Why Occupy Wallstreet MUST Succeed

1. 62

   mortimerjacksonposted 13 years ago

   According to the Associated Press, 50% of people in America made less than $27,000 last year.
   
   Wages are going down. The wealth of people in this country is being siphoned by capitalists whose only prerogative is to turn a profit at the expense of the living standards of the entire nation. And Washington is helping them do it. In order to stop this, people have to collectively organize.

   replyreport
   1. 74

      Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Very true. Most of us have been going backward lately. In many ways our country is poorer than it was twenty years ago.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      nightwork4posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      i don't care about these "occupy" protests. people want a capitalist system and they got it. of course the rich will get richer and the poor will become poorer. it's common sense. people want over-priced homes, cars, cell phones etc, but then they complain that corporations make too much. hilarious.

      replyreport
      1. 71

         Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         

         replyreport
      2. 0

         Emile Rposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I'm sorry. Have you been asleep over the last decade?

         replyreport
      3. 60

         Hollie Thomasposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         People don't necessarily want crony capitalism though.

         replyreport
      4. 63

         bgamallposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         You don't get it. Financial corporations speculate, driving up the price of gas you buy by as much as 1.50 per gallon! The cost of living is controlled by speculation, risk on is the CNBC term.
         
         Wake up. And houses were not overpriced if you were taught by NAR and David Lereah that real estate always goes up so you could finance out of the ponzi loans later. Wake up man. Securitization of bogus loans made the bubble possible.
         
         The next one will be government guaranteed, and the hedge fund man in Washington is Eric Cantor of the Tea Party. So yes, OWS must at least make Americans aware that the financial cabal is an international enemy of main street. It is not capitalism.

         replyreport
   3. 61

      uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Workers of the world unite all you have to lose is the time you will spend in line waiting for your cabbage ration.
      
      

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Emile Rposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         So, because you fear communism, you have no problem with the raping of America by the big banks? No problem with the housing crisis? No problem with one in ten workers unemployed? Just let the politicians run amok; because, hey, there's always communism to worry about?

         replyreport
         1. 61

            uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            You make a fundamental error.  The flow of power and therefore the cause of the problem isn't the banks but the invasive and dangerous involvement of the government.  It is the desire by the state to direct everything it can.  It isn't communism it is the state. 
            
            The mortgage and real estate crisis has its origins, not in the badly regulated and designed fiduciary instruments offered by banks for investment, but in the terrible loan practices the government encouraged mortgage lenders to pursue - by force or by incentive.
            
            It has happened time and again.  When the government shirks its real responsibility - rational regulation of a market against dangerous practices - and especially its constitutionally charged responsibility for the value of money - in favor of pursuing a means of nailing down more political supporters, in this case through bad loan practices, it precipitates economic disaster.
            
            It happened around in the late 1800s.  It happened around WWI.  It happened in the Great Depression and it is happening now.  When ever government aggressively insinuates itself into the real estate market it creates a false market - a bubble.  Bubbles must burst and when they do there is hell to pay.
            
            This bubble hasn't burst because the Federal Government of the United States hasn't addressed the failing Fanny Mae/Freddie Mac secondary market and all of it numerous twisted incentives and its massive insolvency.
            
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis
            
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_ … ing_bubble
            
            http://www.heritage.org/research/report … -solutions
            
            The occupy crowd seek to further expand the power of those responsible for causing the mayhem because it fits with their perception that government in the solution.  Government is the exact opposite of a solution.  It is a complex problem.  How does one have a government that doesn't get out of control and gobble up property and freedom.
            
            The natural tendency of government is to eat and grow.  Ours has been eating economic liberty and using favored groups, of citizens and businesses, to facilitate its continued growth.  The banks are just one aspect of that.  If you want to reduce the power of banks reduce the power of government.  They are inextricably tied together.  Government seeks larger and larger industries because they concentrate control. It is that centralized control governments seek to co-opt. 
            
            Small, focused business is too decentralized and independent.  An economy of small companies is inconvenient to the over reaching state.  Cut government and dissolve government encouraged mega-banks but occupy just wants the cabbage line.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Emile Rposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               First, since you don't know anything more than the tip of one tiny thought I have on the subject; you make a fundamental error in telling me I'm in error. You wouldn't know.
               
