Forum Post: Why do YOU protect YOUR 1% and hate MY 1%
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 12, 2011, 7:12 p.m. EST by mynameismoe
(153)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
You never attack a Michael Moore or other RICH liberals living in mansions, fly in private jets, ride in SUV's, drink expensive wine while they fly over you at 40,000 feet. You turn your head to the rich liberal movie and rock stars. You turn your head to rich liberal democrats in congress. But you hate our 1%. We know they are both rich. But seems like your rich would give up their wealth to be just like YOU if they really cared. They dont, but you love them. They could decide TODAY to share their ENTIRE WEALTH with you,,,, but they dont and you dont care. That is the flag we watch you carry.
its not about rich people in general, its about big money meddling in politics. its about buying into the government. wealth when used inappropriately distorts democracy. that's the problem.
You missed the point and "re-directed" away from YOUR 1%.
its not a left-right issue. its about using money to buy the government. ows is non-partisan, we don't trust either group, get it? simply trying to stir up left-right antagonism is not going to get you very far and is not addressing the problem of big money distorting democracy.
The term 1% is more a metaphor. We aren't protesting against 1 in 100 Americans. There are those with inordinate wealth that do not create things of value (toxic mortgages and CDOs) and see fit to lobby congress for laws that makes doing business easier for them and harder for everyone else. Those are the "1%". Michael Moore provided entertainment for which he has been compensated. He doesn't use that money to lobby against his competition.
You honestly don't think that Michael Moore uses his money and influence to try and enact political change? That is what lobbying is. He may not be a registered lobbyist but his entire career is essentially lobbying.
You make a valid point. but the difference is Moore is lobbying the people, not the politicians. If the Kochs want to make movies about why the neutering of the social safety net is the bee's knees, i'd be all ears.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The face of Hollywood's movie industry in Washington is leaving the post next year, prompting a casting call for one of this city's most coveted lobbying jobs. Dan Glickman, chairman of the Motion Picture Association of America, said Monday he will leave the post when his contract expires next September. The position mixes the glamour of hobnobbing with Hollywood celebrities with the nitty gritty of issues important to studios like taxes and protecting films from unauthorized distribution on the Internet.
They are comparable but "lobbying" is a term used when it is directed directly at a legislative body. By making movies and what not that aim to inform the public one is not undermining another's ability to decide and vote for themselves.
i understand that, but going by what i though was Moocs' point, Moore does have interests and they are moved foreword by his movies, which in the grand scheme of things works like a lobby.
USAToday WASHINGTON (AP) — The face of Hollywood's movie industry in Washington is leaving the post next year, prompting a casting call for one of this city's most coveted lobbying jobs. Dan Glickman, chairman of the Motion Picture Association of America, said Monday he will leave the post when his contract expires next September. The position mixes the glamour of hobnobbing with Hollywood celebrities with the nitty gritty of issues important to studios like taxes and protecting films from unauthorized distribution on the Internet.
Ok great.That's Dan Glickman. As a lobbyist he will speak with lawmakers. Michael Moore is a filmmaker, who makes films for everyone to watch. Should Michael Moore become a lobbyist, I would be against that as well.
OMG,,,,,,, forget the Glickman part. You really dont get it. The Motion Picture Association has major lobbiest in Washington, is the point of the story. The association represents the "FILM MAKERSSSSSSSSSssssss" which Moore is. Moore gives this association money to lobby for him and the studio(s) that distributes his films in movie theaters. MY GOD,,,,,, you would protect Moore if he was in the act of raping someone. YOU love these RICH 1% liberals and want to protect them. He doesnt lobby but pays millions to those that do on his behalf. If they didnt,,,, why do they need a lobbiest in Washington?
I don't like Moore. At the end of the day his main effect is to send otherwise floating voters towards the Dem.s. Nor do I like Glickman. He may claim to be a liberal, but he's in the money shuffling game.
Nor do I like the GOP.
I think this is the position of a lot of people here. Some may have liberal leanings, but they have grown tried of the liberal establishment, which they have learned serves them no better than the conservative est.
No, Sorry but you can't simply call the term 1% a metaphor...OWS has made it way more than a metaphor...you are acting on that metaphor..you are 'exposing' (doxing) whomever you feel should be a target....you are going after persons..not just some metaphorical 1%...and its not even all the 1% but ANYONE who dare oppose you in any way...you have made this personal..you have demonized and objectified others....whom you judge to be less than you or less worthy than you because they are worthless and don't contribute to society by your standards...your vitriol diminishes the legitimacy of your movement and those that participate
Me? Please show where I have done any of these things. I thought you had a legitimate question and was hoping you weren't posting here looking for an argument. It was not me who has been vitriolic in this conversation. Thanks for posting and take care.
