Forum Post: Who do you think you are?
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 2, 2011, 10:37 p.m. EST by visceralrebellion
(69)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
My family earns far less than the $400,000 required to place us in the "1%." We don't even break six figures. Yet we are furious with the Occupy people.
How dare you presume to have our support? No one asked us to join you. No one attempted to persuade us to support your cause. No, you decided that we aren't individuals with our own viewpoints and perspectives. You decided that we are faceless, mindless lumps of flesh for use in your little crusade against. . ..well, something.
Not even the most contemptable corporation ever made such an assumption. Every corporation tries to convince us to purchase their product or service through marketing. Not a single corporation has ever said to our faces that due to our gross yearly income we are forced into taking their product whether we agree or not, though the one entity you completely ignore--government--is guilty of that behavior.
So to make it very clear: NO you do NOT have our family's support. NO you do NOT have our consent to speak on our behalf. NO we will NOT sit silent while you fraudulently claim to represent us.
This presumption has cost your "movement" dearly. I don't know a single soul who supports you, not those with liberal perspectives whom I thought would, not even the teenagers and young adults who have yet to grow beyond their "me, mine!" thought processes. Not one supports you and it's because not many people appreciate being reduced to an automaton in a stranger's private army.
You want our support? Try asking for it rather than trying to reduce us to slaves on your plantation. In the meantime, keep your claims of representation restricted to those who give you express permission.
Odd, I can think of many situations where corporations assumed people wanted their products. Has the coal industry ever asked the people whether they want their environment poisoned by lead? Some people might, but what of those "mindless lumps of flesh" who would rather keep their health and environmental integrity. Who do those corporations think they are - representing me with their destructive habits, never asking if I consented.
And if climate models are anything to go on, the decisions a few people have made - and more importantly, a few large government/corporations - will have effects that touch every living being on this planet. There was never any consensus on the decisions made by large oil, coal, and auto companies on the affects their decisions might have on people - they didn't give a shit.
Very Well said and presented brother.
I didn't say "assumed." I said forced. Not a single company anywhere can force you to give them money. Government, on the other hand, can and does.
Actually, the energy companies are a good example of a company that CAN force you to give them money. In my locale, they are a monopoly and it would be illegal to have a residence without electrical power or heat. And woodburning stoves wouldn't be allowed.
The health insurance companies will soon be forcing us to give them money, too, if the individual mandate portion of PPACA is not found unconstitutional.
And the bad thing is, we can vote for our government but we have little say in how power companies or insurance companies are run.
In my state the power companies used to be highly regulated, as was the phone company, so we had a say in their operation via our state govt reps.
The power utilities were de-regulated about 7 years ago and prices have gone up with no improvement in service.
You are anti-American. If you don't like paying taxes, move to a country with no infrastructure. There must be a nice little jungle waiting for you in Africa where no one will want to take any of your "hard earned" money, you know, from all that "hard work" you do analyzing businesses. And I'm pretty sure every penny your husband "earns" comes straight from this evil pool of money you don't think you have to contribute to because you should be able to live in this country you love for free, right?
Hey, do think that when big business brings the money that they have had in accounts out of this country back here and only pays 5.75 % tax when it should be 35% and the congress and the senate passed a bill to allow this to happen......oh I forgot obama he still has a student loan outstanding ah I mean ah the seat that he sits in that's it..he owes all of the big business's for where he is right now don't forget we voted all of them in office and they all have friends in big biz....pay all the tax you want I bet you won't get your dollars worth.
I'll pay as much tax as is necessary. The problem is that I don't believe my contribution is entirely necessary. Much of my tav money is wasted. I believe that a large majority of the problems discussed in this forum start and end with government. We as voters have allowed our politicians to act in their own best interest at the expense of the people. Corporations have taken advantage of the system because the system allows it. Politicians create the system. Voters empower politicians.
nobody is saying they don't want to pay taxes. the issue is how much is enough? so basically you are saying the bottom 45% of Americans are unpatriotic because they don't pay any federal income taxes.
They can't afford to pay anything because wealth has been redistributed to the top.
If they can't afford it, maybe it's because they chose not to go to college, or chose to major in something they're passionate about rather than something that's marketable.
There used to be jobs in this country. Now they're all in China. So the only way to make a living is to get some bullshit degree and sit on your ass in front of a computer crunching numbers the way you probably do? You think you're better than a lot of people, don't you? I bet your life is a joke. What do you do for a living?
No I don't but I think I'm better than a lot of people, but I do think you're close minded and ignorant to call someone selfish and hateful simply because they work at a bank. Maybe they have a family to support and simply look at it as a job. Maybe people who work at banks do things to help others, maybe even moreso than you. And to answer your question, I am a social worker. I went to college. I make a crappy salary, and I knew that going into it, so I take responsibility for that.
It's not simply because he works at a bank, he came here to this forum to call people he doesn't know lazy and jealous in some feeble attempt to undermine a movement that threatens his bullshit livelihood.
ah - so two societies - the tax payers & the tax payee's. hey - that's what we have now - whattayaknow !
Two societies, the rich and the poor, it's called feudalism. What do you for a living, I forget?
I work at a bank
Lackey for the rich.
happy lackey earning a living providing for my family. how about you?
Yep, I have a job and a family, but the difference between us is I care about other people and want to see change in this country, and you are selfish and hateful.
what right do you have to call someone selfish and hateful because they work for a bank? Why don't you call all the people who got greedy and borrowed huge amounts of money they could'nt afford to get a house they couldn't afford or people who decided to have kids they couldn't afford and milking the system for handouts selfish or people who party their life away and decide not to work hard to get a decent job and then expect handouts selfish? People need to take personal responsibility for some of the situations they've created rather than blame it on banks and rich people.
I care about people too. It's just I disagree with your method of "helping" them.
What wealth is that? Fact is wealth is already redistributed to the bottom from the top through the IRS.
That's ludicrous. The rich make their money off the backs of the poor and middle class. You support evil. What "hard work" do you do to "earn" your money?
Why do you care what I do? You are evil sir,filled with hatred.
Whatever you do, I am sure it will expose as a hypocrite, complicit in evil.
So you don't like being associated with the occupy movement. Is that really your only beef with the movement? Or is there more...
Why isn't this enough? I also have a huge beef with the infatuation of camping out that's taking over OWS. I've been to Zuccotti Park in person, and this is getting ridiculous. It's a miniature city now -- impressive if starting a commune in downtown Manhattan is your goal. That sure isn't mine. "Keeping the park" (or whatever encampment, wherever) is becoming the focus, probably because no one has articulated anything else that's a single rallying point. Probably my biggest gripe with OWS is that it's fixated on corporations when the anger should be directed at political figures who succumb to external pressures and gifts.
I couldn't agree more.
Amen!
It's the fact that the OWSers claim to represent me and my family when they DON'T. It's the attempt to force adherence to your individual opinion (since there's no official OWS position) using W-2s as the criteria that supposedly include me in your ranks whether I CHOOSE to join or not.
You are a whiner.
Such eloquence in describing and defending your position. Tell me, how many years did you spend in college developing that rapier wit? /sarc
Thank goodness there are a couple of people on this board who both align with OWS and are sufficiently intelligent to elaborate on their positions without behaving like twelve year olds.
But you'd run them over.
???
Thanks for trying but you apparently have nothing to add.
I was just joking. I have been looking for someone to use that one on...
I think you will find my opinions quite lucid.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-occupation-is-not-about-redistribution-of-weal/
And the winner of the Irony Award is...
LOL! You must be very angry all the time.
If you are enslaved by a slogan made by group of people attacking corruption and fraud that is kind of sad.
You are probably one of those that sat around complaining about women's suffrage, the civil rights movement ect... but today would never admit it.
You'll do the same if this succeeds.
I am pretty angry that a mob of drunks, etc. have taken over a part of town that I used to frequent but now don't because I don't want to be raped, mugged, or murdered. Yeah, that hacks me off.
I get angry when people try to subsume me into a mindless, faceless mob based on nothing but our W-2.
Other than that, I couldn't care less what you do.
If you honestly believe that by trashing cities you're going to "succeed" you are either incredibly immature or delusional.
Now you are liar.
I am sure Chris Hedges and Naomi Klein are just waiting for you to show up and gang bang you.
The city isn't being trashed. It isn't a collective of drunk rapists.
You almost had a point earlier, but now you are just a fucking retard.
Oakland wasn't trashed? Really? Mobs didn't stop traffic and try to dictate who could proceed? That happens in Somalia--warlords are known for it--NOT in the US.
You haven't a clue where I am or what the group locally is doing. Nice try but your telepathy is a fail.
Perhaps some of the folks here can converse rationally. You obviously aren't one of them.
They were mad in Oakland, because an innocent kid was shot in the face, but you would have just run him over, so you can't understand why they were angry. You only get angry if someone wants you to pay taxes to support the country you live comfortably in.
Don't call a group of people drunks and rapists.
You are either a liar or profoundly stupid. It has to be one of the two if you make those claims.
visceralrebellion was wrong in calling the group drunks and rapists. She forgot to add that some are public masturbators, literally and metaphorically.
And you only masturbate in private.
Yes. I think masturbation is natural and enjoyable, but I feel it should remain a private practice. You could argue that I'm prudish, however I believe it is important to respect others by giving them the freedom to make use of masturbation-free public areas. That being said, I will always fight for your right to bring the matter to court and challenge the current status quo. Perhaps certain areas could be reserved for the practice? This would enable you to masturbate publicly while still respecting the city's citizens? Would that be an acceptable compromise?
There was no public masturbation, it is right wing propaganda meant to distract the public and discredit the movement. How do you feel about the children that were molested at those tea party rallies?
Molesting children is a horrible thing. Asking your protestors not to report rape incidences is also a horrible thing. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Look how gullible you are.
I watched a video last night from one of the OWS protesters explaining what was going on in Zuccotti. She admitted there were rapes, and that organizers were asking them not to report it.
How dare us? YOU WROTE THE DAMN POST. If you feel so threatened by this movement go start your own revolution!!! There are people here that are struggling to get by! "I don't know a single soul who supports you" Yet, you're here and you've seen the news I'm sure? So get off your high horse and leave us do the work while you sit and watch your t.v. talking about Kim Kardashian's failed marriage; as I'm sure that's what you'd rather look at and be perfectly content in your rat race job. Your type is half the problem. If you want solutions, again, put your ass on the front line like these brave people are.
I'm here because I gather information for myself. Aren't you people ticked off over the media coverage? Don't you want people to hear it from you directly?
I've read through this forum and I disagree with 99% of what is posted. Of course, according to you anyone who doesn't fall in line with YOUR thinking is some gossip-reading twat. Good luck with that approach.
"I disagree with 99% of what is posted" -You've made NO SENSE in that sentiment. Get off the forum if you don't agree. Right? If you're not agreeing with what's here, then this probably isn't the place for you/the forum for you. It's that simple. There are a lot of people here that do agree with the founding and continuing principals centered around this movement. I don't think you're a gossip reading twat, just lazy and perhaps you don't want to get off your chair and hold a sign for a few hours. And more power to you in that case.
Do or do you not want people to come here and read from your own fingers your positions? You people cannot continue to claim that you're being misrepresented yet don't want others who disagree with you, or who want more intelligent discussion, on your board.
Make up your minds already.
Yeah, make up your minds before she runs you over. Then go get a job so your taxes can pay her husband's salary.
You clearly don't know many people.
And what a dumbass comparison with slaves on a plantation. You just want to feel like a victim, so you can be angry.
Sadass.
I can't seem to remember!
Dementia is a bitch.
Dearest visceralrebellion,
We are not left nor right. We see thru the corruption...
We are the future ... you tells us to get out of the park, to get a job, to go home. Well ... there are no jobs and we have no home.
You lived high off the hog ... gamed the system ... enjoyed the spoil of the Keynesian bubble. And you have left us with unimaginable debt and unemployment.
No. We are not the Left or the Right ... we are the future, your children. And the battle lines are being drawn. I know where I stand. And I will not ask you to join us ... but just to stand with us.
With hands held high into a sky so blue ...
We are Anonymous. We are Legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us.
Sorry, I will never join or stand with Anonymous. I will literally die before that happens.
I don't live "high off the hog." I live like any other normal person.
You are completely off base. Try actually listening to our concerns instead of the propaganda that big business and the wealthy are spreading about us. First, our concern is the wealth redistribution that has gone on for the past 30 years. With the loss of the high marginal tax rate and unions, middle class wages stagnated, wages were replaced with easy credit, corporate profits boomed, and executive compensation exploded.
In the 1950's the highest marginal tax rate was 90%. If you made over $2 million in today's dollars, you were taxed at 90% on every dollar above $2 million. This created s disincentive to pay out all of the corporate profits at the top. The marginal tax rate has been disappearing for over 30 years. In the 1970's it dropped to 70%, in the 1980's it dropped to 49%, in the 1990's it dropped to 39%, and in the 2000's to a meager 36%. Likewise, Capital gains taxes (on stock earnings) have dropped to a mere 12%.
As the marginal tax dropped and unions disappeared, there was no disincentive to paying out all of the corporate profits to the few at the top and the shareholders. Executive salaries have ballooned 275% since 1980.