               But, judging from your post, I don't think you understand the entire breadth of the issues. There are many, but the most glaring problem I see that we are past the time to try to get a handle on; is that there is no way to determine the line between government and corporations anymore. Our government is owned by them.
               
               Occupy Wall Street does go a little overboard.  No doubt.  But, at least they are attempting to shed serious light on the fact that we are fed up with the problem.
               
               I am all in favor of many of your points and I think that is one of the primary problems in America today. We agree on the problem and a large part of the solution; but we refuse to recognize the things we share in common because we are too caught up in viewing each other with suspicion over our differences. Your comment about communism is a case in point.
               
               We should set our differences aside long enough to stand up and retake what has been stolen from us all and then, once we have regained our government, we can decide what we want. Right now, squabbling is going to leave us all disenfranchised that much longer.
               
               Say whatever you want against the Occupy Movement. But, they are the only ones I've seen that have stood up to try to make a real difference. I've seen enough evidence of the good they have done across the country, trying to help their fellow Americans who are suffering the most. I haven't seen anything done by anyone else. I support them wholeheartedly.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Well considering the occupy crowd is endorsed by the American Nazi Party and the Revolutionary Communist Party sounds like you have the two side it deserves all wrapped up.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     Hollie Thomasposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     In another forum, I asked a poster to post evidence that OWS is endorsed by the Nazi party, not because I don't believe them but because I just haven't seen or read it anywhere else. Do you have a link Uncorrectedvision? I'd be grateful if you'd post it.

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        http://whitehonor.com/white-power/the-o … -movement/

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           Hollie Thomasposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           Thanks for that Uncorrectedvision. I hadn't seen any evidence of this before. It's interesting though that unlike rent a mob in the UK who hijack any peaceful demo, to their own ends, these guys more or less admit that's what they're doing.
                           
                           WE need to utilize and support every movement of dissent against this evil American empire, regardless of which end of the political spectrum it originates from.
                           
                           I'm surprised that hey haven't come out in full support of the Tea Party movement too, still, the Tea Party couldn't muster international support. Probably, not much there to "utilize and support"

                           replyreport
                     2. 61

                        uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        Funny, you had no trouble with the Revolutionary Communist Party endorsing them?

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           Hollie Thomasposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           Who didn't ? And who said in any way I, or the party that I would support, would in any way associate with the revolutionist communist party? You appear to know me, or your imaginary version of my sister. Assumptions, uncorrectedvision, assumptions.

                           replyreport
                           1. 61

                              uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              Fair enough.  Let us both make sure we do not subject the other to assumptions.

                              replyreport
                  2. 0

                     Emile Rposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     I'm slightly confused by that comment. Are you calling me a Nazi and a Communist? Shouldn't you simply pick one name to attempt to insult me with?

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        Not calling you either.  Telling you that occupy has the support of Nazis and Communists - that is as diverse a political spectrum as one could expect.

                        replyreport
               2. 61

                  uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  By what? Crapping on the flag or on the police?  Polluting public parks?  Blocking public egress?  Talking?  Drumming?  Whining? 
                  
                  Using the tools of their corporate over lords - Iphones, Ipads.  Perhaps they are a new generation to displace the "Me" generation.  They put the I in whine - the "I" generation.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     Emile Rposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     They've forced banks to stop stonewalling homeowners who are trying to keep their homes. Embarrassed them into renegotiating.
                     
