. The corporations can begin cutting corners on safety with their new found protection.

You do want companies to have more protection, and less regulation, don't you?

Puzzlin

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

I did not say the company should never be liable. That is the basis of corporate personhood. It allows a corporation to sue or be sued.

I am talking about a specific king of activity. People within a company breaking the rules and intentionally deceiving clients.

I love that you changed the context to products that killed innocent children. Very clever, you make it sound like I am OK with killing innocent children. You should be a politician or perhaps a lawyer.

If the company created a product and the design was flawed and someone dies I would call that involuntary manslaughter. If executives at the corporation knew the product was defective and released it anyway, tampered with test results, then I believe the executive should be put in trial fro murder. That is more effective than taking money from the employees and shareholders that knew nothing about the defective product.

"You do want companies to have more protection, and less regulation, don't you?"

No you re twisting what I am saying. I want the bad people within the corporation to be punished for their actions. Why punish the factory worker or the pension with a pension fund and let the bad guys get away without punishment (and get a bonus to boot)

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

Perhaps there would be more whistle blowers defending their fellow workers if in fact corporations were taken down for abuses and criminal actions. Hell whats to say they couldn't be reformed if they are a necessary business perhaps in smaller employee run pieces, no more near monopolies.

[-] 1 points by dan1984 (108) from Cumberland, MD 1 year ago

It's funny you say that concerning monopolies are "supposed" to be "illegal" in this country. It's the golden rule. Whoever has the gold makes the rules.

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

Usury is supposed to illegal to then you have credit cards and payday loans and such things like that.

Yep - makes a difference - in who minds the store.

[-] 1 points by dan1984 (108) from Cumberland, MD 1 year ago

for what it's worth, I got it.

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

Yeah it is sick - all of the laws that are on the books and are not being enforced. This is an issue which should be pushed by the public. Truth in advertizing truth in news deceptive practices and on and on and on..............

[-] -3 points by 67192206161 (-56) 1 year ago

We would greatly appreciate it if you would stop redirecting and respond, troll:

Please explain what you meant by "makes a difference - in who minds the store".

Thanks

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

Hey Buddy. {:-])

Someone don't agree with your rhetoric. Seems that many of your pathetic cries for "MY" attention are being edited out before I can reply to them.

Too Bad - So Sad.

Apparently you are mistaken in your belief of your standing as a protector.

Was kind of a lame claim anyway as all you do is attack.

OH WELL - Whatcha gonna do.

OH - I know - talk to the forum admin and see why they feel that you are a detriment to the forum.

BuBye

[-] -2 points by 67192206161 (-56) 1 year ago

Not sure what some of this refers to. But yes, it would seem you have the blessing of this forum's moderators. Which makes me question their agenda.

I don't question yours: Trolls are trolls are trolls.

[-] -3 points by 67192206161 (-56) 1 year ago

Then explain it for the rest of us, please.

[-] 1 points by dan1984 (108) from Cumberland, MD 1 year ago

He is responding to my comment about those with money making and breaking rules. He is also referring to the title of the post in that the people in charge of said corporations make a difference in the policies and practices of the corporations.

[-] -1 points by 67192206161 (-56) 1 year ago

Please explain what you mean by "makes a difference - in who minds the store". Thanks.

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

Blind eye turners or enforcers.

That help ya?

[-] 0 points by 67192206161 (-56) 1 year ago

Not at all.

Please be explicit in what you really intended to communicate.

Thanks.

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

Sorry. Are U trying to imply something (?) Mr. Sock puppet?

My reply was very explicit.

[-] -1 points by 67192206161 (-56) 1 year ago

"Brief" and "explicit" are not synonyms. So again:

Please explain what you mean by "makes a difference - in who minds the store".

Try not to respond like a troll this time. Thanks.

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

Blind eye turners or enforcers.

That help ya?

Seems pretty clear and straight forward to me.

Why don't you share it around and see how others feel.

[-] -1 points by 67192206161 (-56) 1 year ago

Are you telling me meaningless autocratic troll replies like that got you 6,774 groupthink points on this forum? And this is supposed to be the "official" Occupy Wall Street forum?

Sad. Very sad indeed.

