It was originally about getting corporate influence out of government. The mainstream left hijacked it, and turned it into hurr durr corporations and rich people are evil.
last i checked it is non-party. people of both parties are present at the protests. i read that the left is trying to hijack and saying they support it, but nowhere have i seen that a "hijack has officially taken place." mainstream media continues to portray it as a them vs. us thing though... this country needs to stop being about that and start being about bettering ourselves imo. [br][/br]Edited by merge: here are some more links: Occupy Wall Street Planning A National Convention, Releases Potential Demands Occupy Wall Street: Poll shows protests' mainstream popularity Why are they lying about Occupy Wall Street – and why are they getting away with it?
EDIT: Quoted the wrong post, cba to find the right one. This is something I see bettering the individual over the whole. I am of the 'all for one,' not the 'one for all' philosophy. So, once again, I do not support it because I disagree with the cause. I see a hard future if you can't even see the fact that someone could find legitimate issue with the protest. "Oh, if you don't agree then it is definitely because of a misunderstanding of some sort." It is simply because I don't agree with the philosophy.
If you don't think that corporations are ruining this country then what is? Why are hundreds of millions of people in debt up to their ears when all they wanted to do was get a higher education or a life saving surgery?
Bad luck, any system involving currency, poor decision making, consumerism, lying about your actual life goals in an attempt to seem like a better person and gain sympathy for a cause that benefits you, etc. I won't say corporations make any of it easier, I will however say that blame can never be set solely in one location. It is far too heavy.
Are you kidding me? Have you ever ran a business? I am currently doing that, along with my brother. And Bank of America (We use them for the business account, along with our credit/debit machine) is screwing us right in our ass, for reasons that are not defined. Every single time a customer buys something with their card, do you think we get that money the same night? Nope. 4 business day. That means: Someone buys something on Monday, I don't get the money til about Friday. The reason? "Oh, your business will need to expand more." Bullshit. Even more, is when I have to review how many "Fees" were issued to my account, and how much money they actually eat away from what we have stored for Product. I call them out every single ****ing time, they connect me to 10 different people, put me on hold for hours, until I finally say "**** it." We do not have bad luck, we're honest business owners who just want to provide more jobs for you guys. But we're too "small" and must require a loan FROM THEM if we want to exponentially expand. Without these bogus Fees and ridiculous restrictions from Bank of America, I would've hired two more employees these past 3 months. Don't think these big banks are working for you. So yeah, I'm pretty pissed and would like to see some change. Even though I do not agree with the movement's ENTIRE philosophy, I still support what they are for. /2cents
"Thirteen Observations made by Lemony Snicket while watching Occupy Wall Street from a Discreet Distance 1. If you work hard, and become successful, it does not necessarily mean you are successful because you worked hard, just as if you are tall with long hair it doesn’t mean you would be a midget if you were bald. 2. “Fortune” is a word for having a lot of money and for having a lot of luck, but that does not mean the word has two definitions. 3. Money is like a child—rarely unaccompanied. When it disappears, look to those who were supposed to be keeping an eye on it while you were at the grocery store. You might also look for someone who has a lot of extra children sitting around, with long, suspicious explanations for how they got there. 4. People who say money doesn’t matter are like people who say cake doesn’t matter—it’s probably because they’ve already had a few slices. 5. There may not be a reason to share your cake. It is, after all, yours. You probably baked it yourself, in an oven of your own construction with ingredients you harvested yourself. It may be possible to keep your entire cake while explaining to any nearby hungry people just how reasonable you are. 6. Nobody wants to fall into a safety net, because it means the structure in which they’ve been living is in a state of collapse and they have no choice but to tumble downwards. However, it beats the alternative. 7. Someone feeling wronged is like someone feeling thirsty. Don’t tell them they aren’t. Sit with them and have a drink. 8. Don’t ask yourself if something is fair. Ask someone else—a stranger in the street, for example. 9. People gathering in the streets feeling wronged tend to be loud, as it is difficult to make oneself heard on the other side of an impressive edifice. 10. It is not always the job of people shouting outside impressive buildings to solve problems. It is often the job of the people inside, who have paper, pens, desks, and an impressive view. 11. Historically, a story about people inside impressive buildings ignoring or even taunting people standing outside shouting at them turns out to be a story with an unhappy ending. 12. If you have a large crowd shouting outside your building, there might not be room for a safety net if you’re the one tumbling down when it collapses. 13. 99 percent is a very large percentage. For instance, easily 99 percent of people want a roof over their heads, food on their tables, and the occasional slice of cake for dessert. Surely an arrangement can be made with that niggling 1 percent who disagree. " by Lemony Snicket | OccupyWriters.com [br][/br]Edited by merge:
It's not their job to work for you. Change banks if you don't like it. But you payed for the oven no? And the ingredients? This is just another example of rhetoric lying about how the rich "don't pay their fair share" (like they owe you something), but THEY DO. You can claim that there is no party affiliation, but it is clear that this is an uninformed leftist circlejerk.
Wish I could, unfortunately that will cost a fortune. It's not so much about them "working for me" I would rather them actually be honest and reasonable and not have them pull out hidden fees and unreasonable conditions that were not presented when we were signing a contract. Is that reasonable?