The problem is that the middle class is the economic engine of the economy. The middle class needs either wages or easy credit to keep the spending engine humming. But, the middle class spent their wealth on goods and services and the corporations redistributed into the hands of the few. The middle class worked harder and harder to try to gain more wealth and saw no increase in wages.
The middle class had to survive by taking on more and more debt and the corporations had to make credit easier to keep the spending humming since the middle class wages were stagnating. The problem is that the middle class can only take on so much debt before they start defaulting.
So, you should be worried about these problems. The middle class can only be squeezed so tightly before everything collapses. It is unsustainable for the top 10% to now have 70% of the entire nation's wealth and the bottom 50% have 2% of the entire nation's wealth. This is the real wealth redistribution.
Thank you for pointing out that wealth redisribution was happening in the other direction for the past thirty years! Excellent point. It would be nice to just set it back to before the 1% started redistributing the wealth of the middle class up to them.
We are the 99% is meant to suggest that the 1% in wealth should not hold such an overwhelming portion of political power, it is meant to be a statement that it is inexcusable for the top 1% to have laws passed to make things easier for them and harder for the rest of us, and it is meant to point out how much advantage the 1% have continually received over the last few decades. They do not mean to say that you are with them, what they mean to say is that they are with you. That they want to give you your voice and authority back, because, in the mind of ows, it has been drowned out by the power and influence of corporations and the ultra-wealthy.
an interesting point strongly made - would you support a "movement" that meant: i care about manking and the world my children will inherit? one that re-evaluated the political-social-economic model and suggested a wellbeing-oriented alternative? one that suggested that as people improve their wellbeing, you'll see profound political, social and econmic consequences. a movement that's backed by a acclaimed illustrated novel that introduces a symbol called the tocamu that can be regarded as both an educational tool and timely alternative to the peace sign. if any of this makes sense, check out tocamu.com. here's the link to the summary (there's lots more on the website & this is catching on...): http://www.tocamu.com/?page_id=4001
If you really like to change things, please click the following link and start a campaign to get millions to sign it......Thanks.
http://www.change.org/petitions/members-of-congress-and-senators-fix-the-economy-and-balance-the-budget-now?pe=d4e
@visceralrebellion During the first American Revolution, there weren't allot of people asking for the permission of the British Loyalists..
All of us, including you, got robbed by Wall Street in 2008...No one asked permission...
The people of OWS are protesting this violation of justice and trust..So should you.
"Try asking for it rather than trying to reduce us to slaves on your plantation." Yes I agree...I want to by a slave on the plantation of my choosing!
"I don't know a single soul who supports you, not those with liberal perspectives whom I thought would, not even the teenagers and young adults who have yet to grow beyond their "me, mine!" thought processes."
Yea, I don't know anyone either who supports this, mainly because I live alone in the country on a 13 acre ranch and the only one I know that has these so called liberal tendencies is my dog. I'm trying to fix this by not feeding him anymore...Get a job, you mutt.
What are liberal perspectives anyway? YOU might actually be more liberal than you think..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
You might want to actually research what OWS stands for rather than watching to news before assuming that you disagree.
Force Change, Boycott Capitalism
We know what the problem is, let us fix it and move forward together.
When you look at a republican or democrat, congress or FDA official, Judges and Justice Department, you see criminals.
Our corruption dates back many years to when those, who in trying to preserve slavery, had to find new ways to preserve it and so created a scientific and advanced form of slavery.
Only two components were required -- the illusion of freedom & choice and the taking away of the freedom to live off the land.
How else would you get a person to submit themselves to mind numbing or degrading work unless you oppress them into it.
Our current system is rooted in corruption and every attempt in preserving it involves manipulating human thought and turning people against one another.
In America the population has been transformed into two major voting groups but they only have one choice.
They had been distracted up until now with television and American culture which prospered through the oppression of other nations.
Americans allowed themselves to be fooled into using their military and economic dominance to seize resources of other nations and create expanding markets for American profiteers.
Now that technology, competition and conscience have evolved Americans are realizing that our current system of government is damaging and unsustainable.
Our government officials have allowed private profits and personal benefits to influence decisions that affect the health and well-being of people all over the planet, not just in America... how much longer will we allow them to rule over us??
Occupy Washington and demand that government officials resign their posts.
We will setup new online elections with a verification system that will allow us to see our votes after we cast them, put our new officials in office and work toward rebuilding our country and our world.
Pass this message along to any and everyone, we already occupy the world, unite.
Occupy Washington, Boycott Capitalism, Force Change -- http://wesower.org
get over yourself! you're just another knucklehead out there.
This is what the masses seem unable to grasp:
If we replace our current leaders with human beings, they will sell out just as far as the current bunch. Our leaders weren't born sold out. Wall Street executives weren't born evil. They were born human. With a natural instinct to gather and store for survival. A natural instinct to care for family and community.
When modern society was formed, we began to sell out our natural instincts. Survival turned into survival with a little more elbow room. Then survival with a little more elbow room and a nice view. Then survival with a little more elbow room, a nice view, and something pretty to hang around our neck.
Fast forward a few thousand years. With the industrial revolution came mechanized transportation, air conditioning, and television.
We had become somewhat spoiled. Somewhat motivated. Still relatively down to Earth. Still modest enough to appreciate one another, care for one another, and work towards a common goal.
Along the way, the potential for increased personal wealth became more and more intoxicating. Now, just about everyone wants to be rich. They want it so badly, they are willing to sell out basic morality to attain it. They WILL sell out basic morality if given the opportunity.
How can I be so sure? That's easy. Human nature plus years of corrupt influence plus opportunity.
Mother Nature did not plan for modern society. She did not plan on such corrupt influence. She never intended for any of us to seek or attain extreme personal wealth. We simply can not process the concept without being corrupted by it. Without compromising basic morality.
Extreme wealth is the single greatest corrupt influence of modern society. With every 'zero' on the paycheck, our basic instincts to care for family and community are compromised.
Those of you who still aren't convinced, consider this:
If God himself gave you the power to end poverty, bring about world peace, and take a bonus of $100,000,000 for yourself, would you do it?
If God himself gave you the power to end poverty, bring about world peace, OR take a bonus of $100,000,000 for yourself, which would you choose?
Not only is the greatest concentration of wealth in world history the single greatest underlying cause of economic instability. The very concept of extreme personal wealth is the most corrupt influence in the history of mankind.
I speak the ugly truth.
There will be no reform on Wall Street.
There will be no recovery for the vast majority.
There will be no government "of the people" and "for the people".
Not one of us will live to see it.
God damn it. You die hard winner take all bloodthirsty capitalists and filthy rich pigs absolutely refuse to understand the following: First, that record high charges in health care, energy, and finance also mean record high profits and record high dividends. 40% of which are paid to the richest one percent. This causes more hardship and more concentration of wealth. At the same time, more financial aid in the form of welfare, Medicare, and Medicaid becomes necessary. Especially with those record high charges and profits. As even more wealth is concentrated, the lower majority go into debt and lose their relative buying power. This results in less demand, layoffs, and higher unemployment. This results in even more legitimate need for financial aid, a slower economy, less revenue, and higher national debt. It's a downward cycle tied directly to the relentless concentration of wealth.
I'm not making excuses for those who sit on the couch, make no attempt to find work, and sponge off the government. I'm not calling for a welfare state. But God damn it. You die hard conservatives and filthy rich pigs need to stop being such cowards, open your god damn eyes, and finally admit that there is a downside as more and more wealth becomes concentrated.
The richest one percent now own 40 percent of all United States wealth. The lower 80 percent now own less than 10 percent of all United States wealth. This is true even after you account for all taxes, charity, and financial aid. This equation becomes more obscene when you account for nearly two trillion in consumer debt which is owed primarily by the lower 90 percent. Mark my words: this equation will get worse.
THERE IS A DOWNSIDE AS YOU GET RICHER AND RICHER!
A word for my critics: I'm no expert but I'm no fool. I predicted this socio-economic crisis in writing 6 years ago. I'm aware of all the conservative and liberal talking points. Of course, I hate politicians. But I don't hate liberals or conservatives. I agree with both on some issues. For example: I agree that we need an adequate safety net for those in need. Not for those who sit on the couch and watch TV.I agree with tax cuts for small business. But not for Wall Street and not for those making $500,000 and up. A heavy concentration of wealth is what got us here. A gradual and partial redistribution of wealth is vital.
I don't want socialism, communism, or marxism. I want modest capitalism. A reasonable scale of income opportunity for all those willing and able to work. An adequate safety net for those in need.
A word for the rich: I have received quite a bit of negative feedback from you one percent club pigs. I must be doing something right. After all, you took time away from your money bath just for me. You might want to check your ass crack for soggy bills. In the meantime, let me just say this for the record:
You can't intimidate me. You can't embarrass me. You can't make me feel uneducated, unintelligent, or otherwise insignificant. You can't confuse me. You can't divert my attention. You can't exhaust me and you sure as hell can't break my will. I know I'm getting to you because you're here with another lame psychological trick. You're here in an attempt to shut me up. It won't work. I've had it with all of you.
I won't break any laws. I would never discredit the cause with a criminal act. But I'm telling you right now that I'm virtually impossible to stop. It's a big world and I have a lot to say. If you want to break my will, you're going to have to break my neck first.
If you pull a stunt like that, a lot of people will know what happened to me and why.
Now get out of my face. I have work to do.
The following is my response to a one percenter who felt that I was too angry to reason with:
Again, you absolutely refuse to acknowledge the primary issue. The single greatest underlying cause. This relentless concentration of wealth and resources has gone virtually uninterrupted for 35 Years now. That's half a lifetime. It started slowly in the mid '70's and accelerated under Reagan. It slowed under Clinton and accelerated again under Bush. Overall, its taken place under both Democratic and Republican rule. Now, it's at record levels. There is not one shred of evidence to suggest that it might reverse anytime soon. Not one shred. Its gone too God damn far. Period. Way too God damn far. That's not simple ideology. It's simple math. An absolute deal breaker.
I'm lower middle class but I'm OK with that. Its where I belong. Its where I feel comfortable. I have no dependents. I'm in perfect health. I'm doing fine. I'm not here for myself. I'm here for millions who struggle to make ends meet. Especially those who are trying to raise families under this record high cost of living. I'm not making excuses for their irresponsible spending habits but I am well aware of their hardship. Whats been happening for 35 years now is a profound injustice. An outrage. Meanwhile, you get even richer reducing their relative buying power in the process. I'm absolutely convinced that it's going to get worse.
So when you sit there and tell me that I should be willing to enter into a "meaningful discussion" with you, after 35 years of injustice from which you benefit and they lose, it's sort of like a rapist trying to negotiate with me over just how much my mother should bleed. The answer is 'no'. Stop concentrating so much God damn wealth. No? That's what I thought. Therefore, I have no choice but to persecute you and the rich in general until the lower 90 percent of Americans own a reasonable share of United States wealth. Until, you let go of your incredible greed. Until you have a little less and they have enough to get by in relative comfort. They God damn well deserve it.
They did every bit as much as your bunch have to build this country. They built our roads, built our furniture, built our homes, taught our children, fought our fires, caught the criminals, picked up the garbage, fixed our cars, and fought our wars. Many gave their lives in the process. They God damn well deserve more than 10 percent of our nation's wealth. THEY GOD DAMN WELL DESERVE IT!
So don't you even try to negotiate with me unless you're willing to start with an admission that they deserve more than 10 percent of our nation's wealth. A lot more. If you are willing to admit that, then we can talk about 'growing the pie'. But don't even try to feed me some BS about a rising tide lifting all ships. It's not that simple and it never will be until you filthy rich pigs grow a spine and admit that it hasn't for the last 35 God damn years. Any growth must benefit the lower 90 percent more than it benefits you. A lot more. Otherwise, no deal.
I never said that the relentless concentration of wealth was the only factor driving up national debt. Of course, there are other factors. But if you are not willing to admit the COW as one factor, then you are a coward and a liar.
Of course, the corporations have rigged the system. But the corporations are run primarily by the richest one percent. Most members of congress are the richest one percent. Lobbyists, investors, bankers, developers, ect. All members of the one percent club. The motive is greed. Always greed. It's not the system. It's the people running the system. The rich. It's their motive. Greed. God damn spoiled rotten black hearted greed. Whatever takes to get more of our money. Whatever it takes to concentrate more wealth in their favor. Admit, that and maybe we can have a "meaningful discussion". No? That's what I thought.
The root cause sure as hell is the COW. Getting fatter by the day. The process in which that COW gets fatter. The intention to get fatter at our expense. GREED.
You're willing to pay more taxes? Enough to reverse the concentration of wealth for a few years? Bullshit. Your club lobbied for the current tax structure. Loaded with loopholes. Nothing but a room full of smoke and mirrors in which you get richer and the lower 90 percent get poorer. It's not the system. It's the people running the system. The richest one percent. Your club hired the corporate lobbyist. Not ours. Your club did do with one primary goal. To get even richer. To concentrate even more US wealth. To win the game.
If your club wants me to believe for one second that you want unity, then you must be willing to settle for less. At least until the lower 90 percent own a reasonable share of this nation's bottom line wealth. THEY GOD DAMN WELL DESERVE IT!
No? That's what I thought. No deal.
