*Occupy Wall Street*

[ksinger]

Now remember, the OWS folks are just a bunch of whiny-ass entitled college students because hey, there is nothing really wrong and those who claim to have fallen on hard times just need to go out and find a job.

(I only wish that was only snarky hyperbole folks, but honestly, I hear phrases just like that almost daily where I live.)

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2011/1019/A-long-steep-drop-for-Americans-standard-of-living?google_editors_picks=true

 

[ksinger]

Because, yanno, they WORK SOOOOOO much harder than you and I.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/10/surprise-rich-are-still-getting-richer/44136/

 

[movie zombie]

what about the nurses, teachers, blue collar workers, retired folks that lost their savings and/or homes, business men and women, vets, etc that are participating? why oh why do people think its so easy to go out and get a job? why oh why do they think its only students and their demands? because the media portrays it that way. want to get an eye opener do some research re Bain Capital and its actions in buying and then closing down business in the northeast and perhaps then understand why people can't find a job. soundbites are just that: soundbites. don't buy into them.

 

[Lula]

Ah, sorry. I admit to not being on top of this thread, which usually I try to do before I go shooting my mouth off.

Honestly, I think the bail out was necessary. I think we had some very savvy finance people architecting what turned out to be a very good solution in a situation where not solution was all that great. That said, there's a lot to be angry about. I don't think the bail outs are quite the thing to make the poster child for the system's flaws, because I hate to see necessary intervention demonized.

I very strongly disagree,,, Jail not bail out!!!
The fed is still giving away money and creating it out of thin air at record rates and we are all are/going to pay the price!
Sure they payed it back, with money the fed gave them at effectively 0% interest.
So the government robbed Peter to loan money to Paul, then gave Paul free money to pay back the loans and called it even.
Peter pays the price with a falling dollar and high inflation while having money stolen from him under the threat of going to jail at gunpoint.

Ditto Karl. There have been several great books written on the history of the bailout (e.g., "House of Cards" by William Cohan) that demonstrate quite clearly how the common taxpayer -- yes, that's us, the 99% -- got scr*wed in the deal, and how the bailouts have essentially made the economy worse, not better.

And DF, take a course in public finance, please. I don't agree with much of what our government is doing budget-wise (but not for the reasons you might think -- I think the stimulus money was too little, too late, and went into the wrong pockets). But comparing a family's budgeting process to governmental budget processes is not an apples-to-apples comparison. That is a false analogy being spun by way too many people.

 

[MissStepcut]

Ah, sorry. I admit to not being on top of this thread, which usually I try to do before I go shooting my mouth off.

Honestly, I think the bail out was necessary. I think we had some very savvy finance people architecting what turned out to be a very good solution in a situation where not solution was all that great. That said, there's a lot to be angry about. I don't think the bail outs are quite the thing to make the poster child for the system's flaws, because I hate to see necessary intervention demonized.

I very strongly disagree,,, Jail not bail out!!!
The fed is still giving away money and creating it out of thin air at record rates and we are all are/going to pay the price!
Sure they payed it back, with money the fed gave them at effectively 0% interest.
So the government robbed Peter to loan money to Paul, then gave Paul free money to pay back the loans and called it even.
Peter pays the price with a falling dollar and high inflation while having money stolen from him under the threat of going to jail at gunpoint.

Ditto Karl. There have been several great books written on the history of the bailout (e.g., "House of Cards" by William Cohan) that demonstrate quite clearly how the common taxpayer -- yes, that's us, the 99% -- got scr*wed in the deal, and how the bailouts have essentially made the economy worse, not better.

And DF, take a course in public finance, please. I don't agree with much of what our government is doing budget-wise (but not for the reasons you might think -- I think the stimulus money was too little, too late, and went into the wrong pockets). But comparing a family's budgeting process to governmental budget processes is not an apples-to-apples comparison. That is a false analogy being spun by way too many people.

I read "House of Cards" and also recommend "The Big Short" but still believe the bail outs were appropriate.

