Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
It has become obscenely apparent that we will not see worthwhile results from our elected officials until we have removed the underbelly of greed that has taken hold of our government and pulled all public policy away from honest debate and action.
In court, a potential juror is removed from a case if they are in any way connected it. It is simply called a conflict of interest and a new juror is found. They could not cross their hearts and promise that they would be unbiased. How can that be so clear in our judicial system, but ignored in our government? You, as a politician and an official representative of the people of America, should be held to these same rules.
When corporations invest in a politician's campaign or when people are given jobs in the cabinet or in federal programs to monitor companies and industries for whom they have formerly worked, we cannot possibly put complete trust in their judgment. Furthermore, when people leave cabinet positions and go on to take jobs with higher salaries for the industries they had once monitored, we cannot look back on their time monitoring and feel honestly secure that they were unbiased. Corporate interest has become more important than the people living in the country and the environment around us. This must stop.
We are no longer going to wait for your timetable. We are standing in solidarity with the movements taking place across the nation to demand our country back. And we are spreading the word through every possible channel. We, The People, are collecting on the debt that you owe us, the one in which we have paid for dearly in lost wages, lost homes, and lost trust.
I'm probably closer to Jhamm in this whole thing in that I'm skeptical that anything will change. 3 years of being a Poli Sci major taught me very little but it did teach me that nothing ever happens. I used to be somewhat active politically and very interested now i'm at the point that the only politician or political issue I'll read an article about is Giffords and that's on a personal interest level not a political one. I'm not saying i disagree what you guys are standing for just that I've found myself unwilling to stand for anything these days.
I think the only issue that really still gets my blood boiling is Health Care and that's because I have some personal stock in it. I think Patterson Hood puts it well in "Putting People On the Moon" if you care to listen.
I'm probably closer to Jhamm in this whole thing in that I'm skeptical that anything will change. 3 years of being a Poli Sci major taught me very little but it did teach me that nothing ever happens. I used to be somewhat active politically and very interested now i'm at the point that the only politician or political issue I'll read an article about is Giffords and that's on a personal interest level not a political one. I'm not saying i disagree what you guys are standing for just that I've found myself unwilling to stand for anything these days.
I think the only issue that really still gets my blood boiling is Health Care and that's because I have some personal stock in it. I think Patterson Hood puts it well in "Putting People On the Moon" if you care to listen.
I'm not surprised. The current political environment induces apathy. And that's the way the 1% want it. Makes their lives easier.
I've only come to understand what's going on in the last week. The movement has washed away my apathy.
There are more and more people every day who are becoming less skeptical about being able to incite change. Change can and will happen. It's inevitable. "When" is the variable.
I keep referencing the Madison protests in the winter, saying I hope we get tens of thousands in cities nationwide. If Madison gets 100k to come out in February - with the cold and snow, why can't we?
We had a more clearly defined goal, and ensuingly a clearer message, in wanting to prevent passage of Scott Walker's budget repair bill. There was more of an discernible impact on people's lives resulting from that legislation. Walker said even before he introduced the bill that he was prepared to mobilize the National Guard. Something of a gauntlet was thrown down. They didn't just try to pass one controversial piece of legislation in that budget repair bill; they tried to rush through many controversial items as fast as possible. Collective bargaining was only the flashpoint issue. It took the longest legislative session in Wisconsin history, citizens testifying against the bill nonstop for days on end, and fourteen senators fleeing the state to even afford the time and opportunity to fully comprehend its full scope. The "David Koch" prank phone call in late February helped personify the economic royalist making smoke-filled backroom deals; we didn't hit 100k for the first time until that went public. (Related: Occupy Wall Street marched on his and other 1%er's residences today.) I think one crucial difference is that this happened in Wisconsin. We are the birthplace of the Progressive movement and arguably have more political/organizational infrastructure sympathetic to protests' aims. We are among the most educated and civic-minded states in the nation: second in SAT scores, second in voter turnout, first in census form returns. Selecting Wisconsin as the test-market roll-out for a renewed, expanded nationwide corporatist agenda blew up in their face.
