#OccupyWallstreet

[bfdd]

I think you'd be amazed at the number of Americans who'd be OK with that as long as the same rules were applied to everyone with similar financials. Yes, we have a large faction of this country who are destructively greedy, who care only about what's best for their personal, immediate bottom line. They are "glass is half-empty" sorts who obsess over the portion of "their" pay they don't get rather than the great wealth they do get. They'll fight tooth and nail to avoid paying even one extra dime of taxes, no matter how trivial the impact on them financially.

Others, however, are not driven solely by greed. They recognize that as much as their financial success may be due to their hard work and good decisions, it is also due to the bountiful opportunities offered by America's tremendous physical, financial, and educational infrastructure -- greatly funded by tax dollars. Therefore they are content to return some of that investment, to pay their dues, to celebrate their glass being not just half-full, but also orders of magnitude larger than it would be in those low-tax utopias (i.e., third-world hell holes) so many on the right seem to want America to become.

Those greedy fucks aren't only in the 1%, they're in the 100% of Americans and they come in all shapes and sizes. The kid who wanted an insane student loan to pay for their own selfishness of learning something that wasn't prudent to society, his greed is ok because he's not "rich"? That's silly. Both are selfish acts of greed, for some reason it's ok to write some off and not others due to such arbitrary things like income level or wealth. Everyone should be viewed and treated equally under the law. Exceptions are for assholes.

 

[HendrixFan]

So some of the 1% are OK as long as they admit they're the 1% and benefit enormously from the idiots that watch them, as long as they're articulate, as long as they're educated, as long as they're kinda funny and as long as they have a least a little, itty, bitty, tiny kernel of truth in what they say. How cool is that ! I bet that 99% of the 1% are breathing much easier now. Don't you feel like the least bit of a hypocrite that you so staunchly defend some of the members of the 1%? As long as they're PC of course.

Eh?

Do you even know what position you are taking on this issue?

The "99%" is the voice of the majority who must endure the will of the "1%" and the policies that are in place to ensure money runs uphill for them. Does that mean everyone in the 1% is the enemy? No, it is just far simpler and easier to sell the 99 vs 1 than .05% or .01% or whatever.

You also seem to be confusing success with control, which is the problem with the 1%. It isn't that they make money, it is that they use their money to suck money from the 99%. Is Jon Stewart doing that? No. He isn't the target. Neither is Justin Bieber, as an example. The movement isn't an attack on success as spidey likes to frame it. It is a movement to take back control to the majority, and allow opportunity for everyone.

Money isn't the defining factor, so what Jon Stewart makes isn't important. OCW is about control and power. What power Jon Stewart does have, given his monied status, he uses for causes that are similar to the OCW. His main thesis that permeates through all his work is the corporatising of the news media. Powerful influences seek to distort information for their own benefit. It isn't "PC", it is simply aligned with the agenda that OCW is pushing. This is true no matter how much you try and frame their argument to push your agenda.

 

[bfdd]

HendrixFan, it's because breaking down a person into simply a number dehumanizes them and makes it a much easier target. Not to mention there will ALWAYS be a 1%, no matter the form of government. As long as there are people making rules, they will be the 1%. This whole 99% and 1% was stupid to begin with and was obviously the creation of a child with a very small world view. For instance I think some things are fucked up, I am not very high up this income chain, yet I refuse to include myself in their 99%, so what am I? What are anyone like us? We're just outsiders to them, since we're not with them we must be against them. The group is the single greatest killer of the individual. I have no time for people who wish to be so authoritarian and how exactly are they going to feel if another "99%" movement takes off the moment theirs succeeds and they get what they want?

 

[dwell]

Is this movement dead yet? Not heard much out of them this week as it was raining all week and cold today. Some of them were boycotting Wal-Mart downtown today but media wise, OWS seems to have fizzled from the spotlight.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Is this movement dead yet? Not heard much out of them this week as it was raining all week and cold today. Some of them were boycotting Wal-Mart downtown today but media wise, OWS seems to have fizzled from the spotlight.

They really should have started this in June. Once it starts raining in earnest, they'll be reminded of why we try to have houses to begin with and their numbers will dwindle. If they had a few months of lead-in, they'd be too big for a few clouds to send them running.

