I don't think it's just the banking industry that needs tighter regulation, I think corporations need to bring the jobs home or pay a penalty (in taxes).

Oh you say you can't make money paying Americans to do the jobs? Well, we (the 99%) are expected to make it here in America, you, the corporations, need to find a way to do it also.

Stormie, that's worth printing on a sign. :)

Another great post Stormie.

They want us, no they expect us to purchase their products. How the hell is that going to happen if we don't have jobs?

On Have I Got News For You, this weekend one of the guests, Louise Mensch, who is a Conservative MP made a comment about having seen protestors queing to get into Starbucks and playing with their i-phones.

The other guests all picked up on that. Paul Merton asked 'So, if they buy a cup of coffee their opinion is worthless?'

A) Yep just like his.
B) Why/with what are they buying Starbucks for if they are "so poor"?

a) I don't understand this. Just like whose what?

b) Who said anything about them being 'poor'?

The stereotypers.

Ahhh. Ok. I misunderstood your point entirely ;P

:facepalm:

What, because I work 2 jobs and have a nice house, does that mean I have to STFU? :mad2::mad:

I'm not poor and I'm one of the 99%'ers. I don't think this country is heading in the right direction, so I'm all for speaking up about it (ie: protests). These people who imply that just because we have nice things (that we worked our asses off for) we don't have a right to bitch about money in politics, the unfair state of our tax system, the financial rape of our country and the lack of concern from our leaders over it? Excuuuuuuuse me??:eyebrow:

(not you guys, the stereotyping observers)

I think it's important to find a good way to convince people who really want to be part of the 1% that they're getting boned. That seems to be the demographic who is most unreceptive to the idea, anyway.

Is the point of all this that "rich" = bad person? When I listen to some people talk, this seems to be an implicit assumption they have. This is, by the way, a horrible, horrible, destructive idea. And one that falls apart on even the slightest examination. But, critical thinking is never really "popular" is it?

Y'know, i really don't think that's the point at all. If it were then the protests and the Occupy movement would have kicked off years ago. This isn't abour rich people and poor people. It's about the way some of the very richest in society are controlling the whole picture, and sacrificing the health and well-being of the rest of the nation (in each instance) for their own financial gain.

I hear far more unpleasant and judgemental things from the right about the 'poor', or indeed about anybody who expresses a problem with the current tax system, or with the current grotesque levels of inequality in society, than anything I've heard about 'the rich'.

That is why I liked that NYT op-ed so much. The plutocrats are doing anything they can to deflect attention away from the real criticism of plutocracy itself.

Here is my first draft of an OWS manifesto.

We're not demanding the end of capitalism. We're not demanding that everyone gets an iphone. We don't want to take the iphones or even the Ferraris away from those who have them.

We want political power brought back to a more democratic level, from the massive bias in favour of the rich we have now. We want the tax loopholes and other financial advantages closed off, and we want politicians who are not too spineless to do this. We want reckless casino capitalism regulated so that international financiers can no longer gamble with the fate of the whole economy, keeping the winnings and dumping the losses on the tax payer.



Thoughts?

I'd sign up for that.

This is going around on facebook.


Attachment 34801

Better that than an OWS movement modeled on the OSF* movement.



*Occupy Sherwood Forest

My understanding of it is that there is a huge, dangerous debt/deficit problem in the US, and the poor and middle class cannot fix it. It's up to the "rich" and corporations to step up.

or down, as it were

Clinton had no problems fixing it. He fixed the tax structure by having everyone pay fair amount of taxes. What resulted was job increases and reduced deficits. Funny how many want to solve this problem with no taxes.

Michelle Bachman is a perfect example of one so many approved of. She was asked how much of every dollar should go to taxes. She said none. In a next question, she then said defense spending should be increased. Why do so many believe this nonsense? So many even foolishly insist lower taxes mean more jobs. Well, tax cuts last decade resulted in how many more jobs this decade? At what point does the word 'liar' apply?