And when obama fly's out to Hollywood and raises millions of dollars from rich movie stars from one evening dinner, that is not realllllllyyyyyyy a lobby for power,,,,, I ASSUME.
What you call Michael Moore lobbying is not. Michael Moore makes films that the public can see. Lobbying is directly to the government, away from the public eye. And no, fundraising is not lobbying.
You must be 13.
Oh,,, I understand. I thought Movie companies lobbied congress. Entertainment people are exempt in your eyes. Mansions and jets and limo's are fine with you. You have a need for re-distribution of wealth but not re-distribution of wealth for entertainers? I understand clearly now. And to think, I thought the movie studio's lobbied congress and gave huge amounts of money to democrat candidates. How stupid I feel.
but if laws are changed, they both would have to pony up.
But OWS,,,, it APPEARS,,, and liberals,,, it APPEARS,,, are only attacking .5% of the rich which are republicans. They never mention the .5% very rich democrats. That is my beef.
who cares. besides, "your guys," as you so blindly cheer, are very efficient at making the left's guys look lousy too.
I have come to believe in the last few weeks, that both factions are morally corrupt. The "them" who is not "us" whether it be democrat or republican, does not really exist. Except in the minds of those who created it and those continue to manifest it. OWS, as far as I can tell, has not targeted Republicans or Democrats.
Please do not pretend to know what my beliefs are. You asked for clarification on something and I gave you a response. No need for the attacks. Banking institutions lobbied for years to repeal Glass-Steagall, a law put in place after the Great Depression. Immediately after they began making bad loans, bundling them together, selling them, and then betting against them. I do not agree with lobbying. It ends up equating to money being equal to free speech. Those with more get a louder voice. That applies to both sides.
You still failed to comment on the .5% that are liberal rich.
I never made this about conservatives or liberals. Your initial post did. Lobbying done on both sides is unfair to the public at large.
Well put...
Well done... Notice the run for the exits.....
I notice the poor people in line at the grocery store are the ones that typically look through the PEOPLE magazine the most.
Its about rich people who got rich illegitimately and use their ill gotten gains to protect their interests in perpetuity.
Can you list names of the rich that got their ill gotten gains? List the first ,,,,oh,,,,,,, rich liberal democrats, first. My point, you only list the rich republicans.
Corzine---Ha #1; Stanley ONeal (dont know his political affiliation) Carl McCall- another Dem; Ken Lewis (???) Madoff (probably a dem); Blankfein; Henry Paulson, etc, etc. I can list 100's regardless of politcal affiliation. A Scumbag is a Scumbag. Why is everything political?
Very good. Now, are you protesting in front of their offices or only rich republicans on wall street?
You think there are only Republicans on Wall St?
You are not very well informed. radical22 just named some Wall St Democrats for you and there are more. Goldman Sachs is a huge contributor to the Barack Obama campaign, as is JP Morgan Chase and Citigroup.
You are the one who divides the world into Republicans (Wall St) and Democrats (Hollywood) and then tries to beat us up with your erroneous straw man.
Get better informed about the world before you try to challenge people here to a debate.
You are rude and misinformed.
What is your obsession with partisan politics? Stop already. They should all be shamed. And add your idol the former VP Dick Cheney. One of the biggest influence peddling scumbags. He belongs in the Hall of Shame too.
America is divided in half, by political beliefs. You really think you will get chances if your side keeps hearing what you say? If an OWS person shouts in the forest and there isnt a republican to hear it, does it count?
Why do you assume my side? Because I disagree with your bias? Does that make me a whiny liberal? You dont know me. I agree that you make a fair point but you are as biased as the people you rail against. Why do you think "your side" has cornered all the intelligence on these issues?
I dont claim to be smarter. Here is what I know. The poor have gotten poorer. I dont worry about the rich getting richer. You will never take wealth away as it has been for 3,000 years. But you can make changes were there is less poor and opportunities to not be poor. The poor in America is far less poor than the poor in other places of the world. So, the fact, you can be less poor. An agenda to create more poor is what is going on in America. Democrats claim they are for the poor. If there were no poor there would be no need for democrats. Democrats NEED POOR to gains their election power and remain in power. Rich democrats need poor. They create more paths for poor people to follow and it goes on and on.