I think you misunderstand, Ion. The protests mean different things to different people, which is part of why it is criticized for its vagueness. There are multiple motives and causes at work, so while I'm not sure what philosophy you're actually disagreeing with, I'm fairly sure that it isn't the only one involved. And Based, I'm not seeing your logic here. I hate the idealistic banter as much as you do because I'm a practical guy. However, it's because I'm practical that I don't believe the wealthiest among us should be enjoying some of their lowest taxes in decades while the country is struggling to such a degree. You have to realize that after years and years of politicians that always try to lower taxes as a platform for election that a stigma with raising them has been created. Any kind of tax increase will come off as forbidden, even if the rates are still well below what would be economically and objectively acceptable.
I can accept that there is logic and a sound argument behind Shanon's perspective, and the majority of others, even if I don't disagree with it. Rhetorical fallacy, however, is bad. Tax Brackets (Federal Income Tax Rates) 2000 through 2011 Taxation in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Fileistribution of U.S. Federal Taxes 2000.JPG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text If you are among the super rich, you are taxed 35%. The rest of the country is taxed... let me to the math... LESS. What...? Okay, I'm gonna make this simple. If you make $1,000,000, at a flat tax rate of 10%, you have to pay $100,000 of that. At the same flat tax rate, if you make $100, you have to pay $10. They may make 1,000 times the money, but they also PAY 1,000 times the tax. Sounds entirely fair to me. Instead, we need to give them the grossly inflated 35%, or 3.5 times the tax, costing them $350,000 instead of the $100,000 that you would pay in a similar circumstance. They are, in essence, being given a greater load for their greater fortune. That is unfair to the man who makes $100 in WHAT way? This is all outlined in the first and second sources. Keep in mind that the flat tax rates can vary by as much as five percent, so worst case scenario the bottom bracket has to pay half of the percentage of the rates on the rich. Notice how the PERCENTAGE paid is greater? That means the rich are only paying higher amounts on taxes, but they are paying exponentially higher rates. If you look at the third source, you can see that the bottom bracket is even BELOW zero percent. I don't even comprehend how that works, are you paid taxes instead of the other way around? And still complaining about the rich having lowered rates? The constitution, fourth source, states that all income groups, rich or poor, will be treated as one when taxed by state governments. Not word for word, its in and older English and makes no sense, but if you've read the article you will know the line I'm talking about. As I said, I can understand the plight, feel empathy for, and conceivably even be convinced to stand behind someone with an argument like Shanon's. He is making it about the corporations and not the country. However the majority of what I have learned about this relates to everything from jobless hipsters who think that paying tax is too mainstream, to anarchists who simply don't like the system because it is a system.
Jobless hipsters? http://occupywallst.org/media/pdf/OWS-profile1-10-18-11-sent-v2-HRCG.pdf As I've said before, I don't agree with their entire demands. But one seems to be the most prevalent; Get money out of politics. I back this up 100%
35% in tax means little to the quality of living someone making "$1,000,000" has, tax that helps supply the soup kitchen the person who makes $100 a year is eating at. The word exponential means something you know.
Wait, so since you have more in your possession you have less of a right to it? And did you just flat out say that it is FINE to take money from one person and give it to another? It should be up to the moral code of the person who is well off; if they care about humanity as a whole they will willingly give their money to the needy, and support the race. But if they are FORCED into it... Petition to Redistribute GPA's - YouTube And yes, exponential. f(x)=a(b^x)
Reflex, it's not just rhetoric. Under Clinton, income tax was 39%, and the capital gains tax was about 20% instead of 15%. Needless to say, that portion of the population did just fine. Rates have been even higher in the past, and those rates included lower incomes than 250k, too. God forbid we do anything but cut taxes anymore, though. That hasn't been allowed since the Reagan era. We're not naive; we know the wealthy pay a larger percentage of the total taxes. That's actually the very reason that removing some of the incentives they've enjoyed for the past 8 or 9 years would be so helpful. You need to stop acting like taxes are robbing the rich. Moreover, you should know as well as anyone that it's the extreme and sensational that gets attention, and this OWS is no different. You'd be better off not to assume the "hipsters and anarchists" are really the people you're supposed to be listening to amidst all of this.
What needs to happen is to have an outsider, perhaps with some grudge against the current world order to come in and do something drastic that every one will take notice of. Possibly making themselves a martyr while doing it. Most of the world will hate them for it. But maybe the world will change. Maybe only slightly or even just superficially. Or perhaps, oh wait... that happened. The thing is, government or business or whatever have taken too much power away from the people. Protests and marches and the like that were big back in the 60s can no longer work. If this movement had one voice that could unify the collective thoughts of the many spouting there own "I have a dream" speech then they might be taken more seriously but even that won't happen now. Too many of them have their own agendas and are trying to use this occurrence to try to add force to their own arguments. EDIT: Another thing you guys should be taking into account is that a lot of the folks that have an ass load of money invest in small businesses. Funding them through the beginning helping them grow, which in tern creates jobs. if you start taking more money away from them by force they will not sacrifice their lifestyle to pay it. They will make cut backs in their investments. meaning the smaller fish lose out even more.