Forum Post: You are 98%
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 7, 2011, 1:11 p.m. EST by Indy4Change
(254)
from Columbia, SC
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Look, I don't directly or indirectly support your cause because frankly, I don't know what your "cause" is. I read through these threads and I see people trying to define reasons for your occupation of Wall Street and all I see is a garbled mess of misguided passion, violent rhetoric, and proposals to engage in criminal activity. I'm not in that 1% you all appear to hate, but I can honestly say I don't want you to claim to speak for me either -- and I know plenty of other people out there who feel the same way I do.
So, this is what I propose...
Stop with the 99% stuff, and back your claim off to 98%. Once you establish a cause, a valid reason for existence, a reason to bring someone like me into the fold, then by all means, take claim for the 1% of people out there who are me. Until then, please don't pretend to speak for me. This isn't one of those situations where you claim enough of everything to be able to claim everyone. I would never find myself to want to be associated with a misguided group of individuals who can't stop fighting amongst yourselves long enough to come together for a real cause.
Secondly, leave Wall Street and camp out in Washington D.C. The congress (both sides) and this administration are who you should be protesting. Does it suck that the banks took the bailout and appear to have screwed the middle class - yep... but they are for-profit organizations (like it or not), so why wouldn't they take advantage of what they are offered in order to survive? No, instead, it is the corrupt Chicago style political system we have in place that breeds this kind of corporate behavior... Go after the politicians and save but a few, the rest are all in bed together (no matter what letter is behind their name). Focus your rage to where it truly belongs, so you don't look like a bunch of hooligans who would rather skip class than be productive members of society because what you are doing on Wall Street is very unproductive.
actually the message has been pretty clear, it's only garbled for the people too lazy to find out for themselves, or who just eat what they're spoon fed from media outlets. The majority of the people on this forum have nothing to do with OWS or it's cause and are only pushing for their own agendas. This isn't about the have's vs. the have nots, it's not about class warfare, it's not about the right vs the left, it's not a bunch of crazed hippies beating drums. This is about ending political corruption and ending the influence of the financial industry in our government, and ending any outside influence that would cause our politicians to act on behalf the wealthy 1% over the best interest of the 99% and that supersedes any political or personal belief systems because it's not about that it's about right and wrong, and it is fundamentally wrong that any public figure should be able to be bought. Would you allow cops or judges to accept bribes??
well said!! :)
Yep yep yep yep yep, you said it.
Wait wait wait... First off, I absolutely resent the "lazy" implication. I am a very hard working middle class citizen with a family. I don't have the luxury of just dropping my responsibilities to camp out in protest with an unorganized mob. This site is the "official" site of the movement, so why are you OK with this forum not offering some form of representation of the movement. The fact is, that there's really nothing on this web site that defines clear goals (even outside of the forums section) - and yes, I have researched it HERE rather than hoping the MSM tells me what it's about. Since this forums doesn't represent the movement, then I guess I should dismiss what your posted and purported take is?
Well then wait wait wait... because i'm very hard working middle class citizen with a family and a demanding job too, but when i see a group of american citizens banding together for the greater good and trying to make change i don't immediately dismess them as crazy hippie liberals looking for a hand out and wanting some weird hippie utopia, before i immediately start criticizing or dismissing i figure out what is that's actually happening. They've been saying it on wall street from the beginning, they want an end to the corporate influence in our government and they want the people on wall street to be held accountable for their crimes. If you don't have time to occupy or put in the work to make the changes in this country then fine, theres nothing wrong with that because few people do, but don't start attacking the people who try. This is the official site, but this is a "FORUM" a place for people to talk about whatever the hell they please, and thats all it is, it has no bearing what so ever on real life, it's a chat room on the internet regardless what site hosts it because anyone can say anything. And by that definition then by all means dismiss whatever i say if you want, just don't take it to fox news as the stance of the 99% cause they'll take it and run with it like it is.
If you want to know what this movement "officially" stands for you can read the first communique from the "General Assembly" collective:
http://billayers.wordpress.com/2011/10/05/occupy-wall-street-collective-statement-of-the-protesters/
In sum: the corporations have done EVIL of every sort including colonialism and weapons of mass destruction. They have trampled our very RIGHTS! They must be stopped.
Missing: more government isn't the solution.
someones private website on the internet has no bearing on anything
"it was on the internet it must be true"... come on be smarter than that
Oh, and here is an interview at the DC branch of the protest where the spokesman for one group of protestors admits he hired the protestors.
What a shame.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/06/organizer-admits-to-paying-occupy-dc-protesters-video/
again like i wrote below, theres a lot of people trying to use this movement as a platform to push their own agenda... that guy has his own movement and his agenda he's trying to push.
Wrong-oh, Bongo. That was from Bill Ayers - domestic terrorist and part of the movement.
Also, Keith Olbermann read it on his show as the official statement. I didn't link that because I don't care to subject anyone to his pompousness but you're free to watch it yourself. It is the official statement of the movement. If you don't like it, you should consider distancing yourself from the movement.