                     You can insult Americans who are trying to make a difference all day long, but that means you are the problem. Not part of the solution. There's a lot of that going around.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        recommend1posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        +1

                        replyreport
      2. 88

         Don Wposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         ".. As long as you continue to tar social democracy with all the crimes of communism, I feel equally entitled to tar the free market with the crimes of slavery, segregation, colonialism and genocide; piss me off and I'll add fascism and the Nazis."
         - Greg Erwin

         replyreport
      3. 61

         not99andnot1posted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I love people who hate Capitalism, as a person who has spent the last 10 years living in former communist countries I can honestly say that anything barring the word Social is an assault on Democracy.  Let not confuse Democracy with Capitalism.  How did the Fascists and the Socialists and the Communists get into power, and what is their legacy.  Remember Greece is a Social Democracy and broke for to many social programs.  The Fascists left Europe is ashes and fear in the minds of people for over 65 years.  The Communists stripped the rights of their people and committed an even more unspeakable thing the took hope from their people and replaced it with fear.  No -ism is perfect however capitalism can only do what the people let it.  If you don't want something you don't buy it.  When we start protecting capitalism we start problems.  If a bank fails that is Capitalism.  If we bail the bank out that isn't capitalism.  Capitalism has been the reason we have so successful until now, not our social programs.  We stay out of our lives and away from our businesses as much as is reasonable and we had a great country.  Sure the people need some protection.  However, companies need to make a profit if the companies don't they close or move away.  If we take from the rich they will do the same and not care what happens to the USA.  When hope gives way to fear then the people need a strong leader to do the right thing even if it is painful, we don't have a strong leader and if you over throw the government you will have a nation so divided that this great nation will go the route of Lebanon and Somalia.  President Lincoln was right a house divided can not stand and we are seeing  it now.  So how will we react in our darkest hour.  Will we rise up and become greater like our parents and grandparents did in the great depression or have we been broken and whipped like a beaten dog that cowers from its master.  In my America we have not begun to fight.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Hollie Thomasposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            The problem is people having been taking from the rich, and yet the rich still take from the people. I think, for the purposes of this thread we should define "rich".

            replyreport
            1. 76

               Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               The ultra-rich. The richest 1%. If it comes to violence however it will be anyone better off than the ones committing the violence.
               
               The terrible thing is if violence did happen to spontaneously erupt, the ultra rich would probably be reading about it or watching it on the news from thier island get-away. They wouldn't be the people in the streets getting killed.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Hollie Thomasposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  I agree, my previous post should have read "people haven't been taking from the rich"  How much employment do the 1% really create? And, when they do create wealth is there really a trickle down? And, how much do they hawk on the real wealth creators? I also think that should be qualified, in order to dispel the myths.

                  replyreport
               2. 61

                  uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  At what income level does that 1% start?  Perhaps we should follow the recommendations of some and eat them or dust off the guillotines.

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     not99andnot1posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     As the bottom 1% I see a problem with taxing the rich.  I'll keep it in the easiest form I can think of.  Uping the taxes on the rich would be like  your state ups the taxes on you.  Lets for arguments sake say that you could live in a neighboring state and it wouldn't change anything except the taxes you pay wouldn't you move?  Now, lets for arguments sake bring this to the richest 1% wouldn't it be a fair statement to say that they would do the same to another country.  Besides I think that punishing people for being successful is a bit hippo-critical.  What would you say if you brother or child earned that much money "hey where's mine".  Maybe I'm just too old or too slow to understand this.

                     replyreport
   4. 60

      Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      50% of people ALSO didn't pay taxes....

      replyreport
      1. 62

         mortimerjacksonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         To those of us who insist on being inconsiderate sociopaths, 50% of people CANNOT afford to pay income taxes.
         
         Did you even read the post? $27,000 is how much 50% of people make! How can people be expected to have enough disposable income to pay their taxes when their salaries are so low? And they do pay taxes. They pay sales taxes whenever they spend what little bit of money they have. 
         
         This is the problem with privileged middle classmen who live inside their own little bubbles. There's no perspective, or concern of the real world around them.

         replyreport
2. 60

   thebigbagblogposted 13 years ago

   Agreed!

   replyreport
3. 87

   lovemychrisposted 13 years ago

   Democrats are trying to stop it.....GOP is blocking them. Pay attention people!!!
   
   now gotta go to work to pay verizon, n-star, comcast, fuel......so their CEO's can pocket 23 mil.
   