 

[Lula]

Packrat -- Thank you for that post. It hits home for many people, and as others have said, it's very powerful.

another vote of thanks, Packrat.

yes, Dickens does come to mind.........

if the rich provide so many jobs why are there not more jobs after all the years of tax cuts for the rich? is it because they do not invest their $ in business in this country but overseas or could it be that they are merely dealing with derivatives and such which do not generate jobs except for those in the banking/investing industry?

see the movie Margin Call playing now in theatres. there is a line in which a character says "i know i don't work as hard as you" to his boss and the boss played by kevin spacey replies, "no you don't.....trust me, i know". seriously, see the movie. it isn't preachy at all. it even gives the "otherside's" view point........

And a thank you to Packrat from me, too. Well said, Packrat, and from the heart.

I agree with MZ's recommendation of "Margin Call," and also recommend a documentary (available for download/rental by now) called "Inside Job." http://www.sonyclassics.com/insidejob/

 

[Lula]

Ah, sorry. I admit to not being on top of this thread, which usually I try to do before I go shooting my mouth off.

Honestly, I think the bail out was necessary. I think we had some very savvy finance people architecting what turned out to be a very good solution in a situation where not solution was all that great. That said, there's a lot to be angry about. I don't think the bail outs are quite the thing to make the poster child for the system's flaws, because I hate to see necessary intervention demonized.

I very strongly disagree,,, Jail not bail out!!!
The fed is still giving away money and creating it out of thin air at record rates and we are all are/going to pay the price!
Sure they payed it back, with money the fed gave them at effectively 0% interest.
So the government robbed Peter to loan money to Paul, then gave Paul free money to pay back the loans and called it even.
Peter pays the price with a falling dollar and high inflation while having money stolen from him under the threat of going to jail at gunpoint.

Ditto Karl. There have been several great books written on the history of the bailout (e.g., "House of Cards" by William Cohan) that demonstrate quite clearly how the common taxpayer -- yes, that's us, the 99% -- got scr*wed in the deal, and how the bailouts have essentially made the economy worse, not better.

And DF, take a course in public finance, please. I don't agree with much of what our government is doing budget-wise (but not for the reasons you might think -- I think the stimulus money was too little, too late, and went into the wrong pockets). But comparing a family's budgeting process to governmental budget processes is not an apples-to-apples comparison. That is a false analogy being spun by way too many people.

I read "House of Cards" and also recommend "The Big Short" but still believe the bail outs were appropriate.

Perhaps the bailouts in and of themselves were necessary -- I won't use the term appropriate -- because the banks had literally brought the global financial system to the brink of collapse by their actions -- but the terms of the bailouts could have been more *ahem* beneficial to the common taxpayer.

 

[MissStepcut]

You know, I personally believe Geithner engineered very fair terms, and had the public's best interest at heart, but I know other people disagree and I don't think there is any way to prove it one way or the other. It is probably a function of one's economic philosophy. In fact, I might even agree that we should nationalize the public services banks do for the markets, and if we did, the banks should have been allowed to fall and the government should have stepped into a trustee role. It would have been a viable solution.

 

[ksinger]

Ah, sorry. I admit to not being on top of this thread, which usually I try to do before I go shooting my mouth off.

Honestly, I think the bail out was necessary. I think we had some very savvy finance people architecting what turned out to be a very good solution in a situation where not solution was all that great. That said, there's a lot to be angry about. I don't think the bail outs are quite the thing to make the poster child for the system's flaws, because I hate to see necessary intervention demonized.

I very strongly disagree,,, Jail not bail out!!!
The fed is still giving away money and creating it out of thin air at record rates and we are all are/going to pay the price!
Sure they payed it back, with money the fed gave them at effectively 0% interest.
So the government robbed Peter to loan money to Paul, then gave Paul free money to pay back the loans and called it even.
Peter pays the price with a falling dollar and high inflation while having money stolen from him under the threat of going to jail at gunpoint.

Ditto Karl. There have been several great books written on the history of the bailout (e.g., "House of Cards" by William Cohan) that demonstrate quite clearly how the common taxpayer -- yes, that's us, the 99% -- got scr*wed in the deal, and how the bailouts have essentially made the economy worse, not better.