Wealth would have been taken away BUT the bailout prevented it. All the Bush bailout machine cared about was protecting the status quo. If Republicans were true "free market" people they would have let the free market cleanse all the crooks, but Ah, they were the crooks so they had to protect their friends. See how much that bailout did for lending? Where are the loans? Yeah the poor can get payday loans at 700% annualized interest. The banks have become no better than the shylocks on the corner. In fact they put the shylock out of business. What value does Wall Street add to society? That could not be done in some other forum? That is the real question.
Ask congressman (D) Barney Franks to answer your question. One hint, "Everyone has a right to own their own home even if they cant afford to pay for it." Enough said.
Does everyone have a right to have an outrageous bonus sucking on the blood of an unsuspecting ignorant borrower? How do you and your friends sleep at night?
Did a politician advertise loans? I thought that was what mortgage bankers did. That Barney Frank crap is a talking point from Fox News that has no basis in fact. Please read the link to this article from the Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/what-caused-the-financial-crisis-the-big-lie-goes-viral/2011/10/31/gIQAXlSOqM_story.html
I'm not a banker. I own my home. I paid for it with a loan rate I knew I could pay back. Maybe an ignorant person should not borrow money based on what a politician says I can afford,,, or cant afford.
Do you mean liberal leftist rich like Soros and Buffet and most Hollywood actors? I do find it interesting that the Left trusts Marxist rich men.
Exactly. The guys that make poor liberals, FFFEEEeeeeeellllllll GOOOoooooddddddd.
Jesus christ...are you just stupid? Seriously. I don't care how much money somebody makes, and whether they're liberal, conservative, or otherwise. What exactly don't you get? We want MONEY OUT OF POLITICS. We want Citizens United overturned. We want Glass-Steagall reinstated. And we want bank executives who committed fraud to be tried and, if convicted, IMPRISONED. Hope this helps...
Frankly most of us think YOU are stupid. You really dont get the point. Most of us think the OWS movement is full of hypocrits. You point your boney little liberal fingers at rich republicans but turn away and exempt the rich democrats. What part of that dont YOU get? Maybe you would actually get some of us to agree with you on some points but we dont trust you. Michael Moore can belong to the Motion Picture Associations and pay lobbiests millions of dollars in DC and that is GOOOODDDddddd. But nobody else can do it. What part of that dont YOU understand?
Do you have reading comprehension problems? Go back and reread my third sentence: "I don't care how much money somebody makes, and WHETHER THEY'RE LIBERAL, CONSERVATIVE, OR OTHERWISE." I hate Democrats and Republicans equally--they're two sides of the same coin. As I mentioned, I want private money out of politics (and Citizens United overturned), I want Glass-Steagall reinstated, I want ZERO public money spent to prop up failing private banks, and I want bank executives to go to prison just like pot growers get sent to prison (only bank executives are 100 times worse). I don't give a shit about Michael Moore or any other Democratic or Republican "star"--they're all just opportunistic assholes who are IN THE WAY...
Lame excuse. You at the repubican rich and LOVE the liberal rich.
This is so true!
I want the secret recipe to how rich Hollywood liberals can live in mansions, fly in private jets, ride in limo's, wear millions in diamonds and then get poor people to buy magazines so they can find out how great they are and get a tear in their eye. OWS type people love movie and rock stars,,,,,, rich ones.
i guess it is your analogy you use to describe democracy that blinds you to the severity of the situation. if this is a sport and your side is winning, and those gains are destroying the spirit of the game, then it is up to the referee, the fans and your opponents to stop you, or the whole playing field is decimated.
You missed the point. Why would you not want to have the joy of a win? I would think your win would be less poor. Maybe you dont want less poor.
Who is Us and Them? are you talking about Republicans and Democrats. That division has gotten this country into a world of trouble. bah.. they are all corrupt, don't be their puppet any longer.
It is US against THEM. You are THEM.
Ok, fine. I am them. You win. I am a bleeding heart left leaning liberal, and you are a bible thumping right wing nutso. Problem Solved? if you havn't noticed, this argument is worn out and frankly, stupid. Does not contribute anything positive to the world. I am done with partisan politics friend. Past done. Burnt out.
I tend to be pretty happy with the results of republican solutions. I may be wrong but it appears to us that liberals are never happy. I cant imagine having the "we are poor and getting poorer" attitude daily. I could not enjoy life without a mission to do better, which I can typically do. I enjoy making contributions to social programs and funding services in our community, (Boys-Girls Clubs, United Way, Women's Center, Salvation Army, hospital expansions, school expansions, etc and etc). Never thought of that as being liberal leaning but the right thing to do.
