Here's an article that kind of highlights the logic behind how the Tea Party and OWS are similar:
They both hate the bloated Mercantilist state.
The STATE is the 1%
The State may embrace the 1% percent idea, but in reality how well is that working for them? Most governments around the world are bankrupt or nearly bankrupt.
Yes, parasitic they are. On the premise that collecting revenues is for betterment causes of the population. This is a two-edged sword, really. What sort of system should there be if this one is corrupt as well? Should every individual be on their own? If so, then it destroys the ideas of community purpose and living.
What a lot of gobbly gook. Beats me. Must be a libertarian.
Yesterday I read an article about what amount of money puts an individual into the "1%" - it is a lot less than some of us (including me) realize. At this date in 2011, it only takes roughly $350,000 annual income to put someone into the One Percent.
I asked in another thread for a definition of the 1%(or definition of rich) . To me, the 1% is the richest one percent globally, not nationally. If $350,000 is the annual income of the 1%, then, maybe, the protesters should be aiming at the .01%, or the multibillionaires. I think that's who the protesters are aiming at. IMHO
I think that what you are saying is very insightful - that is, as we personally try to define what the terms mean, we may come up with a non-factual definition.
It would be appropriate and helpful (IMO) for the protestors to revise their slogan. Even if they aim at multi-billionaires, that will include people like Oprah Winfrey. I heard statistics recently which indicated that in the (currently defined) 1%, only a very small percentage actually work in the area of finance.
No, I agree, in another thread I suggested that if new tax laws were to be implemented they should include celebrities. They should be inclusive. Corporations do not necessarily work in the area of finance though. I think a definition would be really helpful, for the cause, and for the specifics of the movement. I don't think the mega rich should pay more than others, just their fair share, as a percentage of income.
I think they put it like this:
"42 percent of financial wealth is controlled by the top 1 percent."
Thanks Knolyourself That also brings me back to another question I asked. How much wealth do the 1% create, and how much do they hawk on the wealth creators?
Not financial wealth. That would be a mistake.
A lot of that "Wealth" is capital goods.
If you were to kill Bill Gates and divvy up his loot, a lot of people would end up with screws and nails. Maybe a hammer.
I was on twitter early today and a senator tweeted out an interesting stat-
400 of America's richest families made more in one year's time than 150 million other families.
@Hollie - I'm all for fairness!
@Evan - I scanned the linked article and found it quite interesting. Sorry that we've been assuming the 1% in the title of this thread means the same as the OWS slogan!
Evan has trouble differentiating between things. He loves to be unclear in his statements.
In this case, he posted a link to an article in which the writer said that actually those who run everything (the 1%) are the government workers at the federal level. It was not Evan who was unclear in this situation. I'm guessing that most of us who are posting in this thread have not really read the linked article.
That still doesn't change the fact that Evan does post things in the forums, just to get a rise out of people, by twisting things.
I'm sorry Aficionada, but I've just read the link again. It is completely partisan, without any substance or credible evidence. Complete and utter distortion. Like you, I'm also for fairness. This link is quite insulting, to those who are willing to examine evidence. There is none.
"How much wealth do the 1% create, and how much do they hawk on the wealth creators?" They own
things. Some families in America own whole counties. Might say they rent everything. This creates wealth for themselves. If you rent a storefront you may create wealth without having to build the infrastructure. Course they can run
you out by raising the rent.
by Kathryn L Hill44 hours ago
"What Clinton did not acknowledge is that a no-fly zone would likely lead to war with Russia — the world’s largest nuclear power.Chris Wallace, the moderator for the debate, alluded to this in a...
by AnnCee5 years ago
He says "we've" allowed a few rich people to take all the money and keep it. And "we" need to get it back from them.http://www.theblaze.com/stories/really- … from-them/Anti-capitalism in...
by Wesman Todd Shaw4 years ago
1. NOW YOU KNOW YOU ARE NOT ALONE – Although the movement against big banks and government corruption has been steadily growing for a number of years, many people who have found themselves in this struggle still...
by Beaks7 years ago
I know there is some percentage of views that goes to HubPages, but can it really be 90 percent? That's about how many of mine they get. I've never cared much until now when I have a hub that is actually getting a good...
by Gary Anderson5 years ago
The richest 1 percent have a greater net worth than the bottom 90 percent. If you don't want revolution, this must change. Countries that have this discrepancy are at risk of social unrest. Bottom line, if you want...
by Stacie L5 years ago
Published on Saturday, December 25, 2010 by ReutersFading Optimism in New Normal Americaby Bernd Debusmann"Optimism is so deeply embedded in the American national psyche that it withstood the Great Depression in...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.