And DF, take a course in public finance, please. I don't agree with much of what our government is doing budget-wise (but not for the reasons you might think -- I think the stimulus money was too little, too late, and went into the wrong pockets). But comparing a family's budgeting process to governmental budget processes is not an apples-to-apples comparison. That is a false analogy being spun by way too many people.

I read "House of Cards" and also recommend "The Big Short" but still believe the bail outs were appropriate.

Boy ain't THAT the truth. Macroeconomics is a completely different kettle 'o fish, and comparing it to household thrift shows an understandable (I guess) but staggering ignorance. We Americans DO have an almost blinding need for things to be SIMPLE. But it ain't. Period. And no amount of prattling on about the Great and Glorious HAND of THE MARKET (aka - MAGIC) will wish away that complexity.

My husband is a life-long econ weenie (just minus the math) and a good friend of ours is recently graduated with a masters in econ from the University of Edinburgh (in addition to his masters in international relations from there, AND a masters in geology from UT Austin...yeah..), and my economic knowledge has benefitted immensely from the explanation/discussion which is almost daily.

 

[Lula]

You know, I personally believe Geithner engineered very fair terms, and had the public's best interest at heart, but I know other people disagree and I don't think there is any way to prove it one way or the other. It is probably a function of one's economic philosophy. In fact, I might even agree that we should nationalize the public services banks do for the markets, and if we did, the banks should have been allowed to fall and the government should have stepped into a trustee role. It would have been a viable solution.

Yes, I agree that had this option been chosen (temporary nationalization and allowing the banks to fail) we may have seen a quicker end to the recession, because it would have cleared out the unprofitable banks (many of which are still operating as "zombie" banks) and allowed the formation of new banks unencumbered by the huge amounts of bad mortgage debt they are still carrying on their books, years after the housing crash. But this choice would have involved way too much sacrifice from the CEOs running those banks. So we carry on with the charade that our banks are now "healthy"; they are not. Me, I have my money in a credit union. You don't see the feds coming in on weekends closing those down, now, do you?

http://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/banklist.html

As for the Occupy Wall Street Movement, while they are not following Saul Alinsky's model to the T, they are following the footsteps of many grassroots organizations who came before them. I'm old enough to remember the early years of the Civil Rights Movement, and it, too, did not have an organized message in the beginning. The coalescence around an actual piece of legislation, The Civil Rights Act of 1964, came much later, and arose out of a broader concern with social and economic inequality.

 

[Skippy123]

what about the nurses, teachers, blue collar workers, retired folks that lost their savings and/or homes, business men and women, vets, etc that are participating? why oh why do people think its so easy to go out and get a job? why oh why do they think its only students and their demands? because the media portrays it that way. want to get an eye opener do some research re Bain Capital and its actions in buying and then closing down business in the northeast and perhaps then understand why people can't find a job. soundbites are just that: soundbites. don't buy into them.

I so agree with this!

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

I'm glad that ordinary Americans are showing their frustrations at the events of the last several yrs. I read the list of demands and think thdey are a good place to start. For me, i still want to know who are the individual bad guys who nearly took down the American Financial System. I want to get them.

I am glad that Treasury Sec Paulson was on watch when the collapse began. If they didn't save the banks, things would be much worse. I put all my cash in a safe deposit box at the time. Someone mentioned a bank that said the Gov. pushed money at them without conditions. JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs did not need the money. They were told they had to take the money so that the endangered banks would not be singled out and have runs on them. The endangered banks were penalized by Gov purchasing warrants and of course the preferred stock that was coverted to common shares. All at a hefty interest rate. Banks that borrowed from the Fed and each other were allowed to borrow at reduced rates. To my knowledge there is no endangered bank that is making record profits.
They are still fighting their way back. NO RECORD PROFITS

There is no question in my mind that Corporations have gotten too much power, but that isn't new either. We should demand that no Corp can give to election campaigns or a minimul set amount. only human beings can vote.
I'm just going to add one of my pet peeves. AARP is a self proclaimed lobbyist for senior citizens. This company is an insurer for health , drugs and it just presumes to speak for those 55 and over. How did that happen?

My income has dropped 30%. I am 72 yrs old and count on interest from savings. Thats hard to find now. Everyone has , except those who were responsible, suffered in some way from this big failure of the financial world.