Because it was on Keith Olbermann's show it's legitment?? This movement is filled with people pushing their own agend. That aside, which part of Bill Ayers statement do you find to be untrue or an act of domestic terrorism?
1st - it is the statement from the General Assembly of the movement. That's the "lobbying" voice of the protest, meaning the folks who would sit with the politicians should it come to a head. It's not Bill's thoughts, it is the consensus, voted on message of the General Assembly of the movement.
2nd - yeah, others have other messages here but the message of the General Assembly defines the movement. You think all the Tea Party attendees were 100% lock-step? Nope. The minority causes were grandfathered in or shoved to the "fringe" of the group.
3rd - nothing in this statement is domestic terrorism but he is an unrepentant 1960-1970s BOMBER. That is why I referred to him as a domestic terrorist - he has a proven history with setting bombs on US soil and wishes he had set more (in his own words).
4th - it sounds like you disagree with the statement since you haven't accepted it. As it is the official released statement owned by the General Assembly of the movement and it is legit, why don't you choose to support it or denounce the parts you disagree with and set to change the movement to a different path?
I accept it as the general consensus when it comes from the nycga which i see you posted a link to, just not when it just comes from Bill Ayers personal site.
It's not that i don't agree with that list necessarily... but it's having a list of complaints instead of solutions that i don't agree with. It's like ok, everyone gets your angry, pretty much figured that out from the get go... and thanks for being more specific about why your pissed, not what do you actually want???
I think it is a somewhat reasonable list of gripes with a few petty exceptions - but misdirected rage most of the time. The problems, as I see it, are not that a business did whatever was legal to make a buck but that the politicians wrote the rules to legalize or encourage or erase responsibility for those businesses. This manifesto, if you will, is blaming the businesses for following the rules rather than blaming those who wrote the rules (which is equal parts politicians AND the very businesses supposedly being regulated by the "harsher" new rules to prevent crises).
SO -- -- let us ALL demand the next general consensus announcement be a proposal of solutions. Without that the majority of people cannot fully support this movement. It will either expose the movement as psychotic or rational. It will either create a true 99% or only a 9%. A consensus proposal of solutions may not meet your ideals perfectly but should be a rounded enough guide for you (and everyone) to see if this movement is right or just a platform to jump from.
I agree with that completely, the only thing is that when i look at that list as i do see it as the fault of our politicians, and thats the problem, a list like that is left completely open to interpretation instead of being clear. I'm completely on board with demanding proposal of solutions. It definitely needs to happen.
Also, you can read the statement here:
http://nycga.cc/2011/09/30/declaration-of-the-occupation-of-new-york-city/
Now tell me it's fake. It is on the NYC General Assembly official website of #occupywallstreet.
Own it or move on.
Where have I ever dismissed anybody in this movement as just some "crazy hippie liberal looking for a handout"? You will never see me dismiss people with differing view points because unlike many people posting throughout this forum, I am always open to dialogue and change - when and where it is applicable. My "dismissal" of you was based on your own words and was offered as a suggestion and nothing more.
I HAVE stated that this movement is leaning left and has no real established agenda - and thus does not represent 99% of the people - prove me wrong.
"They've been saying it on wall street from the beginning, they want an end to the corporate influence in our government and they want the people on wall street to be held accountable for their crimes." --- I would hope that this left leaning movement would also accept removing lobbyists and union influence from our government as well... but I'm just not so sure.
Well then maybe i was wrong to have looped you in the rest of the opposition posters on here, but the good majority of them sign up on the forum and immediately post that they're a bunch of whiny babies looking for a hand out. If your not one of those types than my apologies. It seems like they're leaning left because they haven't really come out with a strong message and the media has been trying to force into a left side message for their own agenda. Fox news wants it to be left so they can criticize them and condemn them and CNN wants them to be left so they can make it look a power play by the their side. In reality they haven't given a clear message because there's a clear lack of leadership. In my opinion, getting rid of the influence in our government doesn't stop at with the financial sector, but extends to any and all influence including any lobbyists and unions. I was extremely set back by the fact they accepted endorsements from unions, almost enough to stop supporting it.
"AFT fully endorses Occupy Wall Street " And when you hit the home page ofthis website and are greeted with this, along with 400+ posts (many of which gladly accept the endorsement), it becomes a huge turn off for centrist independents like me (BTW, I'm a fiscally conservative, socially centrist indy just in case you were wondering).
I like that it's a loose coalition with no clear leader -- because once a leader takes hold, then he/she/it becomes the mouthpiece for the movement and lets people from all sides start defining the movement any way they want and without the movement having any control or say.
What I don't like is the lack of any direction because of the lack of clearly defined goals - and the growth of the union and left-liberal progressive might presence. Fox is not the only one who wants it to be "left". The left-leaning MSM (MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, etc) are also endorsing the "left" nature of the movement as well. You won't get indy or any right support when this happens no matter how hard you try.