We have been mislead by Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr, Obama, and nearly every other public figure. Economic growth, job creation, and actual prosperity are not necessarily a package deal. In fact, the first two are horribly misunderstood. Economic growth/loss (GDP) is little more than a measure of domestic wealth changing hands. A transfer of currency from one party to another. The rate at which it is traded. This was up until mid ’07′ however, has never been a measure of actual prosperity. Neither has job creation. The phrase itself has been thrown around so often, and in such a generic political manner, that it has come to mean nothing. Of course, we need to have certain things done for the benefit of society as a whole. We need farmers, builders, manufacturers, transporters, teachers, cops, firefighters, soldiers, mechanics, sanitation workers, doctors, managers, and visionaries. Their work is vital. I’ll even go out on a limb and say that we need politicians, attorneys, bankers, investors, and entertainers. In order to keep them productive, we must provide reasonable incentives. We need to compensate each by a fair measure for their actual contributions to society. We need to provide a reasonable scale of income opportunity for every independent adult, every provider, and share responsibility for those who have a legitimate need for aid. In order to achieve and sustain this, we must also address the cost of living and the distribution of wealth. Here, we have failed miserably. The majority have already lost their home equity, their financial security, and their relative buying power. The middle class have actually lost much of their ability to make ends meet, re-pay loans, pay taxes, and support their own economy. The lower class have gone nearly bankrupt. In all, its a multi-trillion dollar loss taken over about 30 years. Millions are under the impression that we need to create more jobs simply to provide more opportunity. as if that would solve the problem. It won’t. Not by a longshot. Jobs don’t necessarily create wealth. In fact, they almost never do. For the mostpart, they only transfer wealth from one party to another. A gain here. A loss there. Appreciation in one community. Depreciation in another. In order to create net wealth, you must harvest a new resource or make more efficient use of one. Either way you must have a reliable and ethical system in place to distribute that newly created wealth in order to benefit society as a whole and prevent a lagging downside. The ‘free market’ just doesn’t cut it. Its a farce. Many of the jobs created are nothing but filler. The promises empty. Sure, unemployment reached an all-time low under Bush. GDP reached an all-time high. But those are both shallow and misleading indicators. In order to gauge actual prosperity, you must consider the economy in human terms. As of ’08′ the average American was working more hours than the previous generation with far less equity to show for it. Consumer debt, forclosure, and bankruptcy were also at all-time highs. As of ’08′, every major American city was riddled with depressed communities, neglected neighborhoods, failing infrastructures, lost revenue, and gang activity. All of this has coincided with massive economic growth and job creation. Meanwhile, the rich have been getting richer and richer and richer even after taxes. Our nation’s wealth has been concentrated. Again, this represents a multi-trillion dollar loss taken by the majority. Its an absolute deal breaker. Bottom line: With or without economic growth or job creation, you must have a system in place to prevent too much wealth from being concentrated at the top. Unfortunately, we don’t. Our economy has become nothing but a giant game of Monopoly. The richest one percent of Americans already own 40% of all US wealth. An all-time high. More than double their share before Reagan took office. Still, they want more. They absolutely will not stop. Now, our society as a whole is in serious jeapordy. Greed kills.
Those of you who agree on these major issues are welcome to summarize this post, copy it, link to it, save it, show a friend, or spread the word in any fashion. Most major cities have daily call-in talk radio shows. You can reach thousands of people at once. They should know the ugly truth. Be sure to quote the figures which prove that America's wealth is still being concentrated. I don't care who takes the credit. We are up against a tiny but very powerful minority. The rich have more influence on the masses than any other group in history. They have the means to reach millions at once with outrageous political and commercial propaganda. Those of us who speak the ugly truth must work incredibly hard just to be heard.
The ugly truth. America's wealth is STILL being concentrated. When the rich get too rich, the poor get poorer. These latest figures prove it. AGAIN.
According to the Social Security Administration, 50 percent of U.S. workers made less than $26,364 in 2010. In addition, those making less than $200,000, or 98 percent of Americans, saw their earnings fall by $4.5 billion collectively.
The sobering numbers were a far cry from what was going on for the richest one percent of Americans.
The incomes of the top one percent of the wage scale in the U.S. rose in 2010; and their collective wage earnings jumped by $120 billion. In addition, those earning at least $1 million a year in wages, which is roughly 93,000 Americans, reported payroll income jumped 22 percent from 2009. Overall, the economy has shed 5.2 million jobs since the start of the Great Recession in 2007. It’s the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression in the 1930’s.
Another word about the first Great Depression. It really was a perfect storm. Caused almost entirely by greed. First, there was unprecedented economic growth. There was a massive building spree. There was a growing sense of optimism and materialism. There was a growing obsession for celebrities. The American people became spoiled, foolish, naive, brainwashed, and love-sick. They were bombarded with ads for one product or service after another. Encouraged to spend all of their money as if it were going out of style. Obscene profits were hoarded at the top. In 1928, the rich were already way ahead. Still, they were given huge tax breaks. All of this represented a MASSIVE transfer of wealth from poor to rich. Executives, entrepreneurs, developers, celebrities, and share holders. By 1929, America's wealthiest 1 percent had accumulated around 40% of all United States wealth. The upper class held around 30%. The middle and lower classes were left to share the rest. When the majority finally ran low on money to spend, profits declined and the stock market crashed.
Of course, the rich threw a fit and started cutting jobs. They would stop at nothing to maintain their disgusting profit margins and ill-gotten obscene levels of wealth as long as possible. The small business owners did what they felt necessary to survive. They cut more jobs. The losses were felt primarily by the little guy. This created a domino effect. The middle class shrunk drastically and the lower class expanded. With less wealth in reserve and active circulation, banks failed by the hundreds. More jobs were cut. Unemployment reached 25% in 1933. The worst year of the Great Depression. Those who were employed had to settle for much lower wages. Millions went cold and hungry. The recovery involved a massive infusion of new currency, a World War, and higher taxes on the rich. With so many men in the service, so many women on the production line, and those higher taxes to help pay for it, the lions share of United States wealth was gradually transfered back to the middle class. This redistribution of wealth continued until the mid seventies. This was the recovery. A massive redistribution of wealth. Then it began to concentrate all over again. Here we are 35 years later. The richest one percent now own 40 percent of all US wealth. The lower 80 percent own less than 10 percent of all US wealth. This is true even after taxes, welfare, financial aid, and charity. It is the underlying cause. No redistribution. No recovery.
The government won't step in and do what's necessary. Not this time. It's up to us. Support small business more and big business less. Support the little guy more and the big guy less. It's tricky but not impossible.
No redistribution. No recovery.
Those of you who agree on these major issues are welcome to summarize this post, copy it, link to it, save it, show a friend, or spread the word in any fashion. Most major cities have daily call-in talk radio shows. You can reach thousands of people at once. They should know the ugly truth. Be sure to quote the figures which prove that America's wealth is still being concentrated. I don't care who takes the credit. We are up against a tiny but very powerful minority who have more influence on the masses than any other group in history. They have the means to reach millions at once with outrageous political and commercial propaganda. Those of us who speak the ugly truth must work incredibly hard just to be heard.
If no one supports this movement, as you claim, why go through the trouble to sign up and post here? Yeah, that's what I thought ;)
My My. All the vitriol. I'm 60. Been working since i was 15. Often 2 jobs. Sometimes 3. Wife and i have 9 children. Those of you who are protesting the distruction of your future can definitely speak for me. My future is shot. Can't stop working to join you. Well not till it all comes to a screeching halt. Instead am putting a large garden in play, to hopefully feed as many neighbours as i can that just don't see the train wreck coming. There can be no political solution as long as every election is two wolves and a sheep, deciding what's for lunch.
My My. All the vitriol. I'm 60. Been working since i was 15. Often 2 jobs. Sometimes 3. Wife and i have 9 children. Those of you who are protesting the distruction of your future can definitely speak for me. My future is shot. Can't stop working to join you. Well not till it all comes to a screeching halt. Instead am putting a large garden in play, to hopefully feed as many neighbours as i can that just don't see the train wreck coming. There can be no political solution as long as every election is two wolves and a sheep, deciding what's for lunch.
Yikes!! Lighten up. I have not chosen to support this movement either, but you seem to be going a bit strong on the metaphors. "automaton in a stranger's private army"..."slaves on your plantation". You seem unreasonably angry. What is the real source of this ire? Seriously...there must be another point you want to make.
Hear Ye !
i, like, yelled at people in a park in 1968...never finished college...bitched in the 70's...took a few odd jobs in the 80's...tried christianity, then buddhism again, then wicca, then chrsitinity again...drank some more...tried to kill myself. Now, I think I can offer you guidance, even though my peers from '68 control me because i am a weak failure and still blame others for my issues.
Good Day visceralrebellion,
I have been reading over the comments on this thread since yesterday, and I have an observation I would like to share. I do not understand why there seems to be hairsplitting over who is or is not represented by the 99ers. I would think that if you choose not to be part of the movement you do not have to be. Why obsess over it? Move on!!!
Metoo, it's a foundational issue. By making such a claim the claimant is saying that I have no choice in the matter. By making such a claim I am rendered less than an individual. That is simply wrong in my opinion.
I don't allow people to make choices for me. I have long made my own choices in life and I refuse to allow that right to be taken from me by anyone for any reason.
Hope that helps clarify my position.
Agreed, wholeheartedly. OWS has not taken the time, initiative or political courage to actually stand for something other than numbers. The energy is fantastic, but a room full of rabid gerbils is just as energetic with about the same result...nothing.
How many OWS rallies have you attended?
If you aren't one of the people who own most of the world, and have subverted democracy to keep it that way, then you needn't fear OWS. Also, you have a perfect right to your opinion; nobody is saying otherwise.
I think maybe you should consider whether your worldview is primarily based upon fear and insecurity, and if it is, try to get beyond that. It cannot lead to to a meaningful life.
Hmm, really interesting.
"99%" is symbolic though and I and many others are totally fine with that symbolism. Actually, I slightly felt the same at first. But your comments appear to be as a negative outsider with a fairly false impression and assumption. Unlike you, I went ahead and looked into it further and did not make an assumption. An assumption that might prevent YOU and your eloquent writing skills from making a positive difference with the democratic platform, stage and positive force that this movement is and will provide for this nation. Do you not agree there are serious problems--problems we can and should fix??? And if not THIS movement, where? Elections? Really??? I dont think so. Not with the current system. The Tea Party. Really??? The status quo?? No way!!!! Just complain?? Not me--anymore! So, for the common people who care and initiated action, this movement has started and has very respectfully, fairly and unselfishly established a venue, a platform, a process for any common person (Heck, even a venue for the 1%) to engage, to discuss, to learn, to contemplate and to plan for NEEDED CHANGE. This is a movement for the majority of average, hard-working Americans. People of ALL walks of life. What is the exact percent? I dont know and I dont care. It IS the majority though. Does it add up to 99%? I am sure it does not. But it has started, it has roots, it IS growing, it is GOOD, it is positive, it is needed, it is OPEN to you and anyone else interested. So go ahead and create your negative, cynical website to reduce the 99%. Whatever that figure will be is the percent of us who care and will do SOMETHING. And I assure you that you, your family, your community, your business and others will benefit from the coming change. So please try to help and not hurt the cause.
But, unfortunately there are people like you, Visceralrebellion, who will not join in this effort, and will likely try to counter the efforts--whether they are the so-called 1% or not. They will refuse for whatever reason. But I personally invite you to look further. Look beyond any propaganda, any regretful instances of some going too far, or saying stupid things, etc. The extremes will be diluted and balanced. This is democracy, there are many angry and passionate folks, but the underlying objective is what counts. It amazes me the minor issues you and a few of your cheerleaders cite as being reasons to discount this effort.
Forgive me for closing with a crass but good slogan I have seen and liked at the rallies full of wonderful people of all walks of life--including people like you.
GIVE A SH*T!
"Honey, I know I have to pay for food for the kids and heat the home, but I think that our priorty should be to go create an ironic conceptual art piece. This, I'm pretty sure, will solve the world's problems."
By virtue of your self-proclaimed economic status, you are by definition part of the 99% whether you like it or not.
And yes, you were (and are) invited to join.
FYI, the term "99%" refers to statistical facts of income inequality. By your own definition, you do belong to the 99% by virtue of your (lack of) income.
Thank you for your non-support. Should you lose your job or for any reason change your mind, you are welcome to constructively participate in a true democratic society in which every voice is heard and respected.
Have a nice day.
You are furious......Really?
Nice, you don't even know. From there stems your anger. You can't force everyone to work and you can't take their jobs away when they do.. they lose their homes and belongings.
You have income? Great... but for how much longer. We didn't break this country... we plan to fix it. You don't want a part of that, fine.
Following green slime in hopes for it to keep you alive... good luck. Their method is slavery, the new method is true freedom in this country.
If you haven't noticed.... your own city isn't free.
Nice, you don't even know. From there stems your anger. You can't force everyone to work and you can't take their jobs away when they do.. they lose their homes and belongings.
You have income? Great... but for how much longer. We didn't break this country... we plan to fix it. You don't want a part of that, fine.
Following green slime in hopes for it to keep you alive... good luck. Their method is slavery, the new method is true freedom in this country.
If you haven't noticed.... your own city isn't free.
Hi. I must have missed where anyone "fraudulently claimed to represent" you. Perhaps you have an actual quotation?
Please see the comments on this thread. It's there, in addition to Youtube, other threads here, etc.