Badgers are generally agreeable creatures, but if you corner them they can become quite fierce and will fight back larger animals if necessary. Just saying.
I would be reluctant to define success for this movement as having 100,000 or more people in the same place at the same time. Having a healthy number of people in the movement is indeed important, but attendance figures aren't the primary goal. All 100k Wisconsinites out there in February did not take the capitol, for example. If the protest presence persists and is sustainable, if the conversation is being changed, if the message is spreading, if minds are being changed, if the defenders of the status quo are put on the defensive... this movement is winning. In Wisconsin, the build to 100k wasn't so immediate. Those protests did not peak until nearly a month after the bill had been introduced. Our largest rally was in mid-March when 125-150K marched on the capitol square to welcome back the Wisconsin Fourteen from their Illinois exile.
Don't ask "Why can't this happen?" Ask what it takes to make that happen. And keep working at it.
I'm probably closer to Jhamm in this whole thing in that I'm skeptical that anything will change. 3 years of being a Poli Sci major taught me very little but it did teach me that nothing ever happens. I used to be somewhat active politically and very interested now i'm at the point that the only politician or political issue I'll read an article about is Giffords and that's on a personal interest level not a political one. I'm not saying i disagree what you guys are standing for just that I've found myself unwilling to stand for anything these days.
I think the only issue that really still gets my blood boiling is Health Care and that's because I have some personal stock in it. I think Patterson Hood puts it well in "Putting People On the Moon" if you care to listen.
I'm not surprised. The current political environment induces apathy. And that's the way the 1% want it. Makes their lives easier.
I've only come to understand what's going on in the last week. The movement has washed away my apathy.
There are more and more people every day who are becoming less skeptical about being able to incite change. Change can and will happen. It's inevitable. "When" is the variable.
I'm fully aware they want me to be apathetic, and its not a lack of information. I have the political side coming from my education and the financial side coming from my dad who has worked in various financial fields. Im just very skeptical that the system really can be changed and I doubt the revolutionary change that some people seem to want would really be for the better.
I should specify I'm not change adverse I'm just not Pro major revolution
I think another thing that adds to me not caring so much as others is the fact I didn't have the same hope instilled in Obama. I expected him to be a decent/good President and I think he has lived up to that. I was not one of the ones that was convinced that he would drastically change anything. It was part of the reason I voted for Hillary in the 08 primary. I correctly predicted that Obama would not live up to expectations and that there would be a negative affect from that.
I also didn't have Hope instilled in Obama. I also correctly predicted Obama would not live up to expectations on Change. I campaigned for a Democratic candidate in 2007-08 in Iowa and New Hampshire. I know, even then, before the big crash, from campaigning and talking to people, just how many people were disaffected by corporatist politics-as-usual. That's why there was an opening for Anyone But Hillary in the first place. Remember how she was seemingly invincible once upon a time? In hindsight, I think the epic loss of an "inevitable" establishment candidate was a harbinger of things to come.
On Election Night 2008, after my ex and I were a ways into the "Obama Wins!" champagne bottle - I cracked it open when Colorado was called for him, I stepped on my front porch in Madison to have a cigarette. As I heard fireworks going off in no less than three different directions around me, I didn't think to myself "Holy shit, I can't believe he did it." I thought about how hard it was just to overcome such a formidable, anointed establishment candidate in the primaries on the way to winning the general election, and I thought to myself "Holy shit, I can't believe we did it."
We didn't vote for Barack Obama. We voted against the status quo. (I think it's interesting to note, Bacon, that you voted for the establishment candidate in those primaries then and are presently indifferent to the Occupy movement...)
Despite whatever failings we may have had, I am all in for support his reelection. Not because he himself is all that great, but because within the present system we the people will be able to push him harder and further than we can others. We're going to need that.
What, you think we're going to be able to push Mitt "Corporations Are People, My Friend" Romney into Wall Street accountability and reform?
I think the ideal outcome of OWS would be to have Congress govern based on one-person, one-vote instead of who (or what entity) supplies the most money. Skeptical that it will happen? You bet. Reform is not easy. And it might just be impossible.