I'm pretty much in agreement with you there. I supported it because it was there was no partisan stance on it. But the second any side takes hold of it and it turns into politics i'm out. I like that theres been no clear message i think it's smart, but because of the lack of clear message all the wrong ones are being portrayed and people and media are using any message they want.
I am the 53%. The 53% that pay federal income taxes and don't get 100% refunds. The 53% of America that pays taxes, pays my debts, and is grateful for the opportunity to risk everything while I TRY to succeed and asks for no handouts or safety nets should I fail (again).
Everyone with a job, even those who get 100% refunds at the end of the year, pay 7% in FICA taxes every year which do not get refunded.
They pay the various Federal taxes that are tacked on to our phone bills & utility bills.
Depending on which state they live in, they may also pay sales tax & state income tax. Even people on welfare are paying sales tax out of their benefit checks.
As a self employed person my FICA tax is 15% because I pay both the employer & the employee share (and I also paid Federal Income tax last year and every year). I am one of your so-called 53% and I support OWS.
Even though they haven't announced official solutions? What if the "rage against the corporations" is followed by an announcement of the General Assembly consensus that to solve the problem we should seize all private property?
In otherwords, how can you confidently support a movement that hasn't defined a path to a goal?
I seriously don't think seizing all private property is going to come out of this protest. Do you really believe that could or will happen? These are Americans, just like you, who are not satisfied with the way things have been going in this country.
Truthfully, just the fact that people are coming out and talking about what concerns them and having the courage to demonstrate in the street in this climate of fear, is an important step.
The goals that were simply stated at the beginning of this were "End Greed And Corruption in Government" and "Restore Democracy".
Then it evolved into this:
http://coupmedia.org/occupywallstreet/occupy-wall-street-official-demands-2009
which is still not an official platform, but was the beginning of a consensus for this group. There's nothing there about seizing personal property and many of those points are things I've seen advocated by Libertarians & Tea Partiers.
It may not come to that solution, of course. But staying there with your answer was intellectually lazy. I asked further: how can you confidently support a movement that hasn't defined a path to a goal?
I support the right to peacefully air grievences 100%. I support the right to voice opinion and propose solutions (even really bad ones). I do not support this movement yet because they haven't set their goal unless the goal is to squat and whine.
No, "End GreedA nd Corruption in Government" and "Restore Democracy" isn't the goal. A defined goal would continue with "by [insert action]."
A goal to "lose weight" isn't successful because it lacks direction. "End corruption" is directionless sound bytes.
And no, the points in your link largely wouldn't appeal to Libertarians. If you would like, I can go point-by-point why. I am a Libertarian.
End the drug war and repeal the patriot act, which are on the bottom part of the page are probably the two that would be libertarian-supported causes.
I would be sincerely interested in hearing your critique on the rest, if you have time at some point. I do know generally "liberetarians don't like regulation" so would you be against revamping the SEC, for example?
Sorry that I don't have much time myself right now for in-depth discussion but if you really are interested in discussion, I'll be back on later : ) I do like hearing from people from all over the political spectrum, it helps me learn.
Agreed. I will click your profile and message it there when I can. I didn't see the drug war and patriot act part so I'll revisit the link and answer as much of it as I can.
Libertarians are never in favor of bigger government and that proposal is to revamp the SEC by making it bigger . . . so off the top of my head I have a problem with the "how" but may not with the intent of the proposal.
Best regards.
I was told by Anonymous that I was too focused. With that I have deduced that there is no plan, it is only chaos for chaos sake. Something else is going on here and i do not think it it altruistic.
This is for the people
No, it is not for the people, it is for you. This is a culmination of the me, me, me, I, I, I video game society. This will fail because you do not have a clue of what you want.
Agreed. So far the answers I have gotten from individuals here have eventually (through much "what do you mean when you say . . .") seems to be a form of Marxism or Communism. It ends up in more than one case so far as we should pay everyone in America $127k with a few exceptions for high skill labor getting up to double that.
As though the burger flipper getting $127k wouldn't mean the price of a value menu has no choice but to rise to $48 to cover the added cost in making it.
And no, folks, at $127k a year you cannot afford to eat out at $48 per fast food meal - even if nothing else in the economy went up in price (though everything would have to).
people are waking up .. a little disillusionment . 99% of the people that have been working hard their entire life are getting screwed ... We all knew it .. now people are saying it and trying to figure things out ... This is just the begin
I agree that 99% are getting screwed - maybe even 100% - but I disagree with the Marxist vision of how to fix it proposed by this movement.
This movement has not proposed a Marxist vision.
You should read the comments of most everyone in the movement. I thought that's how it worked in your Democracy . . . majority rules.
The define your purpose and represent the people... As I stated originally, you don't represent me because I have no clue what you actually represent. Do you think Edison just happened to stumble on incandescent light when he invented it? No - he had a clearly defined goal of producing that light - and all of his work and attention was focused on achieving that goal.