So, no actual quotation.
See below.
"My point is in my first post: no one is speaking for the threads author, and the issues of the movement are issues that affect us all. That person is free to disagree, but disagreeing does not change what is fact: he she is part of the 99%."
I'm sure this is difficult to believe but I have things to do, I cannot run right back and answer your specific question when YOU are ready for it.
99% means the people who are not the richest one percent. You are in the bottom 99%. Now go analyze some businesses.
Apparently you have the time to explain how you're not going to answer my question, but you don't have the time to answer my question.
Time must work differently for you than it does for me.
I just gave you the quote from below. That's what the " " means. Sheesh.
That is not someone claiming to represent you. That is someone saying, and I quote "no one is speaking for the threads author". That is someone specifically saying in so many words that s/he is not speaking for you.
Keep reading.
"disagreeing does not change what is fact: he she is part of the 99%"
And you are. You said so yourself. I quote:
You are one of the 99%, according to you. And the person who explicitly said in so many words: "no one is speaking for the threads author" was not claiming to speak for you. In fact s/he was saying the exact opposite.
Be careful, she might try to run you over! Wait, are you trying to carjack her?
Simple question: Do you make less than $400,000? Yes? Than you are a part of the 99% that makes less than $400,000. Thankyou, have a good day.
Are you saying that the amount on our W-2s mean that we MUST agree with your political and socioeconomic positions?
Wow you're dumb. No, they're saying that the amount on your W2 indicates you are not in the richest one percent, you just analyze their businesses.
Not at all. I'm simply saying, that if 99% of people make less than $400,000, and if your W-2 < $400,000, then you are part of that 99%. Just statistics. You don't have to agree with what the protestors are saying, but know they are saying they represent everyone of a certain income level.
You're contradicting yourself. Either you believe that their positions are mine ("EVERYONE of a certain income level") or that I can disagree wholeheartedly regardless of my income. Please explain, I don't quite understand what you're saying.
I am not contradicting myself at all. Math wasn't your strong subject I'm guessing? The 99% doesn't mean 99% of people with a certain belief or anything. 99% stands for the 99% below a certain income level. Everyone here has different beliefs on what they are protesting for. The only thing that truly is similar in ALL of us is our income level.
Actually, math IS my strong suit, as is reading. Thank you for the explanation.
If we're going to work off of pure mathematics, your group cannot possible claim to be "THE 99%." I'm guessing you are at most the 5%, though I cannot find any substantiated numbers regarding just how many people are actively involved in your group, hence it's a guess.
Thanks again for the explanation.
"...they are saying they represent everyone of a certain income level."
This is exactly visceralrebellion's point. She doesn't want others to represent her, she can represent herself.
I make far less than that, please read the post. And no, I refuse to be subsumed into your group. That was the point of my post.
You are a statistic. You make less than $400,000, like 99% of people. Therefore, you are part of the 99% that makes less than $400,000. Until you make more than $400,000, you will continue to be part of the 99% that makes less than $400,000.
OK, your out, we'll call ourselves the 98.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 %
waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Um no, everyone is pretty clear when they are interviewed to say I only represent the opinion s of myself we intentionally have no leader so that everyone can voice there opinion. I am happy to hear your opinion as I was wondering why people are still against the movement. I will do my best to only speak for myself. If you start engaging in the discussions on this forum you will find that people here have mor ein common with you than you think. I was surprised to find like mided people as I am pretty much a moderate, I appologize if you feel you have been misrepresented. I urge you to make your voice heard. What is it about the current situation in America that you don't like, and how would you suggest fixing it. This is a place for discussing differeing concerns. We are not crazy liberals, most people I have met are willing to have an honest discussion about differeing ways to proceed. I think we can all agree that something is wrong in this country and change needs to happen. So please voice your concerns, I think you will be surprised with how many people will listen.
Thank you, WarmItUp, for your decency and willingness to engage with those who disagree. Far too many here, both on this thread and on others, speak like spoiled twelve year olds.
I specified my issues in a reply further down in the thread. Please do read it and let's have a real adult conversation.
Thanks again!
visceralrebellion, I think we can infer that the people who named the movement think that having 1% of the population owning 40% of the wealth of a country is not the best way to organize society.
Do you think they are wrong in that judgement?
Please keep in mind that the condition is caused by the tax code and not the laws of nature.
Please see my response to your original post.
Additionally, the top X% will always "have" the most as long as there is any freedom whatsoever in this country. It's a result of human nature that can only be stopped by totalitarianism.
Did you not read my post. The current percentage is directly due to the tax code.
I think the issues is the unfair taking by the wealthy.
I disagree. Those people have what they have in spite of the tax code, same as I. Would you please post an example of the tax code that takes money from, say, me and gives that sum to, say, Warren Buffett? Hopefully an example will makes things clearer. Thanks in advance.
visceralrebellion, you are arguing with a group of people that see the rich as thieves. They believe that the 1% got their money through theft of the poor. They believe that the only way to be rich is to cheat, steal or rob it, so the 1% MUST have TAKEN it from the poor. It is a zero sum mentality. For someone to be rich, someone else must be poor. So it stands to reason that to make things equal, someone (the gov't) MUST take the money back from the rich and give it to the poor.
This is quite different that how I presume you think. If I had to bet, I would guess you have an infinite resources mentality. Meaning, just because Warren Buffett made billions, does not mean that there is less money out there preventing someone else from making billions as well.
It is totally a difference in mentality, so we all see there is a problem, but we disagree with the cause and the solution.
In short, you are arguing with a brick wall.
15% capital gains tax for the investor class, 33% for the retired class.
A bigger example is the entire exemption based tax code which continually advantages one group at the disadvantage of another.
Problem statement - Loss of national wealth due to government interference in Free Market Capitalism.
The federal government is using the tax code to try and micro manage the economy.
If Free Market Capitalism is the most efficient way to manage the use of labor and capital then all tax code expenditures should be ended immediately.
The OWS demonstrations have succeeded in changing the national debate from the Tea Party's line of "we need to cut social programs so that the ultra-rich crooks who caused an illegal economic meltdown won't have to pay taxes" to a debate about "why aren't these crooks in jail, and why aren't they paying any taxes?"
I'm not sure anybody can ignore it at this point. It's like the green movement. Nobody wants to live in a toxic world, and now everybody's waking up to the fact that nobody wants to be a slave to a bunch of financial mobsters.
Don't worry, the world will change and you will benefit from it.
Well said. :)
Why are you here if you don't believe you are a member of the 99%?
Are you frightened of the future economics of this country because if you aren't, you should be. Your comfortable job is at risk in the future since it is the intention that the masses be poor in the near future.
I came here to get information from the horse's mouth, so to speak. Many OWSers complain about media coverage so I took them up on their plea to find out for myself. My local group is, um, not a welcoming bunch so I went online, ran a search and found this place. I read for two days before I posted.
I am concerned about economics because the government is forcing itself into private sector companies. That is fascism and I am against it.
I think you guys are directing your angst in the wrong direction. The government is causing this. Stop that, stop the problem. No need for the violence and nonsense we're seeing today out of Oakland.
Please provide an objective source for your claim about the "masses."
Thanks visceralrebellion for taking the initiative to come to this site rather than form your opinion based on filtered media reports. It is important for everyone to listen to your opinion. I understand that some are quick to attack, not to make excuses for others here but I hope you can understand that people just come here and do a lot of name calling without actually voicing there concerns. You bring up a great discussion point. Whether it is the governments fault or whether it is the corporations fault that our economy went into a recession? My viewpoint is somewhere in the middle, as I am finding many Americans are more in the middle and are really not as polarized as we are led to believe by politicians trying to get our votes. It is pretty clear that large hedge fund managers used people's pensions to do some very risky and very complicated gambling. They made billions of dollars betting against the very things they invested peoples money in.
Also the other issue was banks predatory lending practices to people they knew could not afford loans then splitting up loans and reselling those loans they knew were bad to other companies. I don't think the solution is to have a government takeover of the private sector, but it is clear to me that some regulations need to be put in place to prevent these actions again. So the solution needs to come from regulating risky gambling with teachers pensions and regulating lending to people who can not afford it. Most people who got these loans found themselves with much higher interests than they were promised. This happened after the banking industry was for the most part de-regulated in the earlier part of 2000. The government has a responsibility to protect people from outrageously risky behavior, no one is asking for fascism just some control on bad money management.
I'm sorry that you've had a poor experience with the movement thus far. Hopefully we can come to an understanding.
I think it's very important to realize that the problem is on both sides of the coin. The public sector and the private sector are feeding off of each other, and both are causing massive amounts of damage to the economy. For every story you hear of Corporate Greed you hear a story of Political Corruption.
It all boils down to the simple truth; Greed is destroying us. That's, ultimately, the villain of this piece.
JonoLith--scroll to the bottom of this page and review the nonsense spouted by "EndGluttony." It seems to me there are more of his type, with his idiocy, than you. We may disagree but you are both rational and respectful in your response, which I appreciate BTW. Both seem sorely lacking on this forum.
Greed is a human frailty common to all people, not just "the rich." Some of the most greedy people I know are those on welfare (relatives, sad to say.) That's why there has to be, and traditionally has been, a clear line between government and the rest of society. Only government has the power to forcibly take from some people and give it to others--whether individuals or companies. There's not a company in the country that can do that to the population. Hence my stance against the current corruption of the government--not just elected officials but the vast bureauocracies dictating even the most mundane aspects of our lives.
Thanks again for being rational and respectful of differing opinions.
Thank you so much for your comments! It makes the conversation so much easier to engage in when there are people like yourself out there.
Please note that EndGluttony is at the bottom because as of this moment his comments have -2 points. Any time a new movement shows up all the crazies come out of hiding thinking "At last, this is my time, this movement is for me". Same thing happened to the Tea Party. The voice of reason and moderation will drown them out eventually.
The occupiers speak for themselves about the issues that affect the 99%. You are affected by at least one of these issues, whether you recognize it or not. No one presumes to speak "for" you, but we will not be silent because you exist in a false reality. You are free to speak against the movement and to ignore the reality of the world your children will have to survive in. Good luck to you and them.
Your assumption that visceralrebellion exists in a false reality is arrogant and enough of a motive for me to reject your movement. For a group which claims it wants to help 99% of the population, you are not very open to discussion. This type of authoritarian behavior is what will inevitably bring your movement to its demise.
It is rather ironic that a group of anarchists who claim to want an environment in which everyone is free to choose anything, start their movement by denying everyone the choice of whether to be a part of their movement.
By calling OWS a group of anarchists you expose yourself as a hateful liar. But you already exposed yourself as that when you threatened to run us all over. Hateful for the threat, a liar because you are way too much of a selfish coward to do anything of the sort. I forgot, that black guy tried to carjack you. Or he wanted to ask for directions. But he was black, so...
I am so not an authoritarian, i assure you. What do you call it when a person cant see what is in plain sight? Will you deny that the supreme court giving unlimited election funding as a gift to the extremely wealthy manipulators of our government hurt the average voter? Can you ignore the jobs that free trade agreements have shipped away? Have you no care about the corporate welfare that vastly outscales social welfare as a giant sucking drain on us? Does it mean nothing to you that record profits are accompanied by zero taxes? Are you happy that a lobbyist representing a foreign country has better access to your elected officials than you do? Does it not harm our social structure when a small percentage answers to a different set of rules than rest of us? I am not arrogant-- i am horrified, shocked and saddened by people who blithely discount what is happening because they are comfortable for the moment. Twice, i have worked for companies that ceased to exist. My grandfather worked for a pension that was stolen by the company owners. You arent safe, and visceralrebellion isnt safe from the same thing happening in some form. This is like closing your eyes as the roller coaster car ticks up to the peak of the big hill...you dont have to look, but you are going for the ride with the rest of us.
Your point being? Do you think one who disagrees with OWS suddenly believes the system is perfect?
My point is in my first post: no one is speaking for the threads author, and the issues of the movement are issues that affect us all. That person is free to disagree, but disagreeing does not change what is fact: he she is part of the 99%. You elected to jump in with some unfounded name calling. To which i tried to give a reasoned response. Clearly, i am wasting my time trying to communicate with you, and I am not answering your propagandist question designed to have me defending a position i did not take.
Dont bother responding-- you get no more of my time.
Unfounded name calling? I simply said you were arrogant because you assumed she lived in a false reality and that you lived in a real one. If making such an assumption about someone you don't even know is not arrogant, I don't know what is.
If you are not effected now you soon will be. It is only a matter of time before they get to you too. Join the movement just because of future self preservation if nothing else.
"When the excesses of business interests and their political proteges in Washington leave the regular guy broke and screwed, the response is always for the lower and middle classes to split down the middle and find reasons to get pissed off not at their greedy bosses but at each other.
It's a classic peasant mentality: going into fits of groveling and bowing whenever the master's carriage rides by, then fuming against the Turks in Crimea or the Jews in the Pale or whoever after spending fifteen hard hours in the fields. You know you're a peasant when you worship the very people who are right now, this minute, conning you and taking your shit. Whatever the master does, you're on board. When you get frisky, he sticks a big cross in the middle of your village, and you spend the rest of your life praying to it with big googly eyes. Or he puts out newspapers full of innuendo about this or that faraway group and you immediately salute and rush off to join the hate squad. A good peasant is loyal, simpleminded, and full of misdirected anger."