For Holly.-- You aren't a cynic, you are usually just an angry person. Any drama is too much for you.
KSinger. You have a fine, fine mind. I don't always agree but I enjoy your comments always.(except in the election threads)

Well see where the sit-in takes them. Good Luck to all, especially Packrat-

Annette

 

[AGBF]

The article, "It's Official: The Rich Get Richer" in the October 26, "The New York Times" has some really interesting information on the redistribution of wealth in the United States over the past 30 years. I think that it uses the same data used in the article ksinger linked to above. Nonetheless, I have excerpted a few lines.

"The top 1 percent of earners more than doubled their share of the nation’s income over the last three decades, the Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday, in a new report likely to figure prominently in the escalating political fight over how to revive the economy, create jobs and lower the federal debt. 'The equalizing effect of federal taxes was smaller' in 2007 than in 1979, as 'the composition of federal revenues shifted away from progressive income taxes to less-progressive payroll taxes,' the budget office said. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/26/us/politics/top-earners-doubled-share-of-nations-income-cbo-says.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&pagewanted=print

Deb/AGBF

 

[beebrisk]

And in case anyone is interested in the list of demands, an abbreviated version, found here http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-please-help-editadd-so-th/:

1. CONGRESS PASS HR 1489 ("RETURN TO PRUDENT BANKING ACT" http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-1489 ). THIS REINSTATES MANY PROVISIONS OF THE GLASS-STEAGALL ACT. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass–Steagall_Act

2. USE CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY AND OVERSIGHT TO ENSURE APPROPRIATE FEDERAL AGENCIES FULLY INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE THE WALL STREET CRIMINALS

3. CONGRESS ENACT LEGISLATION TO PROTECT OUR DEMOCRACY BY REVERSING THE EFFECTS OF THE CITIZENS UNITED SUPREME COURT DECISION

4. CONGRESS PASS THE BUFFETT RULE ON FAIR TAXATION SO THE RICH AND CORPORATIONS PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE & CLOSE CORPORATE TAX LOOP HOLES AND ENACT A PROHIBITION ON HIDING FUNDS OFF SHORE.

5. CONGRESS COMPLETELY REVAMP THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION.

6. CONGRESS PASS SPECIFIC AND EFFECTIVE LAWS LIMITING THE INFLUENCE OF LOBBYISTS AND ELIMINATING THE PRACTICE OF LOBBYISTS WRITING LEGISLATION THAT ENDS UP ON THE FLOOR OF CONGRESS.

7. CONGRESS PASSING "Revolving Door Legislation" LEGISLATION ELIMINATING THE ABILITY OF FORMER GOVERNMENT REGULATORS GOING TO WORK FOR CORPORATIONS THAT THEY ONCE REGULATED.

8. ELIMINATE "PERSONHOOD" LEGAL STATUS FOR CORPORATIONS.

Who are these people to "demand" anything??

Is that how we get things done in this country? By "demand"?

Far as I remember we are still a republic that endows it's citizens with the right to vote. Wanna change the system? Pull a lever, punch a chad, fill in a circle on a ballot.

The Tea Party is now represented in Washington because they worked within the system, putting up their own candidates. Drum circles don't usually get people elected. Stoned people usually aren't productive.

I don't necessarily disagree with some of the points on their list, but I'm smart enough (and old enough) to understand that sleeping in the park for a few months and carrying a sign isn't going to change anything.

And while they are at it, they should spend some of their tent time brushing up on the Constitution. Congress can't "protect our democracy" under any circumstances because alas, we aren't one.

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%."
— Thomas Jefferson

"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." — John Adams

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" — Benjamin Franklin

 

[Karl_K]

The fundamental problem is the government steals money from the middle class, then gives it away to the poor and rich.
Government spending is a drag on the economy it can not boost it.
The government can only get money to spend 2 ways, steal it from taxpayers or borrow new money both of which badly hurt the economy.
In the 1950s the standard deductions saved a much higher percentage of the average income from taxes than it does today and there was tremendous growth.
The economy is being destroyed by theft by the government and failure of the government to work in a way that benefits the American people. Instead it works in favor of big business and foreign countries.
Until we demand a USA first policy it is only going to get worse.
Lets start by cutting all foreign aid to 0 and dropping China's favored nation status and mirror their trade laws for any trade with them.
Then bring all our troops home.