First let me say, I have no problems with ideas behind the protests, I just find the ideas to be very farfetched dreams.
Don't get me wrong, I would love to see some economic equality... I would love to see jobs so abundant in America that we have to use crop dusters to distribute work visas in Mexico just to fill the need for workers... I would love to see a (completely private) more affordable healthcare system... I would love to see the housing market rebound...
"But..." You say you're not trying to start a debate here, but... And then you list off all these examples of what you believe are "farfetched dreams" but you're missing one very important "But..." On the other end of that "But..." I would be curious to see your reasoning for exactly why we cannot have these things. I argue that we can and should, but don't because of failures in present leadership - but at least I've given a reason. I think you're neglecting a great opportunity here to express exactly why these things cannot be... because the fact of the matter is, there's a lot of people out there saying they are and momentum seems to be in their favor.
The protesters want to hold the investors and power brokers on Wall Street responsible for the economic downturn, but what about the federal government? Do you not find them equally, if not more responsible for the downturn? For more than 40 years, the government has been allowed to debase the currency at will, and been free of the burden of financial accountability.
I don't wholly dispute some of your points here, but you're missing something. Washington listens to Wall Street more than their constituencies. If we the people want to be heard, we have to go to where the listening is done.
...and that only Clinton really ever figured out a way to work with.
You do know how Clinton figured out a way to work with this, right? Do you know what Bill Clinton did that no other president has done in either of our lifetimes? He raised income tax rates on the top brackets. Growth with equity ensued as a result. You can't call economic equality a "farfetched dream" and cite measures advancing it as a success story in the same argument. It's intellectually inconsistent at best and dishonest at worst. You ignore the fact that it is, indeed, possible. So Clinton raised taxes in his 1993 budget. The Congresswoman who cast the deciding vote on it was in tears when she did because she (correctly) believed it would spell the end of her career. (I want to note that this budget vote's negotiations in the Democratic caucus were brokered by Bill Richardson, the candidate for whom I worked in 2008.) So Clinton raised taxes at the top for the only time in a generation, in most of our lifetimes, and look what happened. Income rose in every tax bracket. We had a surplus, and the luxury of discussing paying down our debt and ensuring the future of Social Security. My point here is that it is possible to take steps toward economic equality through tax policy. It has been proven to work in the past. It is not the farfetched dream that you claim. You've probably noticed that a self-identifier among the Occupy movement is "We Are the 99%." That most certainly takes a similar approach to the issue, and most certainly draws lines amongst tax brackets. We know that one of the stronger sentiments expressed at OWS favors similar approaches to tax policy as those used in the Clinton era. Why? Not because they're farfetched dreams, but because they're methods which have proven beneficial in the past. Quit trying to have it both ways, and admit to yourself they just might be onto something here.
The problem will not be solved with 100 indictments, or 1,000, or 10,000 for that matter.
You cannot make the assertion that prosecutions do not serve as a disincentive when there are zero prosecutions to cite as precedent. The fact of the matter is that you do not know indictments will not work because we have not tried them. I know you're smart enough to know this statement to be entirely speculative. It is, not coincidentally, another issue stressed by these demonstrations.
The problem will only be fixed by the federal government being forced to balance it’s budget, and being forced to show some accountability when it comes to the creation of currency.
The investors and brokers on Wall Street are certainly, in part, responsible for the recession we have experienced, but they only took advantage of a broken system. Wall Street has been greedy, and taking advantage of people for a long time. The massive outcry only started when the wheels fell off.
If you think a balanced budget and currency issues are the only causes in all this, you're sadly mistaken. Even if I were to take a magic wand and change these two situations overnight, there would still be plenty more reform necessary. If you don't think tax codes, deregulation, lack of regulation, campaign finance laws, corporate personhood, socialization of losses, market-distorting machines making a million trades per second, trade agreements, international financial institutions and (fill in the blank with whatever other grievance(s) you have) aren't also part of the cause of the problem, you're not looking at things comprehensively enough. What you say are part of the problem, yes, but if we address "only" them as you prescribe, we're not going to get anywhere.