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

Those points that you seem so concerned with? They mean next to nothing. What it shows is I have been on this forum since last fall on a regular basis and making frequent comments. That's all. If you can manage to stay on the forum that long without your butt being booted out the door you can have a similar score. See how easy that is? Don't be a troll or a site abuser and you too can have more than -3 points as well.

[-] -1 points by 67192206161 (-56) 1 year ago

You poor man. I do not care about your groupthink "score" except to observe that for someone as rude as you to accumulate that number in a forum that supposedly once had political significance is, as I said...

Sad. Very sad indeed.

[-] 2 points by VQkag (930) 1 year ago

WE are OWS! You do not speak for the 99%. You have only threats and school yard bully tactics like your candidate romney. Vote out pro 1% politicians

[-] -2 points by MoodDaddy (25) 1 year ago

Nobody can speak for the 99%. Anyone who thinks they do has an ego issue.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 1 year ago

I have heard threats from you, I have schoolyard bully tactics like your candidate romney, I have seen you avoid issues that the 1% use to exploit the 99%, and I have heard you say you are against pro gay politicians. you never support the issues that OWS supports. You are clearly not OWS. I don't think you fool anyone but yourself. That is why you are banned so often.

[Removed]

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

U is silly - U who have never had a constructive thought or helpful comment - U of the attacking sock puppets and bots. Oh please if I laugh any harder I will have to take a shower and get fresh underwear.

Do you come up with this rhetoric as you glare at your image in a mirror? That would be projection. You project your self hate onto others. Does that help? Does that make you feel better for a moment?


[-] 0 points by 67192206161 (-16) 19 minutes ago

This is the official "Occupy Wall Street" forum. People should and do come here expecting to discuss serious issues and find actionable ways to address them. Instead, there are only forum trolls like you plastering them with insults.

Unless that changes soon, there will BE no Occupy Wall Street to host this forum. But as a forum troll that means little to you, does it?

What forum were you lurking in before you came and ruined this one? Which forum will you ruin next?

[-] 3 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Trolls can't ruin a forum unless people cooperate with them.

[-] 0 points by 67192206161 (-56) 1 year ago

All you do is attack and insult people who have neither attacked nor insulted you, forum troll. Do the moderators of this forum not realize their obligation to history here?

Your actions will never benefit Occupy Wall Street, troll, but they may very well be contributing to its destruction. If there is an ounce of care in your body about anything other than being the quantifiably most obnoxious troll in this forum, for the sake of the people and our children PLEASE go away!

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

Whatever sad-sack. Go and play in traffic we all allow you to have your free time to relax. Run along - there should be a busy freeway nearby. Ask for directions - I am sure that there will be plenty of helpful people along your way.

BuBye

[-] 0 points by 67192206161 (-56) 1 year ago

This is the official "Occupy Wall Street" forum. People should and do come here expecting to discuss serious issues and find actionable ways to address them. Instead, there are only forum trolls like you plastering them with insults.

Unless that changes soon, there will BE no Occupy Wall Street to host this forum. But as a forum troll that means little to you, does it?

What forum were you lurking in before you came and ruined this one? Which forum will you ruin next?

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

The individuals we need to go for is the American public. Because of their apathy, they in effect cooperate with the tyranny of our government, and it flourishes. Occupy can't defeat tyranny by itself, but it can sure wake up enough people that together we can defeat injustice.

There is an enormous, unbeatable army out there sitting comfortably in front of big screens, constantly being brainwashed by the media. As long as they sit down, they are impotent. We need to get them to turn the tube off and fill their brains with the truth of what is really happening and stand up with us and fight to take back our rightful place in this Democracy.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

I agree. With all the talk of "the 99%" it is really the 0.001% that are awake.

If we had 300,000 people at a rally that would be 0.001% of the population/

[-] 1 points by Shule (1548) 1 year ago

Got a list?

Let me start one:

  1. Jamie Dimon; Current chairman, president, and chief executive officer of JPMorgan and Chase Manhatten.

  2. Frank Bisignana, CEO of JP Morgan-Chase Mortgage Banking.

  3. Lloyd Craig Blankfein, CEO and Chairman of Goldman Sachs,

Anybody got any other names they would like to add?