 

[Dancing Fire]

[quote="beebrisk|
Is that how we get things done in this country? By "demand"?

[/quote]
bunch of ...

 

[ksinger]

Beebrisk wrote:

Who are these people to "demand" anything?? Citizens. "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"... (because everyone knows that supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremo....oops. Mixing sources.)

Is that how we get things done in this country? By "demand"? - Good grief, our whole government was built on DEMANDS, WAS a demand from day one. And then later?? See Stamp Act, Shay's Rebellion, labor, suffrage, the entire Progressive era, civil rights, anti-war protests of the 60's, gay rights, etc, ad nauseum.

Far as I remember we are still a republic that endows it's citizens with the right to vote. Wanna change the system? Pull a lever, punch a chad, fill in a circle on a ballot. My vote means as much as the influence of a multi-million dollar lobby effort on behalf of a special interest or industry? I guarantee that YOU are the ONLY person here who is buying THAT load of codswallop.

The Tea Party is now represented in Washington because they worked within the system, putting up their own candidates. Drum circles don't usually get people elected. Stoned people usually aren't productive. The Tea Party started out as other than it is - an ARMED rabble as I recall. (See, I can tar an entire group too) The OWS is merely the outward manifestation (finally) of a far deeper discontent and deeper apprehension among a large portion of the populace, that something is badly out of whack in this country. And to characterize everyone who is either there or supporting, as stoned, might make you feel better, but it simply isn't true.

I don't necessarily disagree with some of the points on their list, but I'm smart enough (and old enough) to understand that sleeping in the park for a few months and carrying a sign isn't going to change anything. See above for how change has actually happened.

And while they are at it, they should spend some of their tent time brushing up on the Constitution. Congress can't "protect our democracy" under any circumstances because alas, we aren't one. See above again. Before YOU say we can't "demand" things, you need to read about stuff that happened AFTER the supposedly Inviolable and Eternal Holy Constitution was penned. There's a large swath of time since then, and a lot has changed and evolved over time. And that evolution and interpretation began with the signers themselves, almost before the ink was dry. The constitution was the biggest collection of down and gritty compromises that this country has ever seen, some of them really really BAD ones, in hindsight. But these guys wanted to get something DONE, and ideological rigidity doesn't lend itself very well to getting anything DONE, as we are finding out by watching the farce that is Congress right now.

Well, we could quote-war all day, and have competing and contradictory quotes - probably from the pen of the very same person. But really, what's the point?

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%."
— Thomas Jefferson

"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." — John Adams

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-arme

 

[beebrisk]

Beebrisk wrote:

Who are these people to "demand" anything?? Citizens. "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"... (because everyone knows that supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremo....oops. Mixing sources.)

Is that how we get things done in this country? By "demand"? - Good grief, our whole government was built on DEMANDS, WAS a demand from day one. And then later?? See Stamp Act, Shay's Rebellion, labor, suffrage, the entire Progressive era, civil rights, anti-war protests of the 60's, gay rights, etc, ad nauseum.

Far as I remember we are still a republic that endows it's citizens with the right to vote. Wanna change the system? Pull a lever, punch a chad, fill in a circle on a ballot. My vote means as much as the influence of a multi-million dollar lobby effort on behalf of a special interest or industry? I guarantee that YOU are the ONLY person here who is buying THAT load of codswallop.

The Tea Party is now represented in Washington because they worked within the system, putting up their own candidates. Drum circles don't usually get people elected. Stoned people usually aren't productive. The Tea Party started out as other than it is - an ARMED rabble as I recall. (See, I can tar an entire group too) The OWS is merely the outward manifestation (finally) of a far deeper discontent and deeper apprehension among a large portion of the populace, that something is badly out of whack in this country. And to characterize everyone who is either there or supporting, as stoned, might make you feel better, but it simply isn't true.

I don't necessarily disagree with some of the points on their list, but I'm smart enough (and old enough) to understand that sleeping in the park for a few months and carrying a sign isn't going to change anything. See above for how change has actually happened.