The fact of the matter is what we need is bigger than anything that can be encapsulated within one single demand, with the possible exceptions of a New Bill of Rights (along with other massive reforms) or a Second American Revolution. I think we will see one, the other, or both within our lifetimes.
I think the ideal outcome of OWS would be to have Congress govern based on one-person, one-vote instead of who (or what entity) supplies the most money. Skeptical that it will happen? You bet. Reform is not easy. And it might just be impossible.
You're thinking in my direction, but you're overshooting the mark.
I don't think it should be precisely one person, one vote - our Founding Fathers dismissed this notion for good reason in establishing a democratic republic - but I think steps need to be taken in that direction.
I do believe that the structure of our very system itself contributes to the problem. I have a specific structural grievance which I feel needs to be addressed to ensure better representation.
In a nutshell: We need to expand Congress and reform it so that membership is no longer strictly limited to one representative per single district.
I feel an aspect of our system of representation that needs to be singled out for reform is the size of Congress itself. In 1929, the House of Representatives capped its membership at 435. This resolution came after partisan conflicts in the preceding decade over whether to reapportion for the 1920 census.
It is basic economics that the value of a good is increased by its scarcity. So it is with our representation. The increasingly expensive nature of winning a seat makes our representatives more dependent on wealthy interests. The increasingly expensive nature of winning a seat provides disincentive for so many members of We The People to seek office. This is how we, over time, come to have a system which distorts the amount of influence wielded by wealthy elites.
If our House grew with the rate of population growth since this cap was enacted, the size of our Congress would exceed eleven hundred members. Citizens would be more likely to know their representatives, would be more likely to live closer to their representatives. Representation in the House would be brought closer to the people, an aim I believe to be consistent with the intentions of our Founding Fathers.
I feel there are other tangible benefits to such an approach. Any 435 House incumbents would instantly become a minority in an expanded House. To do this to them would be a victory in its own right. Increasing the size of the House ties into my first structural complaint, a districting system which limits options to two parties. New representatives may be at-large representatives not limited to a specific geographic area beyond a state itself. At-large representation could open the door for third/other parties not typically allowed into our system of representation. I see it as a way to break through the two-party(-but-not-really) paradigm we currently live under. Another added benefit, aside from more-reflective ideological representation, is that an expanded House would more accurately apportion membership to reflect population. We currently have some states, Wyoming and Vermont as a couple examples, which have lower population than an average Congressional district in other states. The smaller the House of Representatives, the greater this amplifies the power of these states. A larger House would return these particular states to a representatives-to-citizens ratio more in line with their fellow Representatives.
It has been said that the only specific proposal George Washington publicly favored at the Constitutional Convention was a 30,000:1 citizens:representatives ratio which was not adopted. At that rate, Washington would be calling for a Congress ten times the size of the one for which I'm advocating...
I feel that there is a strong possibility that an expanded Congress would more reflective of and responsive to those people it was established to represent.
I refer you all to Duverger's Law for those who'd like to further look into what I'll mention here. I feel one of the big flaws with our system of representation is that it is based upon single-member districts. When there can be only one winner within a particular district, it follows that only two political parties will become viable within that system. I think this has consequences which need to be transcended. The fewer parties we have, the less competition and innovation we see among them within the political system. The fewer parties there are, the easier it is for outside interests to buy them all off. As it stands, this system has produced two parties - both of which are bought off. When one faction controls both parties, it isn't even really a two-party system. It is something resembling a dictatorship. Benito Mussolini, who knew a thing or two about Fascism, described it as such: "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." This is precisely what is happening with one group controlling both parties. I said as much on The People's Mic outside the Wisconsin capitol.
I know, I know... it kind of sounds like crazy talk that perhaps the solution to some of our problems with Congress is more Congress. It's crazy to think that one can change the world, too, but I think I've helped make some pretty good progress on that this year thus far.
I have a piece of advice, a request, to those of you participating in Occupy movements around the country.