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

I was not saying we need to make a list. I am saying we need to change regulations to put penalties on individuals that break rules rather than just fine the corporation.

If you are going to put people in a list you ought to list what rules or laws they broke. Sure Chase just lost money on some investments but they did not break any rules that I am aware of. Goldman Sachs is a different story and needs further investigation.

[-] 1 points by Calsium1 (13) from Boynton Beach, FL 1 year ago

i agree, the board members should be held responsible with their personal assets and they in turn need to keep an eye on the ceo. if something happens it should be a chain reaction from worker to manager all the way up the latter of people who end up paying an proportionate share of any and all suffering they have caused.

i watched a movie yesterday about the Appalachian coal mining. it starts with bush election being backed with 6x the usual donations from the coal industry, after he becomes president he changes one word in the clean water act. what follows is cancer, floods, and despair. virginia DEP does nothing, the governor does nothing and the main culprit justifies it saying that he's saving the region by providing employment after he broke the unions, fired workers and maximized profits by concentrating on a devastating practice of mountaintop removal.

so bush, the governor and dep should get a mercury iv till their brain starts hemorrhaging. who ever else was involved with the bill should just get shot on the spot. then their wealth should be seized and given to the victims of the crime. sounds bad, but according to the movie most of east usa's water is supplied from the Appalachian an millions of people are likely to suffer from few men increasing their personal wealth.

[-] 1 points by Shule (1548) 1 year ago

Some of the laws and rules are created to keep certain people in power, and to put other at a disadvantage. So although some policies may be "legal", they are at the same time not right. That is much of the problem. So, people on the list would include those perpetuating unfair policy. Granted, we should be wise as to who we would actually put on such a list.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

Do you have an example of a law or rule that keeps certain people in power and puts others at a disadvantage?

[-] 2 points by Shule (1548) 1 year ago

Surely, you must be kidding. Which laws,rules, policies I'm referring to is pretty much everything Occupy is demonstrating against. A specific example; take for instance our present tax code, a part of which is known as the "Bush tax cuts", which dramatically allows the richest to pay proportionately less taxes than the average laborer in this country. Sure there are things a laborer can do to pay less taxes too, like start his own business, but the laborer is too busy laboring to figure that out. High taxes on the average guy and gal are keeping them forever behind the eight ball unable to catch up. Meanwhile the richest are laughing, and making more bucks than ever. That's just one example, there is much more.

By the way JP Morgan-Chase is up for Criminal investigation. It's mortgage division is up for wide spread fraud in many states. etc. I assure you the individuals I listed are not boy scouts.

http://bankster-gov-fraud.com/chase_wamu-lawsuits/ATTACHMENT%20P-corporate%20criminal.pdf

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

In what way does the present tax code keep certain people in power?

Since you mention the Bush tax cuts I assume you are talking about Federal income tax, the bottom 43% does not pay any federal income tax at all. In fact many in the bottom 30% receive money from the federal government.

I started saving when I was 13 years old. I had a paper route. I have worked hard ever since. I am not in the 1% but there is nothing in the tax code the prevented me from starting a business and growing it.

My understanding of OWS was that it was protesting the financial institutions that were reckless with their clients money and subsequently received a bail out form the tax payers and payed themselves bonuses. They then proceeded with what appeared to be an accelerated foreclosure process. "They got bailed out we got sold out"

Since then it seems that OWS has jumped on every protest out there and has pretty much been hijacked by unions. There seems to be an attempt by the Democratic party to infiltrate OWS as well.

Your link does not work.

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

Yep individuals in the corporations that are white collar criminals like the ones on WallStreet that have not been arrested or charged or prosecuted - yet. Go after the individual politicians that are openly working in favor of special interests in detriment to society the environment the world. Yep go after each and every asshole then make sure we have proper regulations in place and proper enforcement in action. Time to stop the culture of white collar crime. Time to stop the culture of profits over people. Time to stop the culture of paying slave wages.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Time for the sheep to stand up on two legs and kick the dishonorable members out of congress and replace them with ones who will represent the people only.

[-] 0 points by TheTeacher (0) 1 year ago

You don't expect a response from these idiots do you?

[-] 1 points by Shule (1548) 1 year ago

Not really, but I do wish somebody would help with a list.