   Oh poor poor maligned business! It's so tragic they must move overseas. Lucky for them there is a wealth of dirt poor people who will jump at $3.00 an hour.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Repairguy47posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      You mean like the electric car business the Obama administration gave 529 Million dollars to? The same company that went to Finland to have the cars built because they couldn't find a suitable manufacturing facility in the U.S.? That business?

      replyreport
      1. 87

         lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Why--had all the facilities moved to China? Mexico? Indonesia? USA  USA USA......riiiiiiight.
         
         At least Obama gets the picture: Oil is dead. We need to get with the Renewable's Program. China is eating us alive...at our own game!
         
         Obama is FOR renewables...thats part of why I voted for him. Start-Up companies will be rough for awhile. But it's better than throwing billions at a dead horse year after year.
         
         Koch can finance his own pollution, thank you.

         replyreport
      2. 60

         Hollie Thomasposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         At least they paid back their debt, which is more than can be said for the banking elite who you pathetically roll over and die for... Yeah, take everything and laugh at me, I'll still defend you...

         replyreport
4. 60

   GoGreenTipsposted 13 years ago

   Something has to change or we're all going to be in some deep ..... I hope it takes hold, and I hope the politicians realize it is time to quit squabling and do something.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Politicians are the most dangerous to freedom when they do something.

      replyreport
5. 87

   lovemychrisposted 13 years ago

   Awesome video!!!
   
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj8UlxhfJLw

   replyreport
6. 87

   lovemychrisposted 13 years ago

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfTiw8qZI6U

   replyreport
7. 61

   not99andnot1posted 13 years ago

   Where was all of this concern when we being sold out by Bush & Clinton?  How about our responsibility for all of this.  Remember we voted these people into power and never wondered why.  I always told my friends that if you wanted to rule America just put a little money in front of the people so they can buy their SUV's and you can steal everything you want from under their noses.  We got cheated and we let it happen do you really think that this will change anything.  Maybe it is time to clean house either the people tell the congress enough is enough or we can keep listening to the two parties who do nothing.  Maybe it is time to do what Thomas Jefferson said and revolt.  If the people can't say lets get a 3rd party and back it and send the much needed signal, then our only choice may be to hang our leaders from the trees in Washington D.C.

   replyreport
8. 0

   Emile Rposted 13 years ago

   Yes, OWS needs to win, but what, exactly, do you think the politicians are going to do? Nothing. Just like they've been doing. Sooner or later everyone is going to have to wake up to the fact that it is revolution time.
   
   I'm sorry, but our country and our freedoms were snaked out from under us all while we waited to make money off of the scraps from Wall Street. We were bamboozled, hoodwinked, lied to and cheated by corporations and our government.
   
   Until Wall Street gets kicked to the curb they will control the world. Our politicians are in bed with them. They need to hit the curb, too. Worldwide.

   replyreport
   1. 76

      Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      The Politicians haven't been doing nothing. They have been working for the Rich and Powerful 1%'ers doing the 1%'ers bidding in the hopes that the 1%'ers would allow them into the 1% club.
      
      That's the problem, and now it may be too late. I hope not but it may be. The only hope for a peaceful way out that I see is the establishment of veto power of the people over every tax and law in existence by majority vote. If We the People (99%'ers) don't understand a law it shouldn't be a law.
      
      ***The ability to selectively enforce or not enforce a law means it isn't a law, it's tyranny.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Emile Rposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I like the way you think.

         replyreport
         1. 76

            Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            

            replyreport
   2. 87

      lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      As long as you don't throw the good ones out with the bad....

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Emile Rposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         How do you know the difference? The parties are as corrupt as the politicians.
         
         I'm sorry. I know I sound exceptionally negative, but they've just pushed me to the point I don't see any of them capable of working for the greater good. If they are in office, they have bowed to the system in place that puts people in Washington. That system is owned by corporate money.
         
         If we had an election, where they could only use campaign funds donated by individuals; if they won on their merits, I'd have a little more faith. But winning due to smear tactics used on their oponent, with ads paid for by corporations and political action groups means they are in somebody's pocket. They aren't in a position to even begin to vote their conscience.
         