Don't let it end with your Occupy. Don't let the opportunity for turning your protest into a movement pass you by.
Establish a group, a regular monthly or weekly meeting, after you Occupy. Preferably establish it while you have so many people together for a fleeting moment. It will be how your movement coalesces locally, how ideas are exchanged, how next steps are debated and subsequently acted upon. It will build organization and social capital, both of which will be needed.
A group of people in the streets for a limited time is a protest. A group of people regularly involved and interacting is a movement.
"But..." You say you're not trying to start a debate here, but... And then you list off all these examples of what you believe are "farfetched dreams" but you're missing one very important "But..." On the other end of that "But..." I would be curious to see your reasoning for exactly why we cannot have these things. I argue that we can and should, but don't because of failures in present leadership - but at least I've given a reason. I think you're neglecting a great opportunity here to express exactly why these things cannot be... because the fact of the matter is, there's a lot of people out there saying they are and momentum seems to be in their favor.
My point is, throwing 5,000 power brokers in jail isn’t going to get anyone their house back. Throwing 5,000 power brokers in jail isn’t going to create jobs. Throwing 5,000 power brokers in jail isn’t going to lower healthcare costs to more affordable rates. Dismantling Wall Street completely will not fix these problems on its own, which is why the dreams of the protesters are so far fetched.
I don't wholly dispute some of your points here, but you're missing something. Washington listens to Wall Street more than their constituencies. If we the people want to be heard, we have to go to where the listening is done.
Polotical corruption is a very ugly thing. I’m not really sure how to fix it, but I am sure that simply punishing the people who are responsible will not fix the problem. Greed is a powerful thing, and there will always be people who are willing to gamble with their liberty and freedom in the name of the almighty dollar.
You do know how Clinton figured out a way to work with this, right? Do you know what Bill Clinton did that no other president has done in either of our lifetimes? He raised income tax rates on the top brackets. Growth with equity ensued as a result. You can't call economic equality a "farfetched dream" and cite measures advancing it as a success story in the same argument. It's intellectually inconsistent at best and dishonest at worst. You ignore the fact that it is, indeed, possible. So Clinton raised taxes in his 1993 budget. The Congresswoman who cast the deciding vote on it was in tears when she did because she (correctly) believed it would spell the end of her career. (I want to note that this budget vote's negotiations in the Democratic caucus were brokered by Bill Richardson, the candidate for whom I worked in 2008.) So Clinton raised taxes at the top for the only time in a generation, in most of our lifetimes, and look what happened. Income rose in every tax bracket. We had a surplus, and the luxury of discussing paying down our debt and ensuring the future of Social Security. My point here is that it is possible to take steps toward economic equality through tax policy. It has been proven to work in the past. It is not the farfetched dream that you claim. You've probably noticed that a self-identifier among the Occupy movement is "We Are the 99%." That most certainly takes a similar approach to the issue, and most certainly draws lines amongst tax brackets. We know that one of the stronger sentiments expressed at OWS favors similar approaches to tax policy as those used in the Clinton era. Why? Not because they're farfetched dreams, but because they're methods which have proven beneficial in the past. Quit trying to have it both ways, and admit to yourself they just might be onto something here.
Let me show you a picture.
That graph does an excellent job in showing where the tax revenue comes from. With tax rates where they were in 2004, the bottom 50% only accounted for 3% of the tax revenue, dispite accounting for 17% of the taxable income. Suggesting that the top 25% pay more taxes, when they already account for 85% of the tax revenue, that just doesn’t seem fair to me.
You cannot make the assertion that prosecutions do not serve as a disincentive when there are zero prosecutions to cite as precedent. The fact of the matter is that you do not know indictments will not work because we have not tried them. I know you're smart enough to know this statement to be entirely speculative. It is, not coincidentally, another issue stressed by these demonstrations.
Like I said earlier, I feel that there will always be people who will risk jail time to satisfy their greed. You lock one person up, there will 3 more people waiting to take his or her place, all of them wondering if they might be able to get away with their scams.