Aside from "take down Wall Street", what is the goal? The end game? You are living in la la land if you think you will garner real support if your only goal is to "take down Wall Street" because that is neither a realistic goal, nor an achievable one.
I've also read a lot of socialist propaganda on this site, and can relate to your views, but as an independent, middle-class worker I see a bit of myself in these protesters. We may have good jobs now, but if this economy gets any worse, we could be unemployed, spending our time down at the park beating the same drum with these folks. Scary thought, I know.
With all due respect alwayszbull - if I find myself out of a job, the last place I will be is on ANY street beating a drum with anybody. I have bills to pay, a family to raise, and a life to live. I also see a bit of myself in these protestors - some of them make sense... but many of them are way out there and don't truly know why they are there.
That's a fair assessment. Also, good luck on your job search.
I agree. We should demand for them to pass laws by occupying the capital.
Taking advantage of a broken system is the same as stealing, and our courts will rule that way. The message is garbled because we are so close to revealing untold truths... if you really want to understand the movement, join in, contribute, or do as much research as possible and then form your opinion... but you can't rely on what you're told, because self-serving interests will lie if they think it will save their skin.
There has been a massive "wealth redistribution" that has gone on for the last 30 years. The top 1% now controls over 42% of our entire nation's wealth and the top 10% now controls over 70% of our entire nation's wealth. The bottom 50% now control around 2% of our entire nation's wealth. (University of Southern California Study).
How did this wealth redistribution happen? The middle class is the engine of our economy. The middle class spends their wealth on corporate goods/services and the corporations take that money in as profit. The corporations redistributed the middle class wealth by paying vast majority of their profits out to the executives at the top and shareholders. Middle class wages have stagnated for 30 years while executive wages have gone up 256% in since 1980. Even last year executive compensation went up another 11%. We have not seen numbers like this since the great depression. All of our nation's wealth has been redistributed into the hands of the few.
How did this happen? The middle class was roped into replacing wages with easy credit and loans. So instead of paying people living wages, corporations fooled us into thinking we were doing well and could afford things by giving us easy credit instead of wages. Corporations came up with the brilliant idea that they could loan us money instead of paying us wages. Instead of having wages to buy t.v.'s, furniture, etc. we were given easy loans. So the middle class became a debtor class.
There used to be a tax disincentive to paying out all of corporate profits at the top because in the 1950's income was taxed at 90% over a certain amount money ($2 million in today's dollars) and now that tax disincentive has disappeared. In 1950's the highest marginal tax rate was 90%. In 1960-1970's it was 70%. In 1980's it dropped to 49%. In 1990's dropped to 39%. Under George Bush it dropped to a mere 36%.
We have had over 30 years of massive tax cuts for the wealthy. There is now no tax disincentive to paying out all of the corporate wealth at the top. And there is no employee bargaining power because now less than 7% of all of private sector jobs are unionized.
With no tax disincentive and no employee bargaining power, all of the corporate profits are being paid to shareholders and executives. Why can't you just trust executives to pay people fair wages? In the 1980's our courts ruled that corporate executives only have one duty and that is to maximize shareholder profits. The 1980's ruling single-handedly removed executives from having any duties to their employees, society, or to the company's long-term future. Executives only have one duty and that is to maximize short-term shareholder profits. And executive compensation is usually directly tied to maximizing short-term shareholder profits. This caused companies to not create long-term growth plans and to instead use gimmicks to increase short-term profits.
In fact, instead of executives using innovation, creation, and growth to increase profits and stock prices, executives know that they can do it through easier methods like laying-off workers and cost-cutting like pushing healthcare and retirement costs on workers.
The problems are: 1) deregulation of the banks by the Republican-controlled congress in 1999 (Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act); 2) hedge funds are exempt from regulation (and are currently causing the world financial crisis by betting against Greece and other Euro nations and the Euro currency); 3) tax system no longer has a disincentive against paying outrageous executive salaries (highest marginal tax rate has dropped from 90% to 36%); 4) commodities market (oil, gold, food, metals) is exempt from regulation and is now a haven for financial speculators (Republican-controlled Congress exempted it in the Commodities Future Modernization act of 2000); 5) the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations can spend unlimited funds in campaign elections - Citizen's United case (thus politicians on both sides favor the wealthy/corporations) and 6) the rise of corporate/billionaire propaganda media "news." Because of the need to raise massive sums in politics today, we no longer have a party that represents the people. The Democrats have to chase the corporate and big money donors too.
What can we do about this: 1) re-instate Glass-Steagall Act regulating the banks; 2) regulate hedge funds and the commodities market (because the commodities market is not regulated speculation has caused prices for commodities to go through the roof); 3) get rid of the money in politics (have federally funded elections with clear limits on spending and no outside groups allowed to have ads); 4) get rid of 1980's laws stating that corporations' only duty is to maximize shareholder profits; and 5) regulate "news" channels and newspapers (no more "slanted opinion news" masquerading as hard news) and reinstitute the fairness doctrine across all news outlets to ensure that both sides get equal time.