What worked previously? It will work again. But as Obama so accurately noted, it will take at least a decade to fix a mess created by politicians and their money gamers between 2000 and 2008.

How many $billions did we have to spend only to get bin Laden because someone all but protected bin Laden? Never forget why we have so many debts. "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Not when he was creating them a political agenda. Now we must increase taxes to pay for those deficits. No way around reality - no matter how often Bachman, et al ignore that reality.

Whoa. Most of your post makes sense, but this part - "So many"
I'm still trying to figure out who elected her and why ANYONE is paying attention to her. She's batshit insane and should be rendered to the irrelevant pile.

You have to admit that she is popular, did get elected, and she resonates with tea party voters. I guess "so many" refers to those people.

I just don't see her as popular. I admit she got elected and all, but sheesh every time she opens her mouth more crazy comes out. She is taking the spotlight off of Palin though. I wonder how long that will last.
Hopefully they will both stop getting the undeserved press they both get. Then again - sensationalism sells!

Makes you wonder how crazy her supporters are.

Crazy and/or jaded and cynical. If you don't care who your representative is, she's at least interesting.

Goldman Sachs Group Inc., whose shares have fallen 43 percent this year, may report its lowest quarterly profit since the 2008 financial crisis. Despite this fact, upper level execs at GS will receive a yearly bonus of anywhere from $120,000 to $446,000 (according to glassdoor.com). This is obscene. They get REWARDED when the company’s stock has fallen by almost 50%? Has Goldman Sachs repaid the American tax payer all that bailout money yet? So, these CEO’s and other execs are shouldering their share of the sacrifices deemed necessary to reduce the national debt? I don’t think so. :eyebrow: Occupy Wall Street!

What were their bonuses when the company was doing well? Just curious.
Occupy this :p:

Seriously??!!

This is the root of the fucking problem. Read it again folks. There just is no mathematical support for such nonsense. This is the problem that OWS demonstrators rebel against. The Bachmanns of the world are telling impossible lies, things that *can* *not* *happen*.

The problem is that those in power, the 1%, want the real effects of such actions like this by Bachmann. They *do* want "no taxes". Many *do* want increased defense spending. And even if neither of these things come to pass while we're trying to figure out what the fuck she's talking about, even in nothing happens because we're arguing amongst ourselves about how crazy this is, or who should pay an additional 4.9 % more or not, nothing changes, and the field stays tilted as it is.

The solution is to call bullshit on bullshit like this. Then, do the math on what it will take to correct our numerous situations, then act. We've called bullshit, the math says more tax revenue, and our brothers and sisters at OWS around the globe are acting.

Good question. I imagine that they continue to be vastly over paid in good times as well as bad, since they run the corp and they set the pay scales and bonuses. If you come across that bit of information, I'd be interested to know.

@BigV :notworthy

AND less spending.

Maths is a liberal plot to take away your freedom. Addition is just a theory, and subtraction is a sin. Now, multiplication ...

...is biblical.

Religion tells man to multiply without doing the math.

and divide is to conquer

And money is the square root of all evil!

I think who ever started the Occupy movement was very clever in picking 99% vs. 1%. If it was 90% vs. 10% they wouldn't have nearly the support that they do.

like 9x less?

I think it comes out to 9% less.

:facepalm:

9.0909090909 percent

according to Colbert, the 99% are at least half of all Americans.

I think that there's a large segment at the bottom who are unaffected by it all (say 33%), a middle segment that is doing all the work (33% to 66%) and the top third is mostly just moral support.

How do you figure the lower 33% is unaffected by it all and the middle 33 - 66% is "doing all the work"? The US has plenty of people who fall into the category of the working poor. Living where I do, we have lots of working poor around here.

Among other things, we will most certainly be impacted by the decisions of oil and gas and coal company execs (and uranium), since they are major employers out here. If the government cuts things like food and housing assistance, its not going to be pretty in western Colorado, and, I suspect, the rest of the country.