If you think a balanced budget and currency issues are the only causes in all this, you're sadly mistaken. Even if I were to take a magic wand and change these two situations overnight, there would still be plenty more reform necessary. If you don't think tax codes, deregulation, lack of regulation, campaign finance laws, corporate personhood, socialization of losses, market-distorting machines making a million trades per second, trade agreements, international financial institutions and (fill in the blank with whatever other grievance(s) you have) aren't also part of the cause of the problem, you're not looking at things comprehensively enough. What you say are part of the problem, yes, but if we address "only" them as you prescribe, we're not going to get anywhere.
The fact of the matter is what we need is bigger than anything that can be encapsulated within one single demand, with the possible exceptions of a New Bill of Rights (along with other massive reforms) or a Second American Revolution. I think we will see one, the other, or both within our lifetimes.
Balancing the budget and stopping the government created inflation aren’t the only steps in fixing the economy, and I don’t feel like I ever claimed they were. They are however, the two most important steps. Without them, any changes made will be superficial at best.
Like I said earlier, I feel that there will always be people who will risk jail time to satisfy their greed. You lock one person up, there will 3 more people waiting to take his or her place, all of them wondering if they might be able to get away with their scams.
Out of everything you said this gets to me the most. This reasoning makes no sense. You seem to think that prosecuting these people will do no good because there will always be more to take their places. So should we not lock up the person who is operating a meth lab in an apartment building full of families because 3 more cooks will be waiting to take his place? Or how about a human trafficker who is forcing minors into prostitution? I'm sure there are others waiting in line for his job too. What about an employee that embezzles $50k from his employer? Should that person go to jail? Even though his prosecution doesn't deter everyone from trying the same thing doesn't mean we should no longer punish for that crime. White collar crime is not a victimless crime, and these people should be facing prosecution. Let others step up to take their places and let them face the consequences if they are caught.
Like I said earlier, I feel that there will always be people who will risk jail time to satisfy their greed. You lock one person up, there will 3 more people waiting to take his or her place, all of them wondering if they might be able to get away with their scams.
Out of everything you said this gets to me the most. This reasoning makes no sense. You seem to think that prosecuting these people will do no good because there will always be more to take their places. So should we not lock up the person who is operating a meth lab in an apartment building full of families because 3 more cooks will be waiting to take his place? Or how about a human trafficker who is forcing minors into prostitution? I'm sure there are others waiting in line for his job too. What about an employee that embezzles $50k from his employer? Should that person go to jail? Even though his prosecution doesn't deter everyone from trying the same thing doesn't mean we should no longer punish for that crime. White collar crime is not a victimless crime, and these people should be facing prosecution. Let others step up to take their places and let them face the consequences if they are caught.
I never said that we shouldn't prosecute, I just said that punishing these people wont solve the problem. When those people go to jail, our economy will still be on the verge of collapse. And afterwards, you wont even be able to say "well, atleast it wont happen again...", because it will. The big problem here is that political corruption isn't a problem that can be fixed. It's a difficult struggle that will have to be waged until the end of time. And an even bigger problem is that most presidents won't dare to take a stand against political corruption. Teddy Roosevelt did, but honestly, he is the only president I can think of, off hand, who really made a point of fighting against corruption.
Birmingham may have the front line on protest in Alabama....but it's most of North Alabama that is feeling the pressure. Over the last 6 years I have seen the populuation of my home town increase by 40%. Due almost solely to the influx of an entire town that relocated from Mexico to work the jobs that no one left in town was willing to work for the wages. They managed to get jobs, relocate their families and even start their own businesses (Tiendas, Taquarias etc). Because of the new "stronger" anti-immigration laws in Alabama, my home town will lose probably up to 50% not just of it's population...but of it's commerce, growth and tax base. And HOW is this good?? Because some dude who was born there has 6 duis and needs a job for oh....5 weeks til he figures out how hard the work is and quits?? Yeah....I am reminded why I don't do Politics!
I'm really confused here; it seems to me your addressing the new Alabama Immigration Law whereas I’m addressing corporate greed on Wall Street. Many pardons if I fail to understand your post.