WTH are you talking about? Seriously? People who don't agree with YOU are "peasants?"
And you wonder why you are hemorrhaging support.
Here's a clue for you: if you want to draw people to your position, DON'T begin by insulting them.
At little angry, are we? EVERYONE in the 99% is a peasant in this analysis. The question is, are you a good or a bad peasant? "A good peasant is loyal, simpleminded, and full of misdirected anger." OWS is a movement of the "bad" peasants.
We are winning. Did you see Oakland?
The point of the post is not to insult OWS supporters. The point is to make you think about why you do not support a movement which will, if it were fully successful, dramatically improve your life.
What's up with that?
Oh, and it's telling that the local unions filed in to swell your ranks yet you got only 5,000 there--1.2% of the population of Oakland. If the people who live there, who are pushed to your cause, won't show up what makes you think you're "winning"?
5,000 people for a movement that is 35 days old.
That, my friend, is winning.
You can't tell me what my world would look like were you to succeed. Not one of you can specify what the government would look like, what the economic system would look like. The OWS official position is, "we have no official position."
So if you have a link to the official position please post it. Otherwise, you're spouting nonsense about matters you know nothing about.
Peasants. Really? Sheesh.
Some of the businesses you analyze will look a little different, and maybe some of your analysis will prove to be criminal.
Yes, I can tell you that with a functioning democratic political system, economic inequality will go down. Economic activity will increase, as millions of people spend the money they need to live.
Yes, I can tell you that with a functioning democratic regulatory and justice system, the rule of law will be reestablished in the financial marketplace. This change alone will save you thousands.
Yes, I can tell you that with a more engaged population operating in a fair system, your viewpoint will be heard. Whether or not your viewpoint can help improve the lives of your fellow citizens is the only uncertainty here.
And, yes, we are all peasants in the current economic system. Deal with it.
We are.
Please post a link to the official OWS statement. Thank you in advance.
We Are The 99%.
Sorry, you'll have to think for yourself. You can do it.
Really.
So what you wrote isn't the official position of the OWS, simply your vague notions of what might happen. What authority has OWS vested in you to say what the point of OWS is?
Seriously, this is the best you can do? I'm supposed to join in based upon your subjective opinion of the result of all this? Honestly?
You really misunderstand how this movement works. It is unlike anything you may be used to.
Deal with it.
Mob rule. Anonymous leaders. Lack of transparency from who's in charge of OWS branding (because SOMEONE is making marketing decisions) to where the $400-600,000 in donations goes. Not listening to alternative points of view. Don't worry, I get it. I just don't want it.
Actually, you do not get it, but like to think that you do.
This is an open forum. Everyone is here: democrats, independents, republicans, klan, nazis, tea party people, gay, straight, unions, small business owners, communists, socialists, clowns and jesters. This is the great thing about this movement. Some are posting statements which many disagree with. My problem is that you assume we all agree with these statements. This is wrong. This is American Democracy in action. This is not easy or smooth. It was not meant to be.
This is, also, our last best hope.
At this point I'm afraid I have to withhold support. As I said earlier, I don't throw in with any group without detailed information on their purpose, goals and means.
I understand. This is a different kind of movement. Hopefully, at some point you will join us.
It's a movement of lemmings. Sorry, I like to think for myself. "I am not a number, I am a free man."
You understand why OWS as not stated any clear goals, purpose, or demands right?
You're absolutely 100% spot on! Thank you for saying this as your thoughts are shared by many of the 99%.
There is a BIG difference between "being" the 99% and claiming to "represent" the 99%. Show me the proof of ANYONE in the OWS movement who claims to "represent" YOU. On the other hand; you are free to represent yourself and JOIN US.
I hear it constantly on Youtube videos and read it constantly here: the claim "we're fighting for you" or "you're one of us even if you don't know it." Variants of those comments have been pushed since this thing started and, as you can tell, it really grates on us.
That's half the problem, if you don't think your share of the 99% is being represented properly, then why don't you get out there and represent your share? I work full time, I'm not in forclosure, I live pay check to pay check but I'm not going hungry, that doesn't sound like a lot of people in OWS but atleast they are being PROACTIVE about changing this country, rather than voting for someone who says they are going to change it and then bitching when nothing happens. Go out there and represent your percent!
My kind aren't welcome there. I am a mature, law-abiding female, I don't hate the rich, don't want the government to take anything from anyone, don't want more governmental power but fewer. I don't sit in a circle and wiggle my fingers. I expect adults to know how to hold a meeting, debate an issue calmly and rationally, using the ability to speak to communicate ideas and positions. They don't want me there.
Change, you say? We got "change" in January 2009 and I'm not at all happy about it. I'm surprised that I haven't seen anything at all on this forum about Solyndra, a huge transfer of taxpayer money from the Executive Branch to untried technology, completely impossible business plans and oh, don't forget, a campaign bundler for Obama. Where is the outrage over that? The outrage here is curiously selective.
Someone has to define "change" before I'll even consider supporting it. I don't fall in with the "change for change's sake" sentiment. What exactly--not vague sentiments, but exactly--do these people want to move TO? No one can say with any degree of certainty because this group refuses to specify.
Perhaps if the local group kicks out the drug-addled, drunk, criminal and violent, and then treats people like adults, I'll go down there. Until then I'm watching from a distance.
Of course you don't hate the rich, you're their lackey. You figure out how they can make even more money at the expense of everyone esle. I can only imagine the hellish bullshit you call your job.
I don't think that OWS prohibits anybody from making their feelings known in whatever way they want. If you want certain changes to be made, then hold a meeting, debate an issue calmly and get your ideas and beliefs out there, instead of spending all your time complaining about the way other people are getting their views out there. I don't agree with everything that OWS participants say either, and I am a mature, law abiding citizen as well. I don't hate the rich either, but I am not going to criticize people for being proactive and exercising their rights. Like I said, if your version of what the 99% want isn't being expressed, then go out there and express it. We need more people like you who the media would have a more difficult time tearing down to make the point that changes need to be made in this country and that government needs to stop ignoring the people.
FreedomBase, please see this very thread for people who claim to represent me.
I thought the 99% represented statistics on stagnated wages of the middle class that have flatlined over at least 2 decades. So if someone feels they are being represented or not has to do with our entire economy and how it effects the individuals who live in it and just can't get a break or can't get a head. We look at the upper class, the so called wealthy 2% that their income has increased by 275%. It is a matter of fairness in society.
So there's no common definition of what you folks are claiming to use 99% to represent? Wow.
So, are you comfortable with corporations bribing politicians? That's a main issue of OWS, to stop this bribing.
Can you explain how OWS is "trying to reduce us to slaves on your plantation"?
Sorry, I hit save before answering your question. OWS is attempting to subsume individuals into an economic and political position without their consent. In the unlikely event that you succeed you have made slaves of the individuals who have not given you express permission to represent them. Only slaves have their very thoughts taken from them and replaced against their will.
If you have evidence of bribery I hope you take it to the authorities for appropriate investigation. That is illegal.
Furthermore, you cannot say that that is the "main issue." According to OWS there is no "main issue." Look at this very website. I have read a lot of the posts here and the only common theme is hatred of those who make more than each person thinks is "fair," whatever that means. Some want to destroy the entire country, others want the government to forcibly take property from some simply to satisfy their mindless hate, others want extreme environmentalism codified into law--and that's just a sample. How can you confidently state what the "main issue" is when there is no leaders, no documentation, nothing? Seriously, if you know where to locate the official goals and positions of this group please post a link.
If OWS was about stopping the GOVERNMENT that would be a different matter. I could get behind that provided I was asked.
First off, you take the phrase "the 99%" too literally. It's a metaphor. It has nothing to do with actual income. And, yes, getting corporate influence (Citizens United) out of the election process IS a major theme of this movement. If you don't know that, you haven't been on here long enough nor read near enough posts/threads to catch that yet. I don't recognize your username so I presume that is the case. I've been on here almost three weeks. Third, unfortunately, most of the comments and conversations on this website don't really represent the core of what it is all about. A lot of people talking about many different subjects, not all of them relevant. And we're not forcing anyone to agree with our views, don't assume so just because of the "99%" label. And finally, if you don't see this country has some serious political problems that need addressing, you seriously haven't been paying much attention. And if you do see that, what the hell are you doing about it?
I am taking the phrase precisely as it is being used. Perhaps Adbusters meant it metaphorically but the people speaking it absolutely believe it literally.
I'm fine with a Constitutional amendment to limit non-individual campaign contributions provided it includes a prohibition against union money, etc. As far as I'm concerned, Citizens United simply put companies on the same level as unions and the like. I'm all for equal protection under the law. If SEIU can contribute $85,000,000 to Obama, any company should be able to contribute to the candidate of their choice. (source: http://chieforganizer.org/2009/05/16/seius-good-obama-bet/ Note that Rathke openly states he's buying legislation, where's your outrage?)
Yes there's some serious problems in this country. I've been politically active for 20 years. I've never missed any election at any level. But I'm not about to abuse my fellow citizens, trash property, threaten or carry out violence, or any of the other nonsense I've seen on signs carried throughout this group or posted on this forum.
Call me crazy but I actually like the Constitution and don't want the "revolution" you folks are demanding. I've actually heard people openly calling for a repeat of the French Revolution. What kind of nutjob wants that???
You want this movement to be taken seriously? Kick the violent, drug-addled, drunk and criminal out of your ranks. Abandon notions of mob rule, revolution and "regime change." Treat the remainder like adults. Then, and only then, can we have a conversation about your concerns and how it may fit into others'.
The operative words are "political problems". Why then are you not protesting en mass in Washington DC? Why NYC? Why Oakland? Why not Occupy The US capital? I know why! You don't want political change, you want to tear down our republic and turn it into socialist utopia. Did you read the recent list of demands. Sounds radical to me! http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-steps-to-taking-america-back-from-the-top-1-th/
There are plans to march to Washington. As to why they started on Wall Street, I have no clue, I don't speak for them. It's my guess that it is symbolically the center of the financial half of the equation. From what I gather, Wall Street and Washington are in bed together, both equally culpable. And, and again this is just my opinion, I'll bet the cops, mayor, etc. in DC are much bigger hard-asses than in New York and wouldn't have put up with occupying a city park. They would've shut it down in short order.
Protesters won't know what hit them when the Secret Service greets OWS… ;-)
Do you mean getting Corporate AND UNION influence out of the process? (It's a serious question)
Of course. Unions have long had undue influence on the political process, long before Citizens United.
Yes, precisely what I mean. If unions can participate, so can companies. Equal protection under the law.
At least there are two of us...
This is the first post on this website I have read which makes sense. It's the government that is the problem. This should be ODC. The "1%" inside the Washington beltway are the real criminals. Economically, capitalism is the only system that has ever worked. I agree, executive compensation has gotten out of hand, but that alone is not reason to destroy the system. Capitalism works for one very good reason: Is doesn't try to change human nature. Washington is trying to change us, they are trying to make us all tax slaves so they can decide who gets the money.
What do you do for a living?
I'm an engineer - self-employed contractor actually.
Contracted by who? To do what?
I'm a contract software engineer paid by private companies to develop custom software. I'm paid by the hour, pay my own health insurance and all taxes and fees associated with employment. I've been gainfully employed doing so for 10 years. Completely self-reliant. Everything the left and your ilk hate.
Any more questions? Do you want my SS#, DOB and mother's maiden name now?
Software to do what? I want to know your motivation.
My motivation is to earn money so that I can provide for myself and family. Yes, money is the motivation. Maybe if I earn enough I can buy a yacht, a vacation home in the Caribbean and declare myself one of the 1%!
[Removed]
Great post. This is THE BIGGEST mistake OWS made out of ignorance and arrogance. A part of their general viewpoint is shared by many in America, but the idiotic approach to creating a movement - sleeping in parks?? - killed any chance of it building serious momentum. The lack of organization, confusing messages, lack of clear demands, radical statements, public park destruction, violence, and general ill-informed nature of so many of its followers (most in this forum) will relegate it to a short-lived blip on the radar. I don't ive in NY - and people elsewhere are laughing their faces off at the OWS crowd who are delusional about who they think they represent and the size.
[Removed]
Mexican mayor slain ahead of elections.Associated Press= MORELIA, Mexico (AP) — The mayor of La Piedad was handing out campaign fliers outside a fast-food restaurant when a black SUV pulled up, a hand holding a pistol appeared at its window, and he went down with a shot.
Ricardo Guzman, 45, died late Wednesday in an ambulance racing to the hospital, one of more than two dozen Mexican mayors who've been assassinated since 2006, the majority presumed victims of drug violence.
But Guzman's killing raised new questions about organized crime's impact on Mexico's democracy, specifically the Nov. 13 elections in the western state of Michoacan, where Guzman had been handing out campaign material for gubernatorial candidate Luisa Maria Calderon, President Felipe Calderon's sister.
Before Guzman's assassination, polling firm workers were kidnapped in August while trying to conduct surveys on the election, though they were later released unharmed. The three major political parties all say they have local candidates who have received some kind of pressure or threats in the Calderon family home state, where the president launched his drug war five years ago.