Ok, then I see the problem! Your original post was misleading. You should have posted this instead. Because we actually agree! I also cannot imagine going through life seeing things so negatively. There is injustice, but also there is justice. There are terrible things in the world, but there are also wonderful things. There is greed, but there is also the indomitable human spirit! I also do not like people who just complain and have nothing positive to offer. So, I guess we are not so different after all. If I am THEM, than you must be too :)
If there was a sporting event. Two sides. One side walks away typically happy at the end of the game thinking they won something and the other walks off the field feeling far more worse than the end of the last game and the game before that, then to me that is the difference between a conservative republican and a liberal democrat. I feel like I have worked hard, (lots of team efforts, lots of studying, lots of planning for the next game, better prepare myself, learn from my mistakes and try to CREATE something better than what was given to me) in exchange, I can get some rewards. The liberals keep trying the same plan for 50 years and each year the same battle cry before and after the game is, "We are poor and getting poorer." I cant imagine how a person can go through life and expect better things with they are always looking for mommy government to solve their problems. I believe in helping the helpless, not the clueless.
I came to this forum several weeks ago, and I was mad as hell. I was thinking, how dare these people claim to be speaking for the 99%. Why are they complaining about jobs, just go get a job. I am not a billionaire, does that mean they are speaking for me?. I came, I spoke, and I continue to put my voice in the mix. I read, I research, I learn. I really don't know what we are building here. But I can tell you is goes far deeper and far wider than what you have scraped off the surface. Your post proves that you are competent. But I really don't know who you are talking to. You probably belong here with the rest of us, who are also not liberals crying "we are poor and getting poorer".
And i'm not in the 99%. Here is my one single point that would make first. Everyone knows the percentage of republicans-democrats-independents. Toss out the independents for a moment. Half of the country wants a bigger government and raise taxes to pay for social programs. Half of the country wants small government and lower taxes. I left out social programs on the republican side. WE ALL KNOW HOW IMPORTANT many of the social programs are. Even under total republican control of both houses and president, we have never tossed out social security, medicare, medicaid. We have never supported (sad face) starve elderly or starve school kids. In fact, our side has allowed huge increases in our budget and a $15 trillion debt. If that does not show we care,,,,, what would? The OWS is really about supporting a liberal agenda that has failed for 50 years. It started under obama after the debt raising process was foiled. The solution to the bigger problem in this movement is that after many of my posts questioning rich liberals, every OWS post protected rich democrats. If you want me to support this movement you would have to put your first coin in. Protest rich liberal democrats in the halls of congress and rich liberal Hollywood democrats supporting the poor by living in huge mansions behind tall walls as they travel in SUV's to the airport to fly in their private jet and drink expensive wine while flying over the poor waving at them from 40,000 ft. Go after them and their money first and I might join you going after rich republicans.
Actually, Paul Ryan and many Republicans would like to get rid of programs like Medicare and Social Security. Sure, they would be replaced with "market-based" solutions but doesn't that really mean the same as not existing? Anyway, whatever.
If they did, they have has decades of chances to do it. In fact, there have been a number of cost of increases for SS people during republican control. Ask yourself how we still have SS if your facts are correct. and they arent. There is a huge difference between what you say, "get rid of" and changes. I would support some privitization of a percentage of ss deposits. With an annual return of .5% on ss funds compared to annual returns of 3%-12% on safe investments. We may not need ss if better investments were created.
sorry, but you lost me. I really tried to stick with you moe. I don't know who is trying to get you to support this movement. Everyone is here of their own free will.
Free will is great if you start without a problem.
Still few are posting how they can protect .5%
I think you forgot to add a few things...wheres curly and larry?
Yeah, good answer.
George Bush is the devil himself
And you are MUCH better off under obama. Happy days are here again! All together now, Happy Days are here again!!!
George Bush flew the plane himself into the World Trade Center. Obama's black and black guys are cool when theyre not robbing 7-11s
You wont, but, Google when the 19 terrorists started taking flight lessons in Florida. Bush wasnt even the GOP nomination guy when the terrorist hated American liberalism so much they wanted to burn us down. Check the dates.
George Bush did I have the pictures to prove it
public health care
No replies. I hit a nerve and they cant answer. Their rich dont have to be rich if they give it all up and share.