         Who do you trust?

         replyreport
         1. 87

            lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Kucinich
            Kaptur
            Ellison
            Sanders
            Paul
            Rorbacher..although he follows party-line a little too much
            Guy from Ohio with the gravelly voice
            The Rep from Vermont
            Trusted Grayson and the guy who was kicked out due to the twitter-pants scandal
            Frank
            Woman who was on that debt commission, who would not give in
            Pelosi
            
            ....I know there are so many more, who never make headlines.
            
            And I'm sure I am partisan, but that's just how it is.
            I see most of the GOP as the enemy.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Emile Rposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               I disagree. I'll pull one name out of the mix to make my point. Pelosi. She's a primadonna who has wasted tax payer money wantonly, for personal comfort. She'd be  on the first train out of there. If I was loading the boxcars.

               replyreport
               1. 87

                  lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Not me. She stands up for my values, and is NOT afraid of those goons on the other side.
                  
                  So--how to proceed, when you want them all out, and that includes good ones too?

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     Emile Rposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     I think the point is that we all have issues with the way our government is run now. So, yes. I would like to see them all gone. They are as much a part of the problem as the big banks. They will never  help to change a system that they have attained a level of power in.
                     
                     I don't want the Democrats running the show anymore than I want the Republicans to. I'm tired of behind closed door deals and pork barrel politics. They are all as guilty of it as any other.
                     
                     The system needs to change. We are all afraid on some level, but of all the countries in the world that can make radical change without a violent social upheaval, we are the ones that can do it.

                     replyreport
                     1. 87

                        lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        I think a lot of the pols would agree with you!
                        
                        It's the system that is corrupt, not the people per say. It's like when you are at work, and you see funny things, but you keep your mouth shut. And I watched the House of Reps in 2007, after the GOP lost power: It was like a dam had burst. Those Democrats had been stifled for 8 years. And the anger was just like OWS!
                        
                        I say just get rid of the bad ones...and they're pretty easy to spot. Just ask them if they want the Bush era tax cuts extended...that's enough for me to know. But that's my pov.

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           Emile Rposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           I respect your point of view. I think you are way left of me. I assume that is probably why you see good in some politicians. I'm just in the middle, which is why they all look tainted. The political landscape has gotten so polarized.
                           
                           The funny thing is, I think if you, me and a  person on the right sat down and wrote out our grievances, we'd have a very similar list. We are all so much closer sometimes than we realize; we are simply letting politics stand in the way. If we could change that and stand together, we could change the world we live in.

                           replyreport
                           1. 87

                              lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              Or it could be that ideology gets in the way of politics!
                              For instance--if someone's going to say abortion is murder, and we will outlaw it....
                              
                              That is a conversation stopper with me. There is no where else to go.
                              And I'm sure people on the other side feel the same.
                              
                              That's the dilemma.

                              replyreport
                              1. 0

                                 Emile Rposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                 Ok. You are right. That's a problem. But, it is one problem. If we could solve all of the problems that weren't deal breakers we'd still get a heck of a lot further than our government can. The way it is now, in order to keep abortion legal we'd have to throw in a bridge to nowhere for the guy on the right and the person in the middle would insist on a billion dollar public project for their state just so they wouldn't vote to stop abortion, even though they are really in favor of a woman's right to choose. That would be after the attempt to filibuster, the attempt to kill the bill in committee and the public smear campaigns to sway public opinion.
                                 
                                 The system is set up for everyone to lose. Us most of all. It's out of control.

                                 replyreport
                  2. 76

                     Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     We need to be able to build a better mousetrap, and we need the power to VETO any and every Law and Tax the 1%'ers (who will always exist, in one form or another) create, through the Majority Vote of the 99%'ers <We the People>.
                     
                     The Veto power alone would delete 90% of the confusing, 1% serving, corrupt laws they have spent 50 years putting into place.
                     
                     If it takes a Genius to understand the Law, then ONLY a Genius can follow the Law. Law should be simple, clear, consise, and equal for all, regardless of money or who your uncle is.

                     replyreport
                     1. 87

                        lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        Yes, except you would still have differing views by people.....and they would still go on ideological lines!
                        
                        We are on opposite sides of the Universe, as far as what kind of country we want.
                        
                        I don't have any common ground with tp'ers or the Gop.
                        