Michoacan "appears to be the state that is most infected with narco-politics," said political analyst and columnist Raymundo Riva Palacio. He noted that while mayoral candidates, and even one gubernatorial candidate, have been killed in other states, nowhere is the cartel pressure on candidates as systematic as in Michoacan. Is this where were headed?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLUpGGmku8g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SMrnx6nkRw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Wg1bH6-1YY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgKS4i-u0OM
http://www.reverbnation.com/Killumination
Donate!!!
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=NKRL8TGE95H2Y
Thank you, vicseralrebellion. I've been thinking some of us should occupy the OWS. Get a legal permit to use the property OWS is illegally squatting on and occupy the OWS. I am going to be thoroughly hacked if OWS screws with what I've worked hard to achieve. All I see from reading this site & watching reports is that Occupy is intent on tearing down what we have, with no solutions to replace what is being destroyed. So OWS is no way represents this 99%'er either!
I've actually considered going to Zuccotti Park and shouting, "Mic check!" and calling for anyone disillusioned by the movement's lack of direction and goals to "come and talk with me." It seems there are many, many like minds.
You obviously have not done your homework because your comment clearly indicates that you are interpreting it wrong.
I have read all of the general assembly minutes and what I see is people who can't get their act together, taking hours to figure out whether to hold their hands up or down, how to get the laundry done, begging for donations. There are even objections to selling t-shirts for money for the occupation because that is capitalist. Donations are not finite and then how will you fund your occupation? Taking it from me? I think not.
Barb, please post a link to the official OWS document explicitly outlining the purpose and end goals. Thanks in advance.
We don't want you. When you get finally get your head out you may want to join. We'll take you then. No remorse.
Fractional reserve lending is a crime, and that assessment is not based upon a subjective opinion, it is determined objectively; fractional reserve lending is counterfeit - fraud - theft.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/ows-objective-1-fractional-reserve-lending-is-a-cr/
Corporations do compete for market share and that is acceptable, however their capital is leveraged one to one, dollar for dollar, to develop and market products.
However, that is not how fractional reserve lending works. Fractional reserve lending allows banks to leverage multiplied money many to one, multiple dollars for dollar, and it is counterfeit - fraud -theft.
Fractional reserve lending is an injustice and it is an intrinsic affront to the precepts of equal opportunity and an insult to capitalism and the free market.
Those posturing for relief from college loans or indifferent to arrest for civil infractions (class C) or crimes (criminal trespass, misdemeanor class A or B) do so in contempt for the trillion dollars of bailouts and for the failure of the Justice department to prosecute the criminal activity on wall street (felony crimes).
The government considered purchasing default loans directly whereby the banks would have been bailed out indirectly, but the banks were bailed out while the mortgage holders were held on a hook and blamed for the irresponsibility of investment banks to recover the loans that it should have never issued.
Ultimately, it is one's own responsibility to recover their own loaned property and one reasonably knows better than to loan property to someone that they should not trust, and that is what loan officers should do. But investment banks were not responsible for recovering their loans, rather they passed them on to the stock market and collected a fee.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had restrictions on the loans that they could repurchase, namely those with low down payment and fixed 30 year. Under pressure by the mortgage lenders they were allowed by HUD to buy some of the trash (low teaser rates, and adjustable rate mortgages - ARM) that the investment banks had already sold to the sub-prime borrower from which F&F chose the best loans available. F&F only purchased a fraction of the total loans issued by investment banks. F&F is a favourite scape goat because it represents a government institution (Community Reinvestment Act), while the most sinister culprit in the catastrophe was the deregulated predatory market of improprieties.
You are so freaking wrong about bankers forcing Fannie and Freddie to take no equity mortgages. Get your facts straight and get a life. Geez.
The first sentence of your last paragraph shows how you don't know what the hell you are talking about. You phrase GSE as if it was either restrictions or the loans themselves. You weren't even clear about that. But GSE is an acronym for Government Sponsored Entity, which describes how Fannie and Freddie aren't like other corporations who do not have a link to the federal government.
Your stating that lenders pressured for no equity loans is totally bogus. You should quit repeating the lies that fly around here.
There you go, fixed it, removed the few extraneous words.
Do yourself a favor and use references and you will be less likely to remain ignorant -
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html
"In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called sub-prime borrowers. "
http://www.academicperspective.com/2009/10/19/an-american-financial-collapse-what-happened-on-wall-street/
Even the liberal New York Times led with congress pressing the GSE's. The banks didn't resist, but even your source document shows it was congress who led this parade.
I ask you......you go after the banks for this.......why don't you go after congress? Other than your complete hatred for banks, why don't you go after those that your own source material fingers?
My agenda includes impeachments (posthumously if retired), for malfeasance, for those who repealed Glass-Steagall Act.
As a consequence of consolidating commercial banks and investment banks, as of yet, I am not convinced that investment banks did not have access to commercial deposits for their actions which violates FDIC underwriting.
The intentional act of preventing SEC oversight of the derivatives market deserves impeachment for negligence.
The prohibition of CFTC oversight of electronic exchanges, an Enron loophole, deserves impeachments for malfeasance. The following is not my article but it explains the basis - http://oilgeopolitics.net/Financial_Tsunami/Oil_Speculation/oil_speculation.HTM
The repeal of Glass-Steagall Act was spearheaded by Phillip Gram at the behest of Citigroup and banks will remain the focus for their complicity. Gramm - weights and measures, Leach - leech, Bliley - captain asshole - Act; could serendipity have been any more obvious?
Civil suit, rather than violence, is the method of accountability and my agenda includes a general class action lawsuit against the banks, against their employees, and against the government, on behalf of the public at large, for their negligence or intentional deceit, which seeks restitution for the wrongs that they have caused through their wreck less an destructive actions. My agenda would suspend statutes of limitations for these actions.
The SEC suits are disgusting jokes, and my agenda calls for the prosecution of wall street and anyone obstructing justice by prohibiting said prosecutions - http://chat.lawinfo.com/legal_question_regarding-t222989/index.html
It would be better if you spent your time and energy elsewhere for the following reasons.
First of all, it is confusing that you reference posthumous impeachments. I have no interest in prosecuting dead people.
You reference malfeasance. Malfeasance is when a public official breaks the law when carrying out the people's business. Therefore a law has to have been broken for malfeasance to be present. I hear a lot of IMPEACH!!!, IMPEACH!!! But I hear little to no discussion of actual laws that were broken. Without evidence of SPECIFIC laws that were broken, you have nothing.
You also desire impeachments for "negligence" for "intentional acts". That makes no sense. Negligence is when you didn't act, not when you intentionally acted. All that is obfuscation for the fact that you have yet to cite evidence of a specific law that has been broken, which is necessary to prosecute someone.
Your agenda of suspending statutes of limitations is especially repugnant. That would be an ex post facto law. Ex post facto laws are so grievous that they are prohibited by Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 of the US Constitution. The existence of a prohibition against ex post facto laws is one of the most important elements in staving off tyranny. The very act of suspending statutes of limitation is unconstitutional on its face.
You may have legitimate gripes. You may have some substance somewhere. But for the above reasons, most, if not all of what you want is impossible. Why don't you spend your energy on something that is even possible?
The term posthumous in extended in meaning as those who no longer hold office and yet continue to collect government pensions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malfeasance_in_office The court then went on to use yet another definition, "malfeasance is the doing of an act which an officer had no legal right to do at all and that when an officer, through ignorance, inattention, or malice, does that which they have no legal right to do at all, or acts without any authority whatsoever, or exceeds, ignores, or abuses their powers, they are guilty of malfeasance."
Again, I am not convinced that consolidation of investment and commercial banks did not breech FDIC underwriting, and a failure to disclose that it had is a fraudulent and criminal act against the US citizens. Ignorance and inattention qualify as negligence.
Civil cases may be possible under a rule of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equitable_tolling "Equitable tolling is a principle of law stating that a statute of limitations shall not bar a claim in cases where the plaintiff, despite use of due diligence, could not or did not discover the injury until after the expiration of the limitations period."
My primary focus is in exposing fractional reserve lending as a criminal enterprise based upon counterfeit that is alien and unrelated to fair and honest capitalism; further, to correct it.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/ows-objective-1-fractional-reserve-lending-is-a-cr http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/monk-eye/460-rectifying-injustices-fractional-reserve-lending.html
I am further intent on ensuring that the right and the left propaganda, especially the moronic use of "conservative versus liberal paradigm", as set forth by David Nolan, is mitigated through a consistent application of political science principles.
What does FDIC underwriting mean? The FDIC is an industry funded insurance pool to insure many of the deposits at member banks. The only thing the FDIC underwrites is the deposit coverage for depositors.
As far at equitable tolling goes, good luck with that. This has been a story for years now. Nothing has prevented you, or others from any information you needed.
And I'm really trying to get a grasp as to why some of you think fractional reserve lending is a bad thing. Really. The fact that loan proceeds are deposited in a bank seems to be a good thing, not a criminal and unethical thing. Really. The benefits that arise from that multiplier effect is not the sole provence of the banks. Everyone benefits.
FDIC
After investment banks were combined with commercial banks and the conglomerate banks failed, FDIC was called to account for the commercial deposit losses that resulted from major losses in the investment division, such that there is no distinction between http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Deposit_Insurance_Corporation#Items_not_insured and those http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Deposit_Insurance_Corporation#Insured_products.
The indistinction is obvious and whether through negligence, or ignorance, or inattention, or malice, congress had a lawful wright to revoke FDIC insurance and failing to do so represents deception and fraud against the US taxpayers.
Fractional Reserve Lending
Again, I have stated that fractional reserve lending has a purpose in provisioning credit, however it is based upon either private counterfeit, or debase government special endowment.
As a somewhat necessary evil, it should be dealt with in a manner similar to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumptuary_tax.
Note that the central bank renders all but 6% of interbank lending profits back to the US government (even 6% is too great a gratuity), however resolution of an obvious conflict of interest for special endowment is NOT extended to counterfeit profits of branch banks.
In other words, banks are not entitled to the disproportionate and special endowments, either as a benefactors of government provision or as counterfeiters of commercial money.
Hence, the difference between a just allowance of net earnings and gross earnings should be excised.
A proposal is to render the excise to individual private accounts through, such as, a public private trust or privatized social security, rather than to communist government programs.
A Pigovian tax (also spelled Pigouvian tax) is a tax levied on a market activity that generates negative externalities.
Do you think that PIG ouvian has anything to do with piggy banks?
Is credit for the term to Arthur Cecil Pigou simply a very strange coincidence?
For any of that to make economic sense, there has to be excess profits in commercial banking. Forget investment banking because that has nothing to to with fractional reserve banking. You seem to be quite a tizzy about all the ill gotten gains made by commercial banks. They just aren't there. If you know where they are, would you please show them?
good post
Thanks,
Those who blame F&F are pursuing a partisan agenda and although I do not consider most of them to be dishonest, they seemed to have finalized a conclusion through hearsay that is based upon insufficient information.
visceralrebellion, Are you saying that there are no problems with the economy and the political processes? OWS does not pretend to have the answer yet; but, they are saying there are problems which need to be solved. Can you at least agree with that?
Hi Edmond--
I agree there are serious problems.
What do you think are the top three?
It's hard to whittle it down to three. Let me think about ranking.
The more the merrier as long as in priority order. Thanks.
I think all my issues can be summed up in three primary areas:
The government has so far exceeded its Constitutional mandate that its almost unrecognizable. The Federal government has no authority for most of what it’s doing. From mandating insurance coverage to forcing the ANSI X12N 5010 transaction set on the health care industry, the Federal government has become a monster stalking ordinary Americans throughout their days. There are literally millions of examples of this.
Because of #1, the tax code has become an abomination. Everyone—and I mean everyone—should pay the same percentage of all income in Federal and State taxes. Ten percent, fifteen, whatever. No one should be exempt, no one should receive a check from the government greater than the income taxes paid (see EITC), and no entity should have an advantage in the market due to tax law, whether “credits” such as given for purchasing solar panels or corporate tax breaks for one industry over another.
Some of my fellow citizens have decided that contrary to all logic and morality they have a claim to the labor and property of others, and they use the government to get it. Only the government has the ability to forcibly take from one and give the taken to another. No company has that power. It’s unfathomably unethical for an American to demand government take money or property or rights from some other American, all for their own enrichment.
Hope that helps clarify my positions.
You are so full of shit.
visceralrebellion, when new knowledge becomes available, things need to change.
The Constitution is well written and was excellent guidance when written.
However, it should not be used as a shield to cover injustice in a world vastly different from the time in which it was written.
If you will re-write your top three problems without the demonizing, stale, political language and put it in plain english, I think we can safely add them to any list of problems developed by the people and debate the priority and solutions for these problems. There will be much in agreement I am sure.
I don't understand what you mean by "demonizing, stale, political language." That is my position, long held and come to after long years of observing and forming my own opinion. I don't know precisely what you're asking for but these are my positions.
Please elaborate.
I would restate as follows:
Problem List: 1) federal government exceeds its Constitutional mandate 2) some groups are advantaged over other groups by tax code 3) unethical for an American to demand government take money or property or rights from some other American for their own enrichment
Oh, sorry, I didn't realize you were asking for less text.
I concur with your synopsis.
visceralrebellion, I apologize if I have said anything to offend you. That was not my intent and you have not responded in a manner that indicates you have taken offense. I am an engineer and sometimes I seem short due to brevity. I think in shorthand.