And while they are at it, they should spend some of their tent time brushing up on the Constitution. Congress can't "protect our democracy" under any circumstances because alas, we aren't one. See above again. Before YOU say we can't "demand" things, you need to read about stuff that happened AFTER the supposedly Inviolable and Eternal Holy Constitution was penned. There's a large swath of time since then, and a lot has changed and evolved over time. And that evolution and interpretation began with the signers themselves, almost before the ink was dry. The constitution was the biggest collection of down and gritty compromises that this country has ever seen, some of them really really BAD ones, in hindsight. But these guys wanted to get something DONE, and ideological rigidity doesn't lend itself very well to getting anything DONE, as we are finding out by watching the farce that is Congress right now.

Well, we could quote-war all day, and have competing and contradictory quotes - probably from the pen of the very same person. But really, what's the point?

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%."
— Thomas Jefferson

"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." — John Adams


Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-arme

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"...

Well, yes. By voting? Due process? Or anarchy?
Ksinger: Did you vote in the last presidential election? Did the guy you voted for get elected? Would you have stayed home on election day or was it important for you to exercise your right as a citizen to vote for Obama and against McCain/Palin? Did the groundswell of Obama supporters feel elated by his win, or simply pawns of deep-pocketed lobbyists? All this is rhetorical, actually. Your vote is your business and it surely isn't my right how your vote was cast.

 

[iheartscience]

Well said as always ksinger! I declare you the clear winner in this debate.

 

[ksinger]

Reply to Beebrisk:


Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-arme[/quote]
"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"...

Well, yes. By voting? Due process? Or anarchy? This country was founded on violent revolution against the legal ruler at the time. It was not created by vote or due process or writing letters. Enough said.

Ksinger: Did you vote in the last presidential election? Did the guy you voted for get elected? Would you have stayed home on election day or was it important for you to exercise your right as a citizen to vote for Obama and against McCain/Palin? Did the groundswell of Obama supporters feel elated by his win, or simply pawns of deep-pocketed lobbyists? All this is rhetorical, actually. Your vote is your business and it surely isn't my right how your vote was cast.[/quote] I will discuss the history of this country and the interpretations of that history. I will discuss current events. I will NOT discuss or comment on this guy or that guy. That time on this board is OVER. I miss the DISCUSSION, NOT the pissing matches. Does that answer your question?

 

[beebrisk]

Reply to Beebrisk:


Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-arme

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"...

Well, yes. By voting? Due process? Or anarchy? This country was founded on violent revolution against the legal ruler at the time. It was not created by vote or due process or writing letters. Enough said.

Ksinger: Did you vote in the last presidential election? Did the guy you voted for get elected? Would you have stayed home on election day or was it important for you to exercise your right as a citizen to vote for Obama and against McCain/Palin? Did the groundswell of Obama supporters feel elated by his win, or simply pawns of deep-pocketed lobbyists? All this is rhetorical, actually. Your vote is your business and it surely isn't my right how your vote was cast.[/quote] I will discuss the history of this country and the interpretations of that history. I will discuss current events. I will NOT discuss or comment on this guy or that guy. That time on this board is OVER. I miss the DISCUSSION, NOT the pissing matches. Does that answer your question?[/quote]

Perhaps you are right...We should abolish voting rights in favor of violent revolution.

You missed the point of my questions. They weren't about this guy or that. No pissing matches required. They were simply to point out the hypocrisy of those who complain about the electoral "process"...only when things don't go their way.

 

[ksinger]

Perhaps you are right...We should abolish voting rights in favor of violent revolution. Sigh...I can see where you are trying to take this. I wouldn't try to go there if I were you, because I'm not gonna play. All I'll say is I never said, nor have I ever advocated violent revolution in lieu of voting. Pointing out fact that this country was born in violent revolution is merely that. Be comfortable with that fact or not, but please do not try to ascribe things to me that I did not say.

You missed the point of my questions. They weren't about this guy or that. No pissing matches required. They were simply to point out the hypocrisy of those who complain about the electoral "process"...only when things don't go their way. Understandable, since neither I nor anyone in this thread (that I can recall), was complaining about or discussing the electoral process.