 

[HendrixFan]

Those greedy fucks aren't only in the 1%, they're in the 100% of Americans and they come in all shapes and sizes. The kid who wanted an insane student loan to pay for their own selfishness of learning something that wasn't prudent to society, his greed is ok because he's not "rich"? That's silly. Both are selfish acts of greed, for some reason it's ok to write some off and not others due to such arbitrary things like income level or wealth. Everyone should be viewed and treated equally under the law. Exceptions are for assholes.

Without money you don't have power. To quote TFP, everyone knows this.

It is only those rich people who are assholes that have the money to make that personality deficit actually destroy the foundation of our country. That is the difference. Some greedy guy making $25k a year doesn't have a large sphere of influence. The guy pulling in $50M a year with that same disposition will use money to exert power and push us further into wealth disparity.

Yes, the 99 deal dehumanizes things. But is also empowers those disaffected people who are languishing by reminding them that at the end of the day, all the money in the world can't protect the elite class from the "99". You wanna make an omelet you gotta break a few eggs.

 

[bfdd]

Without money you don't have power. To quote TFP, everyone knows this.

It is only those rich people who are assholes that have the money to make that personality deficit actually destroy the foundation of our country. That is the difference. Some greedy guy making $25k a year doesn't have a large sphere of influence. The guy pulling in $50M a year with that same disposition will use money to exert power and push us further into wealth disparity.

Yes, the 99 deal dehumanizes things. But is also empowers those disaffected people who are languishing by reminding them that at the end of the day, all the money in the world can't protect the elite class from the "99". You wanna make an omelet you gotta break a few eggs.

Says you. Plenty of people without money have enacted change and risen to power. Just because it's hard doesn't make it impossible. Wannabe revolutionaries, nothing more.

 

[HendrixFan]

Says you. Plenty of people without money have enacted change and risen to power. Just because it's hard doesn't make it impossible. Wannabe revolutionaries, nothing more.

Exceptions to every rule.

Just because some visionary came along a few times every century when the masses were all ready to rise up doesn't change the fact that money is power, and monied interests do everything they can to get more power/money.

Yes, MLK did things without money. That in no way invalidates my point. It took centuries worth of rage built up, coupled with social structures changing through enhanced communication, to provide the opportunity for the Civil Rights Movement to take root. If there was money backing it, it would have happened quickly at any time before that. How do I know that? Because history is a good guide. Social change happens from the ground up after long periods of oppression where the powerful have taken too much for too long. All other changes happen on a whim because those in power wish it so.

 

[monovillage]

Eh?

Do you even know what position you are taking on this issue?

The "99%" is the voice of the majority who must endure the will of the "1%" and the policies that are in place to ensure money runs uphill for them. Does that mean everyone in the 1% is the enemy? No, it is just far simpler and easier to sell the 99 vs 1 than .05% or .01% or whatever.

You also seem to be confusing success with control, which is the problem with the 1%. It isn't that they make money, it is that they use their money to suck money from the 99%. Is Jon Stewart doing that? No. He isn't the target. Neither is Justin Bieber, as an example. The movement isn't an attack on success as spidey likes to frame it. It is a movement to take back control to the majority, and allow opportunity for everyone.

Money isn't the defining factor, so what Jon Stewart makes isn't important. OCW is about control and power. What power Jon Stewart does have, given his monied status, he uses for causes that are similar to the OCW. His main thesis that permeates through all his work is the corporatising of the news media. Powerful influences seek to distort information for their own benefit. It isn't "PC", it is simply aligned with the agenda that OCW is pushing. This is true no matter how much you try and frame their argument to push your agenda.

So........... um........uh........ I guess OCW is kind of the Tiger Beat of political protests then, no attacks on Justin Bieber or Jon Stewart, but all you other baddies better watch out. I guess Justin Timberlake is off limits also?

 

[HendrixFan]

So........... um........uh........ I guess OCW is kind of the Tiger Beat of political protests then, no attacks on Justin Bieber or Jon Stewart, but all you other baddies better watch out. I guess Justin Timberlake is off limits also?

I'll take that to mean you don't know what position you are taking on this issue. Just a general "I don't like it" approach.

The name, Occupy Wall Street, suggests that the financial industry is to blame. And they are. If you think Justin Timberlake is somehow involved in that please explain.