I would like for you to visit The Common View web site at http://TheCommonView.com and offer suggestions on how the site contents could be enhanced and improved. If you do not have the time I fully understand.
No offense at all, Edmond. I just didn't understand what you were asking for.
Very well said.
Hah... good try though. Why don't we just call this for what it is? It's a mock insurrection intent on a label of unconscionable. Why? Because the powers that be are marching ahead with Free Trade, continued stupidity at Fanny and Freddie, an intent to crash the Euro, and the support of a third world continent, etc. Insurrection in a so called free world is what they fear most... and this is an attempt to temper the cultural attitude.
Dear visceralrebellion,
I fully agree with your assessment, and I would add that your writing is quite eloquent. Thank you for taking some time to express my major concern in such a clear fashion.
I have a simple idea to remedy the situation. We could create a webpage with a huge number 99% on it. Whoever wants to remove him or herself from the count can go to the site and click on a button. After this, the percentage will be adjusted accordingly. So, instead of the usual movement that starts with no members and adds some, this would be a way to at least retract ourselves from the movement which started with all of us included automagically. It would also be anti-climactic for OWS protesters since they would see their numbers dwindle on the Net as they accumulate on the street. It could be considered a type of ironic conceptual art piece.
Try actually listening to our concerns instead of the propaganda that big business and the wealthy are spreading about us. First, our concern is the wealth redistribution that has gone on for the past 30 years. With the loss of the high marginal tax rate and unions, middle class wages stagnated, wages were replaced with easy credit, corporate profits boomed, and executive compensation exploded.
In the 1950's the highest marginal tax rate was 90%. If you made over $2 million in today's dollars, you were taxed at 90% on every dollar above $2 million. This created s disincentive to pay out all of the corporate profits at the top. The marginal tax rate has been disappearing for over 30 years. In the 1970's it dropped to 70%, in the 1980's it dropped to 49%, in the 1990's it dropped to 39%, and in the 2000's to a meager 36%. Likewise, Capital gains taxes (on stock earnings) have dropped to a mere 12%.
As the marginal tax dropped and unions disappeared, there was no disincentive to paying out all of the corporate profits to the few at the top and the shareholders. Executive salaries have ballooned 275% since 1980.
The problem is that the middle class is the economic engine of the economy. The middle class needs either wages or easy credit to keep the spending engine humming. But, the middle class spent their wealth on goods and services and the corporations redistributed into the hands of the few. The middle class worked harder and harder to try to gain more wealth and saw no increase in wages.
The middle class had to survive by taking on more and more debt and the corporations had to make credit easier to keep the spending humming since the middle class wages were stagnating. The problem is that the middle class can only take on so much debt before they start defaulting.
So, you should be worried about these problems. The middle class can only be squeezed so tightly before everything collapses. It is unsustainable for the top 10% to now have 70% of the entire nation's wealth and the bottom 50% have 2% of the entire nation's wealth. This is the real wealth redistribution.
I don't think that you're pinpointing the real problem. It's completely ridiculous to ask someone to pay 90% of their income, rich or not. And no, I am not rich. Yes, the wealthy should pay a higher tax rate than the poor, but 60%, 70% etc is ridiculous. A lot of wealthy people actually work very hard and risk alot to get where they are, and why should they give the majority away. This is not a socialist country, nor should it be. The real issue is that the government highly misuses taxes. Why in the world did they spend over 1 trillion of taxpayers money on the war, and couldn't that have been used more effectively to help the current US economic situation? Also, we need to take personal responsibility for the poor spending decisions we have made in this country, and I'm specifically talking about those who borrowed more than they could afford for mortgages.
Please take a moment to read this, I think that you are missing the problem. Increased worker productivity used to mean increased wages. But, starting in the 1980's middle class wages stagnated. Instead of paying wages to match the increased productivity, corporations replaced wages with easy credit -- they loaned the workers money to buy products.
So, if you could not afford to buy furniture, appliances, tvs, homes, etc., you were given easy credit to buy those things. The fact that worker productivity increased at great rates, but not worker wages, meant high profits for corporations.
With all of this excess money on hand, corporations became lenders. Corporations loaned money to the middle class to buy their products. Jus about every major company also suddenly became a lending company. So, the middle class became a debtor class with high debt and no savings. Furthermore, because the increased cash in corporations and no high marginal tax and the loss of unions, executive salaries ballooned to the highest in history.
The middle class is the economic engine of society -- the middle class spending is what keeps the economy going. The middle class spent their money on goods and services and corporations took that money in profits and redistributed that money into the hands of the few at the top. When their is an imbalance of power in the system, workers historically get less and less and the few at the top take more and more. The workers are costs of a company and companies are always looking for ways to minimize costs and maximize profits for the shareholder and the few at the top.
This is why all of the nation's wealth has been redistributed into the hands of the few. If you have no one fighting for the workers to get a fair share of the fruits of their labor, the executives will just continue to squeeze and squeeze. Their job is to reduce labor costs and expenses not to maximize it and when their is an imbalance of power, there is nothing but squeezing of the workers.
The high marginal tax is a disincentive to pay out all of the corporate profit pie into the hands of the few. I don't believe that 1950's America was Socialist. The 90% marginal tax was over $2 million in today's dollars -- so every dollar that was made over $2 million was taxed at 90% so no one paid anyone more than $2 million. Then, there was a low executive and worker pay ratio. In the 1950's, the executives only made $24 to every $1 a worker made. Today executives make over $262 to every $1 workers make. There is only so much corporate profit pie to go around. If you pay huge amounts to the few, there is less to pay the workers -- who are working harder than they ever have. This is the problem we have today.
Your comment about taxes is specious for two reasons.
First, the USA was a "closed system" in 1950. The rest of the world had just been bombed and didn't recover until the early 1970s. There was no place for our wealthy to go, no competition for our businesses, and no place for them to get labor but from the unionized American workforce. None of these conditions hold true today, and reversion to a tax system applied to a captive audience will no longer work.
Second, folks just LOVE to talk about the TOP tax rate in years gone by, but never bother to check what OTHERS were paying. Check my post at http://occupywallst.org/forum/fix-the-deficit-return-to-1964-tax-rates/ and you'll see, for example, that EVERYONE paid taxes and the middle class paid on the order of 30% on their top dollar. These rates WOULD fix the deficit VERY quickly.
Your argument about wages and working harder is sophomoric. If you consult Ezra Klein's chart at http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/incomgegainsstraight.jpg , you'll notice the rich didn't "take" income from the other classes. If you look at his chart at http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/productivityincome.jpg you'll see that productivity and wages began diverging with the emergence of computers and robotics. Finally, if you consult the annual report of any one of the big corporations reporting "record profits" you'll see those profits are earned primarily in their foreign operations, and do not necessarily have that much to do with any American employees OTHER than the executive staff.
Corporations, by the way, are how the "little people" tap into the opportunities inherent to good ideas. They are the mechanism by which many of us can pool our meager resources to back a good idea and reap the rewards. The vast majority of corporate stock is held by average people in their 401k, 403b, IRA, and eTRADE (et al) accounts. Without corporations, only the "big players" can play the game.
Note one of the institutions most widely hated in these forums is busily working to redistribute wealth from our creditors and the rich back to the working people. This institution is called the Federal Reserve and the method by which they are taking from the rich is called "inflation" ... a well proven and oft used method to help address inequality in an orderly fashion. See my post at http://occupywallst.org/forum/what-is-money/
Finally, please remember a few basic guidelines...
1) "In a Democracy, people get precisely the Government they deserve." 2) "In Capitalism, people get the companies they vote for with their purchases." 3) "Banks get rich when people borrow money."
Your comments are specious for a number of reasons. First, we are the only nation in the industrialized world that has seen the huge divergence in executive and worker compensation even though all industrialized nations have had to face globalization. The argument that globalization is the cause is the propaganda of the rich. Here is a chart showing that other industrialized nations did not see this great divergence even with globalization: http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4#the-income-gap-is-not-growing-in-other-countries-like-france-13
Here are some stories on high American worker productivity:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/03/business/main3228735.shtml http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2011-04-04-us-economy-jobs.htm http://www.usatoday.com/money/workplace/2003-12-16-hours-cover_x.htm http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2011/0711cypher.html http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/story/2011-10-08/economy-productivity-jobs-hiring/50689670/1
Here is a chart on how our wealth was redistributed into the hands of the few over the last 30 years: http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4#the-gap-between-the-top-1-and-everyone-else-hasnt-been-this-bad-since-the-roaring-twenties-1
Here is the great divergence in middle class pay and executive pay from the Wall street Journal: THE RATIO OF AVERAGE CEO COMPENSATION AND WORKER PAY IN THE US 1965-2005 2005 - 262:1 (Av. CEO-$10,982,000/Av. Worker- $41,861) 2004 - 238:1 2003 - 181:1 2002 - 143:1 2000 - 300:1 1989 - 71:1 1978 - 35:1 1965 - 24:1 Source: Mercer Survey of 350 large industrial and service firms conducted for the Wall Street Journal as reported by Mishel, Bernstein, Allegretto
Here is a video that explains what happened to the middle class -- you should watch this and then comment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HTkEBIoxBA
Finally, yes the bottom of America does not pay much or any in taxes, but they now have less than 2% of the entire nation's wealth. Yes, the entire bottom 50% own 2% of all of the nation's wealth while the top 10% has about 70% of the nation's wealth. So, you want to tax the people with 2% of the nation's wealth more???? Even if you took every penny from the bottom 50% it would not make a dent in the deficit.
And the "Flat tax" will do nothing but cut the tax burden on the wealthy while making the people how only have 2% of the entire nation's wealth get a huge tax increase. Yes, let's just keep squeezing the people with nothing -- that makes sense.
FYI - if you think that this is a partisan debate, you are wrong. I used to hold office in the Republican party and now I now that both parties have become corrupted by the wealthy and powerful. Washington is broken.
Perhaps the words you put into my mouth are specious? I made no mention of CEO pay or a flat tax (I mentioned the 1964 rates which are NOT flat), and I didn't say a word about any political party. Ignoring all your rants regarding the words you put into my mouth, I'll address the scant few remaining.
I'm perfectly willing to have a number of people at the bottom not paying taxes. The percentage of the population paying no taxes, however, must alway be comparatively low (30% max in my opinion), lest we become a country where those who pay nothing are able to vote themselves benefits without regard for cost. Everyone else should pay SOMETHING or this Democracy will melt down.
You could make the bottom 50% pay all of the 2% of the nation's wealth that they have and still not make a dent in the deficit. Or, you could make the top 10% who control 70% of the entire nation's wealth to pay more.
I would agree with you to have everyone pay more if the middle class' wages did not stagnate for 30 years while the executives at the top paid themselves and their shareholder the overwhelming majority of the corporations' profits.
To get the bottom to pay more, we need a high marginal tax disincentive to keep the few at the top from paying all of the company profits to themselves. If workers received their fair share of the fruits of their labor, they could pay more in taxes. This is the problem of the wealth redistribution that has gone on for 30 years -- it has gutted the middle class tax base. Low wages = little taxes from the bottom 50%.
So, I'm all for having everyone pay more if you also re-instate the high marginal tax on people making over let's say $5 million. If the Home Depot CEO cannot get $210 million for one year because of a high marginal tax like we used to have, there will be more corporate profit pie to spread among the workers and more profit to give them more benefits and, yes, pay more in taxes.
In the 1950's the marginal tax rate was 90% over $2 million in today's dollars which led to a strong middle class and a middle class tax base.
I'm all for the wealthy paying more, I simply want FEWER people paying nothing.
The problem is that the bottom entire 50% make less than $32,000 a year and control less than 2% of the entire nation's wealth.
The 22% "flat tax" will greatly increase the tax burden on the bottom 50% and reduce it for the top quintile. The top quintile now pays an effective federal tax rate of 25.8% after deductions. So their taxes will drop under a 22% flat tax rate.
Meanwhile, the bottom 50% who make less than $32,000 a year will see a tax a huge tax increase. The lowest quintile will see their taxes raised by over 18%, the second lowest quintile will see their taxes raised by over 11%, the middle quintile who make less than $32,000 a year will see their taxes raised by over 8%. How is that fair? Making people that make less than $32,000 a year pay substantially more in taxes?
Now you're a broken record. Bye.
Rico - do you realize that the flat tax is a massive tax cut for the wealthy and a massive tax increase on the bottom 50%? The current effective tax rate for the top 1% is 31.2%, top 5% is 29%, and top 10% is 27.5%. A flat tax is a boon for them.
Why don't you try listening? It's the government that is the problem. You all go on about the "rich" not paying enough taxes.
Here's some figures you omitted: The top 1% paid 20% of all federal taxes in 1980. In 2008, the top 1% paid 40% and the top 10% paid 70% of the taxes. The bottom 50%? - shrank from paying 7% to 2.7% in that period. And so, you go on with your chant: "Tax the rich! Tax the rich! Tax the rich!" If you taxed the 1% at 100%, you'd run the government for about a month. It's the government spending! Ever since Lyndon Johnson formed the "great society", the fed has been sucking the life out of us! Again: THE GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM HERE!!!!!