I was talking about this with two friends - a retired coal miner and a Native American from Montana. We figure we could raise enough interest here in the 4-Corners to have an occupy "Cortez protest" in front of the town's largest bank.

The Native Americans around here are pretty upset as their second class citizen status continues over the centuries. Native children are still removed from their homes on the flimsiest of pretexts and given to white foster families. Next door in Utah, the Mormons continue to illegally adopt Navajo kids and raise them in the Mormon faith without ever exposing them to their true heritage.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka says:

Both AIM and the unions have joined hands with Occupy Denver and Occupy Wall Street among others.

These are just a few examples. Oh, the lower 33% is impacted alright.

@ Classicman - What's the matter? Got a headache? :p:

Sam, I realize what you are discussing is not a laughing matter, but...
ever since New Hampshire started it's state lottery I've thought the
greatest irony of gambling in the US are the Native American casinos.

They should add a line to their logo:
"500 years of indigenous resistance"
.."50 years of ingenious resistance"

Well, if you can't have a sense of humor, you might as well go off and die somewhere. ;)

We have several casino's near here, too. What interests me is that about half the people you see gambling are native. Sort of misses the point, doesn't it?

9% (10%-1%) is 9x > 1% ....
;)

Protester in the face by police projectile at Occupy Oakland protest

hmm...

:lol2:

"I am the 99%"!

Who are not wasting their time thinking that the current protests are going to change a God Damm thing....

:lol:

That's right Merc. You are part of the 99%. You're the part who colludes with a (small 'p') political movement whose sole function seems to be the political and economic disenfranchisement of the majority of Americans.

Practically everything I see you say in this thread is exactly the same as what i hear from Fox News. I understand why they take the stance they do. You, however, baffle me.

Dana - merc does NOT see himself as part of the 99%.

He is deluded. He thinks he's rich. He's also afraid somebody is going to take his hard-earned money away from him. His position in society is so precarious that he screeches his fear and hate at shadows. He's convinced there isn't enough to go around and, like a dragon guarding it's gold, hoards his little piece of the dream. If anybody gets something he feels like it is taken from him, specifically, and it somehow diminishes his life.

It's weird, I know.

IMHO, this is the danger of group think.

According to the police, earlier protesters had thrown bottles and rocks at them.

Therefore anyone in the protest is fair game.

What we see here is just uncalled for.

I saw that on the news tonight. I was shocked.

typical jack-booted thug mentality.

They appear to have been taking lessons on policing methods from the London Met.

So Merc, if these protests won't change anything, does that mean everyone should stay home, keep quiet, suffer in silence and be a good little minion?

You do realize that millions are suffering, don't you? The voiceless, the overlooked, and the powerless...

Criminal actions by corporations, politicians and wall street need to be brought to light. If nothing else, these protests are helping to do that. What are you afraid will happen? Why does this disturb you and so many others?

And seriously, we all have the right to speak up about any damn thing we want to...or at least, that's what I grew up believing.

Flash mobs flash dancing to flashbangs sounds like the makings of a Broadway hit! Off Broadway on Wall St., not so much. The numbers of participants would have to be much greater; or, their organization centralized under an effective leader to make the movement work outside the electoral process. At this stage, within the process they may achieve goals as has the Tea Party by organizing their priorities, actions, and getting accountability of their numbers. Then they can take to the streets as necessary to increase their numbers. For now, they're just marking time as the dog and pony show that is reality TV. Waste not, want not.

See the "earners per household" row.

http://cellar.org/2011/households.jpg

Or even more massive. Here are some early figures up to 2009. This chart is not measuring the same thing as the original, but the curve will be the same. It shows you why, if you want to tell a certain part of the story, you stop at 2007.

http://cellar.org/2011/chart-top-1-percent-2.top.gif

The top 1%'s slice of the pie fell dramatically... by a full quarter in only two years! But note that this massive dropoff in their share did not result in more money for the less fortunate.

source