First let me say, I have no problems with ideas behind the protests, I just find the ideas to be very farfetched dreams.
Don't get me wrong, I would love to see some economic equality... I would love to see jobs so abundant in America that we have to use crop dusters to distribute work visas in Mexico just to fill the need for workers... I would love to see a (completely private) more affordable healthcare system... I would love to see the housing market rebound...
The protesters want to hold the investors and power brokers on Wall Street responsible for the economic downturn, but what about the federal government? Do you not find them equally, if not more responsible for the downturn? For more than 40 years, the government has been allowed to debase the currency at will, and been free of the burden of financial accountability.
This is not a problem that started 3 years ago. This is a problem that has been around for a long time that nobody ever bothered to fix, and that only Clinton really ever figured out a way to work with. The problem will not be solved with 100 indictments, or 1,000, or 10,000 for that matter. The problem will only be fixed by the federal government being forced to balance it’s budget, and being forced to show some accountability when it comes to the creation of currency.
The investors and brokers on Wall Street are certainly, in part, responsible for the recession we have experienced, but they only took advantage of a broken system. Wall Street has been greedy, and taking advantage of people for a long time. The massive outcry only started when the wheels fell off.
Oh but debates are what make this country so much fun!! ;D
I agree that this problem has been ongoing for a very long time and that there is no magic potion to suddenly "cure" it...be it putting CEOs in jail or taxing the heck out of everyone. BUT...one HUGE difference between this period in history and any other even recently current ones (like post 1929) is that while the lower income people ALWAYS suffer and suffer the most in any econmic downturn....this particular downturn has affect many many people that have NEVER been affected, at least for this long at this rate, by the downturn in economy before. Now literally EVERYONE except that magic 1% are feeling at least some pain. And no doubt even the 1% is feeling SOME pain of a sort. But I live in a fairly solidly upper middle class area with good public schools, lots of infrastructure and very VERY low property taxes. And the cost of living is around normal for this type area, not overtly overpriced. And MOST people even here are feeling some sort of pinch and cutting back on things....when you have over 80% of the population that is feeling at least some of the crunch, you have to imagine how desperately those at the lowest level must feel. Like a building collapsing...those on the lowest floors are crushed. And that is why you are seeing the uprising in the numbers....too many people are being affected more deeply than ever before.
I'm really confused here; it seems to me your addressing the new Alabama Immigration Law whereas I’m addressing corporate greed on Wall Street. Many pardons if I fail to understand your post.
Actually it really is all connected. The large corporations have lived large off cheap labor and never had to be accountable, but now that the politics have turned, those same corporations that were more than willing to milk to the max low wages to "questionable" immigrants are suddenly turning on them. And at their own possible downfall. You can't have it both ways....if you want the product, you pay for it and you either take it overseas for cheap labor and get a bad rep or you pay the price up front to keep it legal and employee legal workers. But the corporations at all levels have been having their cake and eating it too for too long. Greed knows no limits except higher profit margins.
I'm really confused here; it seems to me your addressing the new Alabama Immigration Law whereas I’m addressing corporate greed on Wall Street. Many pardons if I fail to understand your post.
Actually it really is all connected. The large corporations have lived large off cheap labor and never had to be accountable, but now that the politics have turned, those same corporations that were more than willing to milk to the max low wages to "questionable" immigrants are suddenly turning on them. And at their own possible downfall. You can't have it both ways....if you want the product, you pay for it and you either take it overseas for cheap labor and get a bad rep or you pay the price up front to keep it legal and employee legal workers. But the corporations at all levels have been having their cake and eating it too for too long. Greed knows no limits except higher profit margins.
Expression, indeed! I find all interesting and inviting All my best to you
I have a piece of advice, a request, to those of you participating in Occupy movements around the country.
Don't let it end with your Occupy. Don't let the opportunity for turning your protest into a movement pass you by.
Establish a group, a regular monthly or weekly meeting, after you Occupy. Preferably establish it while you have so many people together for a fleeting moment. It will be how your movement coalesces locally, how ideas are exchanged, how next steps are debated and subsequently acted upon. It will build organization and social capital, both of which will be needed.