Here are some real facts for you. The bottom 50% of America now has 2% of the entire nation's wealth while the top 10% now holds a staggering 70% of the entire nation's wealth. And it is absolutely NOT true that the wealthy are paying more in taxes -- that is propaganda garbage! The highest marginal tax in the 1950's was 90%! If you made more than $2 million in today's dollars, you were taxed at 90%. It dropped to 70% in the 1970's, 49% in the 1980's, 39% in the 1990's, and 36% in the 2000's.
The wealthy now only pay at MOST less than 36% and because of deductions and loop holes they actually pay much less than that! Furthermore, the capital gains tax dropped to a meager 12% under Bush -- so they wealthy that make much of their money from stocks only pay 12% tax!
You are completely and utterly misinformed by wealthy corporate right wing propaganda and I know this because I used to hold office in the Republican party.
The Congressional Budget Office just released the results of a 5 year study on taxes and it shows that the rich actually pay MUCH less now than ever. You know who pays most -- those in the MIDDLE! The bottom 50% does pay anything because they have NO MONEY -- all of the bottom 50% has less than 2% of the ENTIRE Nation's wealth!
Watch this video and you will see what has really happened to America: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HTkEBIoxBA
Regarding taxes, see: http://www.heritage.org/BudgetChartBook/top10-percent-income-earners. The fact remains, the upper income folks are the ones carrying the water.
I do agree that there are too many loopholes and deductions. That is why I favor a flat tax on all income - earned, capital gains and dividends. No more tricks. Yes, there are those who game the system. Again, if there is a flat tax with no deductions, this bullshit will stop.
Of course you quote a corporate propaganda foundation. Here are the real numbers from the federal government on what the wealthy have historically paid in taxes -- the effective tax rate:
1979: Top 1% paid a 37% effective tax rate.
2006: Top 1% paid about half! They paid 19% effective tax rate.
Here are the real numbers without partisan spin:
http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2009/effective_rates.pdf
And if you think that I am so liberal hack, you are wrong -- I used to hold office in the Republican party and know the real numbers and am worried about America.
IF the Government raised the minimum wage higher than the poverty level, then we would be able to pay more taxes and would probably not need the government to subsidize our living expenses. you are not ashamed that in your nation a minimum wage worker needs food stamps on top of his wage tithe in order to support his family. You need to learn real quickly that if the government is a problem for you, you need to find out who benefits. And please don't be dense, and decide it is the poor. One percent says it all.
The most profitable industries in the world (energy, healthcare, finance) have been given billions in government handouts and tax breaks. Meanwhile, they keep raising charges causing hardship for millions. With all those massive handouts, tax breaks, and obscene charges, profits rise to record high levels. Millions in bonuses are paid to the executives. With record high profits, record high dividends are paid. 1/2 of all dividends in the United States are paid to the richest one percent. The bottom 95 percent of Americans share about 3 percent (that's three percent) of all dividends. The rest are paid to the top 5 percent and foreign investors. All of this causes a gradual concentration of wealth and income. This results in a net loss for the lower majority who find it more and more difficult to cover the record high cost of living, which again, is directly proportional to record high profits for the rich. As more and more people struggle to make ends meet, more and more financial aid becomes necessary. Most of which goes right back to the health care industry through Medicare, Medicaid, and a very expensive prescription drug plan. This increases government spending. This has been happening for 30 years now. During the same time, tax rates have been lowered drastically for the richest one percent. Especially those who profit from investments. These people pay only 15 percent on capital gains income. As even more wealth concentrates, the lower majority find it more difficult to sustain there share of the consumer driven economy. Demand drops as more and more people go broke. Layoffs results. Unemployment rises. This results in less revenue and more government debt.
Massive subsidies and tax breaks for Wall Street, massive tax breaks for the super rich, heavy concentration of wealth, record high charges along with record high profits and record high cost of living, more hardship for the lower majority, more government spending in the form of financial aid to compensate, more concentration of wealth, less demand, layoffs and unemployment. All of this results in slower economy and less tax revenue. At the same time more and more financial aid becomes necessary. It's a horrible downward cycle which gradually pushes the national debt higher and higher. The other big factors are the wars in the Middle East.
This post is not intended to excuse those who sit on the couch collecting welfare, make no attempt to find work, or squease out kids they can't provide for.
In other words, if the rich want us to pay a greater share of taxes, they need to stop hogging so much of the income. Then allow taxes to be increased on their golden goose.
When you account for all federal, state, and local taxes and fees, the middle class pay about the same rate (as a percentage of income) as the richest one percent. Except for the SUPER rich who pay only 15 percent on their primary source of income. Capital gains.
Next time, tell both sides of the story or go play.
This is the golden goose I refer to:
Here is a list of the top ten companies that not only paid no taxes but got huge corporate welfare from we the people.
1) Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings.
2) Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.
3) Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS.
4) Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.
5) Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.
6) Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.
7) Goldman Sachs in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.
8) Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.
9) ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.
10) Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.
Why do you assume I am not worried about these problems? I am, I just don't think OWS is a good solution. I think OWS will make it all worse.
Exactly my sentiment.
What would make it better?
For me to have faith in a party it needs to be presented with a clear structure, method, and goals. Defending this lack of clarity by saying "but it's something new and different" doesn't work with me. I don't follow something that is undefined.
As for tactics, I do not agree with the illegal mob activities practiced by OWS. For example, I do not agree in creating a road block and self-appointing oneself as an authority of law who decides which cars pass and which ones don't.
Finally, I wouldn't want to be in a party where the main faces of the movement have decided to sleep in tents to occupy a public space making it unusable for the rest of society. I would rather follow a party whose main faces are busy reading books and educating themselves, not wondering if they will get raped at 2am by the homeless man sleeping in the adjacent tent.
The problem is that we do not have a voice. The problem is the "news" is not explaining to the average person what has happened. The wealthy control Washington and control the media, so the tactics need to be different to get attention. As soon as OWS has a clear set of goals, the wealthy will set out to undermine and spin it and use propaganda to make people fear the goals as we have seen with "you can't tax job creators" and fears of "wealth redistribution" and "class warfare." Also, this is not a partisan issue. They are trying to remain non-partisan and inclusive.
MMO, this is not entirely true. Several well regarded and well known (i.e. NY Times best selling) authors have been blazing this trail for years. Friedman, Ehrenreich. Various books on the global economy. Talk radio. Bloggers. How about recent movies -- Super Size Me, Inconvenient Truth, Moore's litany. For the hundredth time -- these are not NEW ISSUES. It's patronizing to keep noting how "no one knew about any of this corporate greed."
I couldn't agree more. Only a fool throws their support behind an unknown entity that will only claim to be angry at something and attempts to gain numbers through appeals to emotion.
I would NEVER stop my vehicle for one of these mobs. Not in a million years. If they stand in front of my vehicle and refuse to let me leave, I will not hesitate to run them over.
Who gave these mobs the authority to do this? And who the hell do they think they are denying everyone else their rights? That's beyond the pale. Who supports this sort of crap?
Hear hear. I am 100% behind the points you are succinctly making. I, too, have been turned off by this assumption that "either you're with us or you're against us." Someone actually said this to me!
You want to know what's beyond the pale, talking about how you would KILL people who have the RIGHT in this country to public assembly. YOU ARE A FUCKING IDIOT.
"Will not hesitate to run them over" -- wow, you have really lost credibility. The problem is that we do not have a voice. The problem is the "news" is not explaining to the average person what has happened. The wealthy control Washington and control the media, so the tactics need to be different to get attention.
Who the hell do the 1% think they are denying all of us the American dream while the steal the fruits of our labor and replace wages with easy credit. You should be more mad about that -- your anger is misdirected.
Apparently you've never experienced an attempted carjacking. I will never, under any circumstances, stop my vehicle for any non-uniformed person. Period. I certainly don't WANT to have to run someone over but if they come to my area and put me in that position, I'll do what I must to protect myself and my family.
I opened a thread on a report from a local report about these idiots stopping vehicles and deciding who could leave and who couldn't. These thugs and tools have no authority whatsoever to even stop the cars, much less make such a decision.
If that's what your group is about, just say it and let everyone know it. But I promise you no one is going to tolerate that crap.
So you've experience an attempted carjacking? Too bad they didn't shoot you in the fucking head.
How does acting like a mob and creating a roadblock to stop all vehicles that pass give you a voice? Don't you realize that 99% of the vehicles that go through are part of the 99%? That means that you anger 99% of the people to get to the 1%. It's not an efficient tactic by a long shot.
Furthermore, OWS is not about giving you a voice since they don't express any goals, or have a clear mission.
They have no "goals" and a clear mission because as soon as they do the wealthy and powerful will put in tons of money to try to discredit whatever goals they have. They will demonize them as being "socialist" or "Communist" because the goals are not for the 1%.
No, the reason they have no goals is because the OWS structure was organized as an anarchy by Graeber and Sarti.
I do not agree. I am a former Republican and used to hold office in the party. This is not just some anarchist movement.
Well, they sure look and one, and are organized like one, and they sure breed chaos.
I have to agree. Boston's Occupy march stopped traffic during rush hour. Who do you think is commuting in that rush hour traffic and doesn't appreciate extra delays due to mob behavior? That 99% OWS keeps talking about….
Watch this video and tell me your thoughts. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HTkEBIoxBA
How does your video relate to the issue being discussed? I don't get it.
Did you watch it? It is exactly what the movement is about.
So, sort of "guitly until proven innocent". Yeah, I like that.
I like your idea! Are you going to create the page or shall I?
I have to go to bed just now, but if you want I can code something tomorrow morning and post it up on github where it can be tweaked. To clarify, I'm living in Indonesia, so it's 1:22am at the moment. I'll give you a shout after I wake up.
Whenever you have time. My HTML/CSS skills are very rusty (never learned ASP) so I'm sure you will create something far better than I.
You wouldn't have time anyway, what with all the analyzing of businesses you do. So who are you going to run over today, the black guy you think is trying to carjack you?
visceralrebellion you are SOOO Right !!!!
The Crypto Marxists @ OWS are the scum of the earth!
They & their "useful idiots are trying to impose on the REAL 99% the failied ideaology of the wonderful "Workers' Paradises" of Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, China, Soviet Union. Places SO wonderful you are shot if you try to leave.
Marxism is incompatible with truth which is why there is NO free press in the “Workers’ Paradise”
Hit the effete again with the TRUTH !!!
It's called a slogan, idiot.
It's a marketing epic fail, then. Nice avoidance technique too.
What do you do for a living? You clearly have a vested interest in the other side. Is Daddy a banker?
Oh get over yourself already! My husband works in civil engineering, I'm a business analyst.
Honestly, is this all you people have? Childish ad hominems that aren't even accurate?
Keep that up, it's sure to bring loads of people to your cause. /sarc
Civil engineering? So he lives off of tax dollars I'm guessing? Business analyst? Like I said, you have a vested interest in the other side. I sure called that one. You're full of shit.
Do you not have the first clue about anything??? Honestly??
Yes, I work for a business. The only people who DON'T work for a business are government employees.
But you go ahead with this nonsense. You find the nearest TV camera and spout this BS every hour on the hour. I want EVERYONE to hear you so they know precisely what you and your ilk think of them.
Thanks for the revealing conversation. Nitwit.
All I said is that you have a vested interest in the other side.
You really are a nitwit. Can't you see that visceralrebellion is vastly more educated then any of the protesters on these boards and that her position makes much more sense than yours?
If visceralrebellion were running the show…sign me up . This is the most lucid thread in the whole forum.
That's very kind of you, Thrasymaque. Thank you.
Nope, I don't see that. I see a scared right winger who knows the party is over.
Why the hate EndGluttony? We are all humans, we all have our human frailties and our human frustrations. Why antagonize and make an enemy when you can seek to understand and try and make a friend?
Visceralrebellion is frustrated because she sees a movement that is demonizing people who have been Fortunate enough to find success. We should seek to earn the respect and admiration of the wealthy, not to demean and belittle them.
You get what you give. If you want respect, you have to give it. If someone insults you, it is better for you to say "I'm sorry you live in hate" then to lash out at them.
Stop now or you will become the thing you hate most. A disrespectful person.
Why would I respect you or visceralrebellion? You are fools.
I'm truly sorry you have decided to live in a world of hate. I hope things improve for you, and, in the future, we might be able to speak as friends.
"Scared" of you?? Sure, I'm shaking in my boots. . ..
This part of the thread has degenerated into complete absurdity.
Not scared of me, scared of the criminality of your business analysis being exposed.
Go read Palin's book.
Not scared. Disgusted and annoyed. With OWS.
What do you do for a living?
I am the accounting manager for a petroleum consulting firm. I also have a private business, just me. I use my photography to create greeting cards, postcards, etc. I usually work on that between midnight & 2 a.m. but I do it for the love of it! I am also a full-time mom & wife.
And you?
I am on my way to bed so I'm not dodging you if you reply to this tonight.
No it's remarkably successful, makes sense and does it's job nicely.
I think the Goethe quote works well for you.
Thats the Rules for Radicals of the marxists for you. This movement is not about what people think it is. It is a move by the marxists and communists to take over the country. It is up to us reasonable people to change the direction and focus the efforts on ending corruption in Washington and getting our representative government out of the hands of the Oligarchs.
Well said. To the point, and spot on.
Thank you for speaking my feelings and thoughts through your fingers onto this screen.
Have a great evening
You're welcome. Hope you're having a good day!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM_L6_5X37o