ETA: God, but I DESPISE the quoting in this system.

 

[UnluckyTwin]

I feel so sorry for some of the people in this thread.

I have a Master's degree, a job, health care, and a fairly decent life. I'm working on a PhD, so I'm not rolling in any dough. I'm intelligent, critical, and productive. I believe in hard work and hold myself to high standards.

I have no student loans (got scholarships/funding my entire undergrad + grad school career), very very little credit card debt, but nothing in savings. I live paycheck to paycheck. I qualify for food stamps and probably other goverment programs, but I have not applied for them or used them.

I rarely drink, I've never done drugs, I don't play the drums, and I shower and brush my teeth (and floss and use mouth wash!) daily.

AND I AM A MEMBER OF OCCUPY!

I don't believe in "whining," "handouts," or "entitlements." I don't believe in trashing public property. I believe in our RIGHT to PROTEST PEACEFULLY without getting SHOT IN THE HEAD by the police! I believe that the people have the right to be considered by their government, and I think it a SHAME that we must do so by rallying in every city because we can't do it with our VOTES as long as our politicans are paid by CORPORATIONS! I believe that those who say that Occupy doesn't have a clear message and/or that the media/politicians are not paying attention are lazy and jaded--our message is EVERYWHERE, and judging by Obama's housing and education initiatives this past week, we are being HEARD. I've made many new friends at my Occupy site, and every day we feel empowered and we feel the love of community.

So I feel sorry for those in this thread who are not just critical of Occupy, but who are looking down on those who Occupy. I feel sorry that your opinions are so easily bought by the media. I feel sorry that you'd rather believe we are all hippy stoners who are lazy and entitled and scamming the welfare system than look us up yourself. I feel sorry that you are so scared of the possibility that you might one day, through no fault of your own, fall on hard times, that you must sneer at those who have (and their supporters) to keep some cognitive distance from them. I feel sorry that you feel like you understand and are satisfied with America and our processes, without knowing the accurate history or the empirical reality of a broken system currently. I can see that you are not just critical, but angry and full of dislike for those who are different from you (because, let's face it, even if Occupy was a movement of hippies playing drums, ARE THEY SO BAD?). Some of you are just short of spitting on the Occupiers. And I. Feel sorry. For you.

ETA: The "shot in the head" statement refers to Scott Olsen, a Marine who served two tours in Iraq. He was at Occupy Oakland and got shot in the head with a tear gas cannister by police. As a crowd gathered around him to get him to safety, another cop threw ANOTHER cannister at the group. He's got a fractured skull and brain swelling and is in critical condition. This man is part of a group many people are sneering at, eh? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZLyUK0t0vQ

 

[monarch64]

Thanks for your pity, UnluckyTwin.

Why is it that no one wants to talk about Adbusters, who started OWS?

 

[iheartscience]

Thanks for your pity, UnluckyTwin.

Why is it that no one wants to talk about Adbusters, who started OWS?

What is there to talk about? And has anyone been avoiding talking about Adbusters? I'm familiar with Adbusters, have been for at least 11 years, and have read the magazine here and there. OWS is in line with what the message of Adbusters has always been.

 

[vintagelover229]

Thanks for your pity, UnluckyTwin.

Why is it that no one wants to talk about Adbusters, who started OWS?

While I agree with what the idea behind what the protesters are saying (greedy people can gamble away millions of people retirement and lose it yet no jail time and they still are sitting pretty themselves) and the job situation I think this is going to end badly for the USA no matter how it goes.

I see these protests and the violence that is happening and we are approaching a police state. It's no secret that many of the wealthy people want a Central world bank and a one world government-many openly admit it. Mr. Rockefeller himself admitted to it in his biography. It's also no secret that the news reports are pretty much a joke (so much so that SNL and John Stewart make fun of it pretty much their entire show) and now the Vatican is supporting a Central World bank.

These protests are going to get violent and there will be a demand for change-and I am betting we won't be happy with the change that is made. This isn't just the USA-it's the entire world.