                        And as we see...they think of OWS as a bunch of filthy bums.
                        
                        One view has to dominate, cause there is no consensus. ??

                        replyreport
                        1. 76

                           Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           No we have to simplify the law, we have to find the base issues we all agree on. Things like you're not allowed to commit murder. I think that should be and remain a law. I believe we can all agree on that. So that law wouldn't be vetoed off the books. But it should be voted on. We the People should be able to call into question any law on the books and call for a vote. If it gets vetoed it's gone. If a law isn't understandable to the common person it should get vetoed.
                           
                           That is the way we need to revamp the system. Taking out party affiliations. Let each citizen vote yea or nay and the majority vote wins. No electoral college that decides for us or could vote against us. Democracy in action. Simple. The only people that won't be happy with it are the 1%'ers that have spent so much time and money making it the exact opposite of what this would make it. Fair, consise, easy to understand, and easy to follow. No loopholes, no confusion, no priveledged exceptions.

                           replyreport
                     2. 0

                        Emile Rposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        You're pretty much on the money there. The only question is; how do we implement it?

                        replyreport
               2. 61

                  uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Her family is also the beneficiary of that great corporate corruption - the "Green" economy - receiving millions in guaranteed loans just like Solyndra.  Again you get the flow of power wrong.  It is the state that needs the giant corporation to control the economy.  How many divisions does Jeffery Imelt have?

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     Emile Rposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     I have no idea why you keep repeating yourself. It doesn't sound as if you know what you're talking about. Both sides feed each other.

                     replyreport
9. 77

   AEvansposted 13 years ago

   I think all of the politicians should work for minimum wage, not receive healthcare and visit food banks. I bet then they would listen to the American people. We the people pay them nice salaries, to sit in there palacious homes, drive expensive cars, have maid service and eat caviar. If they worked for hourly and not salary bet they would make change then.
   
   
   ****Not all of us work for minimum but the politicians do not deserve more then that.*****  But while the holidays are coming ,Americans are struggling to put food on there table. The politicians will be hitting the ski slopes, traveling to Europe and purchasing lavish gifts. We need to vote all of them out! Nothing wrong with getting involved with Occupy Wallstreet.

   replyreport
10. 62

    mortimerjacksonposted 13 years ago

    If you have heard of Wolf-Pac, it's a political action committee being supported by OWS with the agenda of banning corporate funding of elections in the state level. Like with most European countries, the aim here is for candidates to receive money from a public election fund.
    
    The reason this is directed at the states and not the federal level is, as they say, because the federal level is far too deep in corruption to be of any good. I happen to believe they're right. And in my humble opinion, I happen to think this is a very smart strategy.
    
    Their website is right here. If nothing else, at least check them out.

    replyreport
11. 76

    Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years ago

    Why Occupy Wall Street Must be successful:
    
    If there were unlimited resources in existence we could allow the ultra-wealthy to continue as they are. Growing ever more wealthy by leaps and bounds. Others could follow in thier foot steps also one day becoming wealthy. However the reality is the now ultra-wealthy own such a great percentage of the total available planetary resources, that what is left isn't enough for the rest of us to even become middle classed, and it is only getting worse, soon everyone else will not even be able to become poor.

    replyreport
    1. 74

       Mighty Momposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Very well stated.

       replyreport
12. 67

    MikeNVposted 13 years ago

    Who controls the money supply in the United States?
    
    Answer:  Private Bankers
    
    So any protest that does not result in the abolishing the Federal Reserve will fail.
    
    Americans do not understand how the money supply works.  So the picket and protest SYMPTOMS and not the CAUSE.

    replyreport
13. 72

    Reality Bytesposted 13 years ago

    I am going to attend an Occupy rally on Sunday.  I will post my opinions after I mingle with the participants. 
    