You are ignorant of the context in which the percentage 99% is used.
Unless you are heir to one of the great international fortunes siphoning the wealth of nations all over the world, then You are a part of the 99% that is sustaining yourself on the crumbs that fall from their table.
You may deny us, but you cannot deny your exclusion from that elite world, a world of people hard at work creating a culture that demands your obedience, and has obviously trained you well.
I am a successful entrepreneur and my financial limitation is based on 2 things. 1) My time and energy. 2) Taxes.
Neither of these are directly controlled by Wall Street interests. I don't pick up any crumbs off of their tables. I don't deny my exclusion from that elite world I've said several times that I'm not part of that 1%. Not sure how that's not clear to you...
Please note that this is a strong way forward to get to the true root of the OWS issues along with Occupy the Fed, Pentagon, WH, etc....
http://cafr1.com/ProtestWallStreet.html
Please note that this is a strong way forward to get to the true root of the OWS issues along with Occupy the Fed, Pentagon, WH, etc....
http://cafr1.com/ProtestWallStreet.html
Well, I'm not sure what the exact number is 1%, 2% whatever the number is. I don't hate the 1-2% But I can tell you what the 1-2% means to me. It means those that buy their repersentation in our governernment. 99% are left with the scraps. I believe that money speaks too loudly in our government. My cause - take back our democracy! From the monied influence that has bought and paid for our government.
It is a Representative Constitutional Republic - if you want to fight for something, then know what you are fighting for. If you are fighting for a Democracy, then this is a totally different conversation.
"Take back our Republic" is that technically correct? I think take back our democracy sounds better! And most people make the association between democracy and having a voice in our government which is what my point is. Even if I may not say it the most technically correct way. Hopefully, its the message that counts which is to get the money out of the political process.
Yes, I would say "Take back our Republic" is more technically correct - and I would even argue to say that sounds so much better. You could even enhance it with the "Democracy" motif by saying something like "Take back our Republic through the Democratic process" -- though I'm not sure too many who support the movement really even trust the process or the Republic anymore and truly do want a "Democracy" in place in our system of governance. Of course, that would require constitutional conventions or amendments and a rewrite of the rule of law - and that won't ever gain any traction because it is a dangerous avenue that most people recognize when they study the history of former (and failed) democracies throughout the world.
Do you think people would trust the Republic more if we changed the political system by taking the money out and moving to publicly funded elections?
I am all for publicly funded elections. There is entirely too much influence held by those with top dollar. The 2012 elections will be the most corporately funded election cycle in the history of the US - led by the incumbent's billion dollar war chest.
I do find it to be extremely funny how a lot of people are bashing the Republicans for the corporate influence when the Democrats have been the largest recipient of corporate/Wall Street donations during the past several years.
Neither party operates in the best interest of our society and people need to get out of this two party mindset... People need to start looking at the independents who are outside of the establishment.
Do you think it is possible that this protest could be successful in bringing about Election Reform before the 2012 election?
No don't see this impacting election reform initiatives for 2012. This movement doesn't look like it is heading in that direction as a central point - and even if it was heading in that direction, it wouldn't happen fast enough. The ball is already rolling as all of the candidates have already started building their multi-million dollar war chests.
Maybe if each of us that believe in Election Reform work towards communicating that to others it could happen.
I know that the ball is rolling already. But perhaps that could be reversed somehow, give the money back in some equitable fashion?? Use it to reduce the deficit??
I have some serious problems with the movement and the hypocrisy I see. You folks should be in front of Congress or the White House protesting our elected officials to craft good economic policies that will create jobs by loosening the constraints on business to create good jobs. The policies of this administration have hampered the economy, created the biggest deficit ever, contributed to the highest levels of unemployment since the depression etc. Prime example – Obama Care. And remember its 2010, not 2008. Obama has had nearly 3 full years to turn us around and he has not. Herman Cain said it best, "don't get mad at the bankers and don't wait for them to come out of their offices and write you a check, this is America- go out and get rich too". But most of you neither have the education, the ingenuity, the drive or work ethic to get rich. You wanted it handed over to you in the name of fairness and equality- how un-American! You folks are for redistribution of wealth, socialist ideals almost bordering on Communism. Don't you understand that money is how we keep score in our society. It's a simple equation. It says I put in x amount of education, work, time, ideas, sweat which = x amount of money. If you have no money, it's not the big corporations or bankers fault- it's your fault. How can you folks be protesting for 2 weeks? I would imagine that most of the protesters are unemployed. In that time frame you could have been out looking for a job. And, not to mention, you have cost the NYPD 2 million in overtime for the taxpayers. See the hypocrisy?