Our rights are being taken away and protection is given to the corporations-who already are wealthy and control pretty much everything from food production, medicine, communications and even down to weapons that are supplying everything for the rebellions and wars.



I would like to hear what people will be saying in a few months when they realize that the food shortage is actually real. Texas has the worst drought ever-Lake Houston dropped 50 ft because of it. Entire crops have been wiped out between the floods in some areas (such as Nebraska and Iowa) to the lack of rain fall. The USA used to store food enough for a year but stopped because it cost so much money. Our country runs on grain and corn and without it we can't feed livestock, create most of the products that have longer shelf lives or function at all.

I guess people really don't remember the depression and food rations and how bad things got.

IMO the whole thing is broken and I can't begin to fathom how to fix it. I can tell you it's not with greed, with money or with police protection or giving up our rights. I can say it has to do with communities coming together, working together and getting back to our roots of helping our neighbors, love and sharing.


ETA: Here is the quote from his book memoirs
"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."

 

[beebrisk]

So I feel sorry for those in this thread who are not just critical of Occupy, but who are looking down on those who Occupy. I feel sorry that your opinions are so easily bought by the media. I feel sorry that you'd rather believe we are all hippy stoners who are lazy and entitled and scamming the welfare system than look us up yourself. I feel sorry that you are so scared of the possibility that you might one day, through no fault of your own, fall on hard times, that you must sneer at those who have (and their supporters) to keep some cognitive distance from them. I feel sorry that you feel like you understand and are satisfied with America and our processes, without knowing the accurate history or the empirical reality of a broken system currently. I can see that you are not just critical, but angry and full of dislike for those who are different from you (because, let's face it, even if Occupy was a movement of hippies playing drums, ARE THEY SO BAD?). Some of you are just short of spitting on the Occupiers. And I. Feel sorry. For you.

While I appreciate your heartfelt pity, it's really unnecessary as are your grand assumptions about my "fears" and my "anger".
Thanks anyway.

 

[movie zombie]

Perhaps you are right...We should abolish voting rights in favor of violent revolution. Sigh...I can see where you are trying to take this. I wouldn't try to go there if I were you, because I'm not gonna play. All I'll say is I never said, nor have I ever advocated violent revolution in lieu of voting. Pointing out fact that this country was born in violent revolution is merely that. Be comfortable with that fact or not, but please do not try to ascribe things to me that I did not say..

at no time did i read that ksinger advocated what accused of.....however, change was not made at the ballot box only: there has been a lot of violent and non-violent action that has lead to changes in this country.

no changes are made without them being "demanded": womens' right to vote, end of slavery, negro voting rights, all come to mind. nothing is ever "given" without a struggle having taken place before. there was a lot of violent action by those opposing those rights.

history is fascinating. more should read it.

 

[ksinger]

Perhaps you are right...We should abolish voting rights in favor of violent revolution. Sigh...I can see where you are trying to take this. I wouldn't try to go there if I were you, because I'm not gonna play. All I'll say is I never said, nor have I ever advocated violent revolution in lieu of voting. Pointing out fact that this country was born in violent revolution is merely that. Be comfortable with that fact or not, but please do not try to ascribe things to me that I did not say..

at no time did i read that ksinger advocated what accused of.....however, change was not made at the ballot box only: there has been a lot of violent and non-violent action that has lead to changes in this country.

no changes are made without them being "demanded": womens' right to vote, end of slavery, negro voting rights, all come to mind. nothing is ever "given" without a struggle having taken place before. there was a lot of violent action by those opposing those rights.

history is fascinating. more should read it.

Yeah, and if you REALLY want to get an education fast, marry a econ-loving historian AND his library. Crash course with oodles of books and a teacher always at hand. You get to talk about it morning, noon, and night.

 

[0-0-0]

I encourage everyone to read the full CBO report. At the very least, pay attention to Summary Figure 3, Figure 3, and Figure 14 before drawing your own conclusions on the "99%".

Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007
http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/124xx/doc12485/10-25-HouseholdIncome.pdf

I find it fascinating how some in the top 1% has managed to convince portions of the remaining 99% that the "middle class" (middle 21-80%?) is being screwed by the "poor and lazy" (bottom 20%?) over the past 3 decades.