    
    Hey maybe I will get a hub out of it?

    replyreport
    1. 60

       Hollie Thomasposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       WTG Reality Bytes. Nothing like first hand accounts of a situation.

       replyreport
       1. 74

          Mighty Momposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Yes, we eagerly await your report.
          Definitely write a hub -- might as well pepper in those keywords and make some money off it, too!!!
          Do you have a Hub Pages T-shirt to wear to the rally???
          Don't forget to take pictures!!!

          replyreport
14. 60

    Evan G Rogersposted 13 years ago

    Much of the OWS is actually echoing the message of Ron Paul:
    
    http://lewrockwell.com/spl3/a-lesson-in-democracy.html
    
    But, then again, there are a lot of idiots down there:
    
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsJPKMvWDmY
    
    Either way, the outcry is a symptom of inflation. Governments promise spending, they can't pay their debts, they borrow, they still can't pay for their promises, they print money, resources are squandered, crashes ensue, the poor have to pay for it all because the government IS the banksters.

    replyreport
    1. 62

       mortimerjacksonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Yes. The government forced Goldman Sachs to take all that bailout money at nearly 0% interest. What could they do? The government forced them to take taxpayer money. What a shame.
       
       Also, while the federal government is to blame for a lot of this, there is no denying the corporate influences that result in these decisions. Do you understand the concept of lobbying? See, lobbying is when a group funds a government official to act on their behalf. Do you know what that results in? If you can't figure it out, then God help you. Unless you insist on being deliberately ignorant.
       
       OWS is not echoing the message of Ron Paul. The main voice of OWS is to enforce stronger regulations, and bring an end to corporate financing of elections. These are not libertarian policies.
       
       This little statement of yours tells me that you are either a self-deluded nitwit, or you work for Fox News. Either way, you're not convincing anyone with sources that you pull out of blogs.

       replyreport
       1. 60

          Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Lobbying is the petitioning of government.
          
          It's just that, nowadays, it's bribery.
          
          OWS needs to realize that the government can't regulate the market because the government gets paid by the companies.

          replyreport
          1. 62

             mortimerjacksonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             Do you not understand that lobbying creates an inherent conflict of interest? Do you get that? At all? When a politician bases his attention to an organization based on the money that they give him, do you not see the problem?
             
             The government DOES get paid by the companies. Don't you think that should change? At all? Or would you rather have a government that is inherently corrupt?

             replyreport
    2. 74

       Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       What inflation?? It's the lowest since WWII, and unemployment is the highest.

       replyreport
       1. 60

          Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          How about this inflation?
          
          

          replyreport
          1. 74

             Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             The term, "inflation" ordinarily refers to increases in consumer or other prices, not the money supply. FYI, Bernanke is using monetary policy in his effort to stimulate the economy in a way that would be approved by monetarist Milton Friedman and other libertarian economists who believed that the economy could be regulated by Federal Reserve monetary policy and that Keynesian stimulative policy was unnecessary and ineffective.

             replyreport
             1. 60

                Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                It used to mean Monetary inflation.
                
                Well, if that didn't matter to you, how about this inflation? Your precious central bank can't even maintain a "nickel" standard, let alone gold and silver.
                
                http://www.coinflation.com/coins/1946-2 … Value.html
                
                That didn't convince you?
                
                How about the WPI?
                
                
                
                
                
                (around 8% inflation for the average family's basic consumption)
                
                Or how about the 10% inflation rate on food?
                
                http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/econom … 98702.html
                
                Increased money supply HAS to lead to higher prices.
                
                And, I'm trying to find the site that discussed Friedman promoting the Gold Standard. Give me a bit and I'll have the link (I have it printed off because I couldn't believe it).

                replyreport
                1. 74

                   Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                   Friedman was a blind follower of Ayn Rand. He was also a monetarist who believed the economy could be fine tuned by the Federal Reserve.  But his misguided libertarianism led him to allow the housing bubble and the banks he was supposed to be regulating get out of control. He has since admitted his fault on this account.
                   
                   "Increased money supply has to lead to higher prices."
                   
                   Many economists think a little inflation and much less employment is what the country needs.

                   replyreport
                   1. 60

                      Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                      Explain to me how "making things cost more" will help the economy?
                      
                      Because that makes NO sense.
                      
                      "Hey guys! Let's artificially make things cost more! That way people who don't have inflation-adjusting jobs will be screwed over horribly, and savings will be wiped out!"

                      replyreport