Sigh. Its all the same cause-a fifth grader see I that. Go watch an alex jones docor something. A man can be lead to the river but he can't / e forced to drink.you'll get it when ya get it
"Its all the same cause-a fifth grader see I that."
In English please... That might help me to "get it". Why would you assume that I support anything Alex Jones does? Where have I led you to think that way? Or is it easier for you to dismiss reasonable dialogue with red herrings and ad hominem tripe?
First of all, I did not say follow Alex Jones- in fact I did not refer to Alex at all. My point, in plain English sir, was that Alex happens to be awake- from my perspective- and if you are having a hard time understanding the basic, he would be a good person to glean from. Then I, although incorrectly, used a common idiomatic phrase to suggest that people will get it when they get it. They can be shown the path, but not forced to follow it. We are here to present the information which is commonly misconstrued. When one has observed such information, every individual has a choice to do with it as they please. We Occupy. You?
Be true to your heart, and if it tells you to look the other way, then that is your burden to bare (or not).
Let us not get into a grammar war, I love to wrestle with words.
I shouldn't have to repost this since it's just a post up, but here ya go: "Sigh. Its all the same cause-a fifth grader see I that. Go watch an alex jones docor something. A man can be lead to the river but he can't / e forced to drink.you'll get it when ya get it" So, ahhhh, yeah - you did refer to Alex Jones.
It's not that I am having a difficult time understanding "the basic", but rather that I am having a difficult time understanding your grasp of the English language which, unfortunately, means whatever you are trying to say is getting lost in translation. This "movement" is not as simple as you want to think and until it ever finds its way, it will remain extremely complex.
In any respect, best wishes.
Oh that part. Yeah I was tired. Thinking faster than I can type. My grammar is not that bad. Lol
"""Secondly, leave Wall Street and camp out in Washington D.C...... appear to have screwed the middle class - yep... but they are for-profit organizations (like it or not), so why wouldn't they take advantage of what they are offered in order to survive? ...........Focus your rage to where it truly belongs, so you don't look like a bunch of hooligans who would rather skip class than be productive members of society because what you are doing on Wall Street is very unproductive."""
They making both side of the problem , take a look at Occupy DC . they actually very focus on the problem, actuallly getting peacful atention is a main objectiv , so that the problem is talken, like you are doing now. :-) so that americans wake up.
Is really nonsense than on 2008 banks where save. In a free market of a real capitalism the banks should go down. And in extreme case only the people money on the bank, should backup by FED or whatever.
In this country never minds if a banks crash, it is cover up to 50.000 usd. per person by goverment.
Actually, based on the responses I got when I asked what defined 99%, it's more like 99.99%, I think. Someone eventually told (chided) me, 'it's not math!', and another person said, 'anyone making over 250k a year', and another person said, 'no, it's the top 400 families' (was wondering if that meant the kids counted as the 1%, or if they could be counted as independent), and someone said, 'well, 1% of 300 mil is roughly 300k, so it's the highest 300k people in America'...
I don't think anyone is quite sure what constitutes the 1%, so there's no definite answer on who is the 99%, either. ...
So who exactly is being demonized here? The other thing that bothered me was if it's this top top crust of people, that still includes giant philanthropists like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Warren Buffet... Are we supposed to burn them at the stake too? I think there is too much blame and finger-pointing - that's not the way to fix things, that's the way to incite class war.
I'm personally confused about the Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Warren Buffet kind of philanthropists too. I figure their hearts may be in the right place, these philanthropists, but I also believe that there's a certain amount of noblesse oblige involved with this.
Not to mention that in some cases there wouldn't be a need for philanthropy if they weren't hoarding so much money...
I wouldn't know what to do. But the way I figure it, for every million dollars these tycoons harvest, that's another couple of families in debt.
And inciting a war is a great way to covertly steal power. :/ While we bicker and fight and blame the other guy, we put ourselves at greater risk.
What I do like is the idea of rapid problem-solving and energy put towards resolutions and solidarity - that word has been making rounds a lot in juxtaposition to the hate being poured out to the police, abstract silhouettes on Wall St., and a few select politicians and figureheads - and I really, really love seeing people from all over openly discussing what we really want, what is really broken...
I wouldn't waste my time tuning in if I didn't think there was a chance for positive change, but some of this has got to be looked at a little less emotionally, and a little more based in fact.
You may be confused, let me clarify:
The 99% want our government to be for the people, by the people. They want corporations to be kicked out of our government and they want their voices heard. Unless you are a lemming, I think you too agree with that.
After that, you are hearing what their demands are. The point isn't what their demands are, the point is that they have demands, and our government doesn't care.
Does that make more sense? Media is focusing too much on the individual demands and missing the point.
I have to disagree - what if their demands were to kill all white people, or to burn down all religious centers in an effort to avoid future conflicts? Should the government do that? There still aren't enough people there to honestly represent a majority vote, though the crowds are definitely growing. That statement is too open to be logical.