 

[monovillage]

I'll take that to mean you don't know what position you are taking on this issue. Just a general "I don't like it" approach.

The name, Occupy Wall Street, suggests that the financial industry is to blame. And they are. If you think Justin Timberlake is somehow involved in that please explain.

As part of the 1% wealthiest of Americans that wields enormous financial power I just thought he'd be included.

 

[Jhhnn]

HendrixFan, it's because breaking down a person into simply a number dehumanizes them and makes it a much easier target. Not to mention there will ALWAYS be a 1%, no matter the form of government. As long as there are people making rules, they will be the 1%. This whole 99% and 1% was stupid to begin with and was obviously the creation of a child with a very small world view. For instance I think some things are fucked up, I am not very high up this income chain, yet I refuse to include myself in their 99%, so what am I? What are anyone like us? We're just outsiders to them, since we're not with them we must be against them. The group is the single greatest killer of the individual. I have no time for people who wish to be so authoritarian and how exactly are they going to feel if another "99%" movement takes off the moment theirs succeeds and they get what they want?

You're so far out in the weeds that you couldn't find the road with a gps.

Of course there will always be a 1%. That doesn't mean they deserve the 20+% of taxable income they receive today vs the 8.5% they got in 1980, or that they deserve to pay 22% in federal income tax vs the 33% they paid back then, either. And it doesn't mean that the 1% of 1% has the right to completely destabilize the financial system and profit from both the rise and fall, either, at the expense of the rest of us.

The financial sector is supposed to be the lubricant in the gears of the capitalist machine, not the reason for the machine to exist at all. It's supposed to facilitate capitalist production, not debilitate capitalism itself.

 

[HendrixFan]

As part of the 1% wealthiest of Americans that wields enormous financial power I just thought he'd be included.

I explained the problem isn't money, it is using the money to change the rules to benefit themselves at the expense of society at large. People will always look out for their own best interests. When their interests collide with the countries' self interests, they shouldn't win. When they do, it is a huge problem.

The end result is that we are sliding further down in wealth disparity, I'm talking down to 3rd world levels. The economy is stagnant and the middle class has little prospects for the future.

 

[Bowfinger]

Those greedy fucks aren't only in the 1%, they're in the 100% of Americans and they come in all shapes and sizes. The kid who wanted an insane student loan to pay for their own selfishness of learning something that wasn't prudent to society, his greed is ok because he's not "rich"? That's silly. Both are selfish acts of greed, for some reason it's ok to write some off and not others due to such arbitrary things like income level or wealth. Everyone should be viewed and treated equally under the law. Exceptions are for assholes.

Your reading comprehension isn't very good. Try again. In particular I encourage you to focus on the words I actually said and the issue they addressed. After that, you might notice I said absolutely nothing related to your rant.

 

[bfdd]

You're so far out in the weeds that you couldn't find the road with a gps.

Of course there will always be a 1%. That doesn't mean they deserve the 20+% of taxable income they receive today vs the 8.5% they got in 1980, or that they deserve to pay 22% in federal income tax vs the 33% they paid back then, either. And it doesn't mean that the 1% of 1% has the right to completely destabilize the financial system and profit from both the rise and fall, either, at the expense of the rest of us.

The financial sector is supposed to be the lubricant in the gears of the capitalist machine, not the reason for the machine to exist at all. It's supposed to facilitate capitalist production, not debilitate capitalism itself.

You're right, they should be treated just like we are. I don't want them treated any differently than I am. That includes taxation. This is why all taxes should be flat, all money earned = income. That doesn't fly with you though, so we're back towards inequality and perpetuating this cycle of shit. You can say I'm wrong, but history kind of points to the opposite.

 

[monovillage]

I explained the problem isn't money, it is using the money to change the rules to benefit themselves at the expense of society at large. People will always look out for their own best interests. When their interests collide with the countries' self interests, they shouldn't win. When they do, it is a huge problem.

The end result is that we are sliding further down in wealth disparity, I'm talking down to 3rd world levels. The economy is stagnant and the middle class has little prospects for the future.

How the hell do you know what they're doing with their money? All you're going on is the cheap PR from their publicists.
http://www.examiner.com/celebrity-f...nds-800k-to-install-golf-green-inside-mansion

Talk about conspicuous consumption, but hey he did do that benefit right? Give me an evil capitalists name and let's see if he did a benefit too.