I love the dialog. Thanks. I'm not sure I agree that the 1% must inherently be those who want the government to not be for the people. In fact, even with "greed", an argument can be made that those 1% would be very much in favor of the government being of, by, and for the people by instituting policies that enforce strict constitutionalism - and that dissolving the supreme rule of law (in the way that many government policies that many OWS supporters also support) would, in fact, be not for the people.
And, as far as the "math" goes, i get it... but the point is not how much really are for and against -- but rather than this movement has defined a clear with or against line. You are either in the 1% (super rich fed by corporate greed) or you are not (middle and lower class) and thus in the 99% - and therefore you have to be against the 1%. I am neither in the 1%, nor am I completely against a disolvment of capitalism, so I cant find myself in the 99% either... especially if the 99% leans way left - like it is doing. Thus - you are 98%. I hope that makes sense. I'm not your enemy - but I'm not calling "them" the enemy either - at least not on uncertain terms since this movement has no clear goals.
I am not saying that all of their ideas are reasonable. I'm just saying that most of their ideas are reasonable, and they are their because they feel it DOESN'T MATTER whether they dislike what the government does or how they do it, because they feel they are not being represented. And they are there to show, they exist and will not be ignored. Most Americans aren't represented. The only ones that ARE represented are corporations.
The only policies that consistantly keep being passed are those that help corporations. Most everything else is in a stalemate.
Plus, not all of the protestors want hand outs. Some just want hands off. They want the Federal government to back off their taxes, and to stop coddling the rich. They want our government to be hands off the world.
The point is, that after we elect some stranger to represent us, they go off and do whatever is best for themselves. We are completely shut out of the demcratic process.
@ANONYMOUS - So would you be for or against one of these "bloated fat cats" standing with you in solidarity? Afterall, is it not unreasonable for them to want the government to be just as hands off as you do? If a WS broker stood next to you in his Armani suit, and raised his fist in solidarity, would you shoo him away knowing he just commissioned a half mil on a huge deal?
Not if he agreed with the cause. there are some that are okay with paying taxes
Taxes? I thought this was about taking down wall street and punishing the corrupt fat cats? Why should taxes even be a topic of discussion? I thought this movement was supposed to be a bipartisan movement? There are ways of fixing this economy where taxes don't even have to come up in discussion... This guy is thumbing his nose at your cause because in his head, he's not one of those 1%... He's 99%.
I was just using that as an example of them not being greedy.
99% of the planet is fed up with Wall Street and their export of greed, exploiting workers and resources world wide, crippeling the climate and setting an example of how to buy politics. It is at Wall Street and Euronext, the interest behind it, that are buying politics though lobby coorporations, while we, who are following this from across the sea, very clear call for an end to this. It is the right place! And it's not just about getting jobs sold to China, yours and hours, it is bringing down your economy. Economy comes from 'Oikos', meaning house, or household, in Greek. The way things are going down in the US hurts more than just the US economy, that is by now in the hands of the Chinese government. It is also really, totaly spoiling things for all of mankind. We need you to bring about financial market reform, and understand too, that it is wrong to let the banksters run the show through donations to politicians, buying influence, instead the people should get hold on the agenda, families, communities should get back into the centre of attention. Live does not revolve around money and jobs, they should just be there to suppport families. Get rid and prosecute the corporate players that bought and hijacked the political agenda. What you fail to see is how greed has become an ideal which will destroy the planet. It is against life. It is big business, it is in their interest of efficient production and profit maximalisation to end employment, disrupt communities and to destroy families. Being against this protest, or any protest is fully anti-democratic too. Protest is what made the US, what made my country, the Netherlands, free of slavery many times through history. This is the place where the protestants and many of the founding fathers actualy came from.
remember the image of the December 26, 2004 Tsunami where that poor soul stood at the water's edge in front of the wave as it approached? probably saying to himself either "why has the tide sucked out so far?" or was saying "holy shit - i'm fucked!". Either way, fascinated or fucked the wave came in and destroyed everything in its path.
Unproductive? YOU'RE talking about it aren't you? People are talking about it. You don't just write a list of demands based on a few folks ideas. Careful consideration of all the folks and situations involved is a wise approach, something our elected leadership doesn't do. Why can't this take some time to work through?
I'm not saying it can't take time. In fact, you've had plenty of time aside from the past 3 weeks. Corrupt politics has ruined this country and created a distrust of the most effective wealth production machine for decades -- innovation that is only made available through a free market system that rewards advances rather than punishes it. I'm talking about it because I want to think your occupation may actually enable some kind of change, but you have no vision or goals... What could you possibly expect to have happen without such?
For one, I expect folks to start talking... yay for that. Through dialogue we will discover answers that weren't considered prior to the conversation start. But isn't the message also quite clearly "a lot of us have had enough"
I had enough of my beagle's late night howling whenever he heard an ambulance drive by, but I didn't occupy his crate and protest him. instead, I devised a plan, structured my ideas, and then acted on them to enact change -- result -- his crate is relocated in my house and he can't hear the sirens. Sleepy night!