 

[Craig234]

You don't get it. My idea is to only do the above to those in the 1% who supposedly support OWS. I'd like to test their conviction and see how they react to the subsequent fleecing.

I wonder how many of them pay extra taxes every year. There is a box on the 1040 for that very reason. My guess is that they leave it blank.

You guys do realize that most of those personalities compound their wealth using many of the same methods as bankers, right?

Oh, you're posting the idiocy about those who support more fair taxes having to pay more only themselves, and not the rates being raised? We're done talking about that idiocy.

 

[Craig234]

Is this movement dead yet? Not heard much out of them this week as it was raining all week and cold today. Some of them were boycotting Wal-Mart downtown today but media wise, OWS seems to have fizzled from the spotlight.

You are cheering the corrupt, what an ass.

 

[michal1980]

That holds true for all unsecured loans, why exactly are student loans special? Why isn't CC debt immune from bankruptcy since, at least going by your assertion, anyone who gets a sizable CC limit will run them up and go bankrupt?

OTOH, I bet banks would take a hard look at loaning someone 6 figures to get an education that will land them a $30K a year job.

An even better question is might this be one of the reasons why higher education costs so much these days?

with unsercured loans you normally give out money based on a credit report. Most college kids borrow tens of thosands of dollars with no credit history. All on a promise that they will pay it back only after graduating.

people who generally have sizable credit limits generally have good credit and want to maintain it.

 

[michal1980]

You are cheering the corrupt, what an ass.

how many are corrupt? And how many are you just sterotyping?

If all the 1% are corrupt. Then all the ows protesters are communists.

 

[bfdd]

Exceptions to every rule.

Just because some visionary came along a few times every century when the masses were all ready to rise up doesn't change the fact that money is power, and monied interests do everything they can to get more power/money.

Yes, MLK did things without money. That in no way invalidates my point. It took centuries worth of rage built up, coupled with social structures changing through enhanced communication, to provide the opportunity for the Civil Rights Movement to take root. If there was money backing it, it would have happened quickly at any time before that. How do I know that? Because history is a good guide. Social change happens from the ground up after long periods of oppression where the powerful have taken too much for too long. All other changes happen on a whim because those in power wish it so.

Sounds like loser talk to me. Like I said, wannabe revolutionaries. Also, MLK was fighting for equality for all under law and in the eyes of the State. The OWS movement, from what I've been able to gather, wants no such thing. They want to use inequality to create equality. History has proven that to never work.

 

[HendrixFan]

How the hell do you know what they're doing with their money? All you're going on is the cheap PR from their publicists.
http://www.examiner.com/celebrity-f...nds-800k-to-install-golf-green-inside-mansion

Talk about conspicuous consumption, but hey he did do that benefit right? Give me an evil capitalists name and let's see if he did a benefit too.

Are you resorting to ignoring what I'm saying now? I don't see anywhere in that link that Justin Timberlake is using his money to push lobbyists to push congress into passing laws that allow him to extract money from the general populace to the detriment of the country. Maybe you can highlight the relevant portions? All I see is somebody with money spending it for his personal pleasure.

 

[HendrixFan]

Sounds like loser talk to me. Like I said, wannabe revolutionaries. Also, MLK was fighting for equality for all under law and in the eyes of the State.

Just a brief dusting of history for you, if that is "loser talk" then I can't help you. I don't make up history.

The OWS movement, from what I've been able to gather, wants no such thing. They want to use inequality to create equality. History has proven that to never work.

How?

 

[bfdd]

Just a brief dusting of history for you, if that is "loser talk" then I can't help you. I don't make up history.



How?

What do you mean? Explain how a "progressive tax" system is promoting equality. And lols what? Revolutions can start over night, entire governments couped out of no where and you're telling me it takes a "long time" to do these things? Ever read about red cells?

 

[Bowfinger]

Sounds like loser talk to me. Like I said, wannabe revolutionaries. Also, MLK was fighting for equality for all under law and in the eyes of the State. The OWS movement, from what I've been able to gather, wants no such thing. They want to use inequality to create equality. History has proven that to never work.

Now you're just parroting talking points. The inequality is already here, in a corrupt system that's tilted the playing field to massively benefit an elite few. The OWS protestors want to reduce that corruption and restore greater equality for Americans.