The "we've had enough" message shouldn't be good enough. That's not how you get change. ACTION drives change. PLANNING drives action. GOALS drive planning. The transitive property is very applicable here - without goals - no planning, without planning - no action, without action - no change.
Yep, I love all the protesting because it has started a national dialogue and people are actually starting to wake up, but I think the most important thing to do is use the 2012 election to vote out all the weasels we put in power in the first place. My only concern is...and replace them with what?...DIFFERENT weasels? The only solution I can propose is a cute little old man named Ron Paul, but I hesitate to endorse a political candidate because that just makes me like everyone else on here pushing an agenda. But seriously though, Ron Paul is awesome.
we agree
@Danimal - You can come over and we'll go swimming in my pool and share a brew. We can call our cause "Occupy My BarBQue" and chant 53 versus 47!
I'll bring potato salad. (I know, I just sounded like you Grandma. But I like potato salad and I'm on a budget.)
@dreadsPoverty - Your name says it all. You go ahead and dread poverty. in the mean time, some of us independents who know what we want and how to get it will continue to go and get ours through hard work. You are very presumptuous to assume I don't want wealth returned to its rightful place -- you don't know me, or my ideology.
Go back and reread what I wrote. You don't represent me because you don't even know what you are fighting for. Find your cause, define it, express it in reality, and you will have earned my trust to join your 99%. Until then, count me out (along with countless others I know), and live with the rality that your claim to 99% is just as void as your current cause.
I understand your frustration at this forum and the movement in general. It looks misguided and even left-wingish on the surface, but that's only because of a few people who are pushing their own agendas and the media who insists on pigeon holing and dividing us into left and right. This movement was born from dissatisfaction with our current system that allows corporate to donate billions of dollars of campaign money--which our weasel politicians shamelessly accept--and lobby for legislation that benefits them at the expense of the public--which our weasel politicians vote for because they are completely bought out. We understand that government is in bed with corporate and that is ruining our country so that a few people can get rich. There ARE misguided, uninformed people who are involved with this movement, but they are not the breath of this movement. I am a hard working, tax-paying citizen who is sick of the corporate machine and our irresponsible government cutting deals with each other. Does that sound more like you?
You get my point exactly.
Union thugs and the liberal-progressive Democratic movement are co-opting this movement the same way Right-Wing progressives co-opted the TEA Party. And whether the people in this movement choose to accept it or not, they are being steered straight down the liberal-progressive path (MoveOn.org, MediaMatters, Main Stream biased media coverage). I'm not right or left. I'm very centrist - and as long as this movement continues to be steered by the far left, they will never represent me - again, count me out of the 99%.
I completely agree with you. The grassroots Tea Party movement has a lot in common with the birth of this movement (I thought this was a really well written article addressing the similarities http://www.benzinga.com/news/11/10/1964809/dont-let-occupy-wall-street-be-hijacked). It's unfortunate that the Tea Party was hijacked by the "big R" Republicans, but I am hoping that this movement is more resilient because there are intelligent people working in the background to keep the same from happening to this. I almost lost hope when I started watching how the media is portraying it, but I've been to a few general assembly meetings and people are addressing the issue of OWS becoming just another political vehicle, this time for the left, and they won't allow it. Again, I know it looks like this is unorganized and it looks like this is being driven by liberal loonies, but the core is strong and united behind a message that I truly do believe represents most Americans.
I hope they are strong enough to resist the left leaning steerage, but it appears as though that is not the case because more and more of the far left liberal progressives are speaking out more and more in support - and nobody from OWS seems to mind or is speaking out against it much. This movement is very close to a full on co-opt and I'm not even sure they would even mind because there are a lot of people in the thick of things who speak out against anything that is not leftist.
That goes back to my original post and why this movement has a lot of work to do before they should even think they have a right to claim to represent 99% - they are far from that reality.
I think that they're letting whomever they want to support the movement without any retaliation--they are just not endorsing anyone. It's causing harm to public image when it gets publicized (which sucks-I wish the liberal think tanks would back off and all the liberal millionaires would just shut their traps), but I don't think they're necessarily taking over.
"AFT fully endorses Occupy Wall Street" is the first headline on the home page, and it is followed up with 422 posts - a very large majority of which support unions and dismiss claims against union thuggery as "propaganda". I'd say this movement is very willing to let itself be co-opted because it's already happening. Denial won't stop it - and like I said before, I believe that a large majority of this movement's supporters are just fine with that -- hence, they will never be able to make a legitimate claim to represent 99%...
Take your well thought out ideas and leave this forum!
And they know exactly what they are doing. They are causing a big inconvenience which will be talked about and spread about. And the 99% will realize that they have a lot in common. And then, there will be an uprising.
Big talk from someone who doesn't want to return the wealth of a nation to its rightful place: The People.