A group of people in the streets for a limited time is a protest. A group of people regularly involved and interacting is a movement.
So in Worcester at our last GA, someone spoke of a home foreclosure auction being held by JP Morgan Chase. Was seeking support in protesting the illegal takeover and auction. About a dozen of Occupy Worcester shown up, and the woman at the center of this foreclosure has more time now to process paperwork in order to keep her home.
Good to see the dozen or so from here making a difference in the community.
So in Worcester at our last GA, someone spoke of a home foreclosure auction being held by JP Morgan Chase. Was seeking support in protesting the illegal takeover and auction. About a dozen of Occupy Worcester shown up, and the woman at the center of this foreclosure has more time now to process paperwork in order to keep her home.
Good to see the dozen or so from here making a difference in the community.
Are you familiar with the Take Back the Land movement? They have been doing this as well across the country. At least here in Western NY there is a lot of overlap between the folks involved with TBTL and the local Occupy movement.
mayor menino said “when it comes to civil disobedience, I will not tolerate civil disobedience in the city of Boston.” after arresting over 100 protesters. the protesters had permission from the Rose Kennedy Greenway Conservancy to protest on the greenway as long as they "avoid the planting beds".
I'm new to the boards how do i get a video in my post, i tried every different youtube option and it just comes up as text every time so i just put the url, someone help a newb out
mayor menino said “when it comes to civil disobedience, I will not tolerate civil disobedience in the city of Boston.” after arresting over 100 protesters. the protesters had permission from the Rose Kennedy Greenway Conservancy to protest on the greenway as long as they "avoid the planting beds".
I'm new to the boards how do i get a video in my post, i tried every different youtube option and it just comes up as text every time so i just put the url, someone help a newb out
Just put [youtube] at the begining of the url and /youtube (in brackets) at the end.
My point is, throwing 5,000 power brokers in jail isn’t going to get anyone their house back. Throwing 5,000 power brokers in jail isn’t going to create jobs. Throwing 5,000 power brokers in jail isn’t going to lower healthcare costs to more affordable rates. Dismantling Wall Street completely will not fix these problems on its own, which is why the dreams of the protesters are so far fetched.
To counter: My point is, throwing 5,000 power brokers in jailWall Street isn’t going to get anyone their house back. Throwing 5,000 power brokers in jailWall Street isn’t going to create jobs. Throwing 5,000 power brokers in jail Wall Street isn’t going to lower healthcare costs to more affordable rates. Agree or disagree?
If you're saying that a victim has to be made completely 100% whole by the judicial system to justify prosecution, I beg to differ. Murder victims aren't brought back to life, but we still prosecute murderers because they did something wrong. The legitimacy of government stems from We The People. The legitimacy of corporations stems from charters granted by government, in the name of We The People. We The People are superior to both, and it's about high time we started showing it.
Polotical corruption is a very ugly thing. I’m not really sure how to fix it, but I am sure that simply punishing the people who are responsible will not fix the problem. Greed is a powerful thing, and there will always be people who are willing to gamble with their liberty and freedom in the name of the almighty dollar.
Part of the problem is we haven't punished people responsible for past transgressions enough. We haven't provided the disincentive. Politicians took their money and bent over backwards for their demands. I'm going to agree with you that greed is an omnipresent evil. People do evil things for money. What I'm saying is that these people pulled off among the greatest heists in history, and they haven't received so much punishment as a purse snatcher, collectively, for running this economy into the quacking ground. It's absolute bullshit, and if you're going to stand in the way of that concept, you're going to get trampled by an angry populist stampede.
That graph does an excellent job in showing where the tax revenue comes from. With tax rates where they were in 2004, the bottom 50% only accounted for 3% of the tax revenue, dispite accounting for 17% of the taxable income. Suggesting that the top 25% pay more taxes, when they already account for 85% of the tax revenue, that just doesn’t seem fair to me.
You do realize that about 47% of our populace, based on more recent numbers than your pre-crash example, make so little that they do not meet minimum threshholds to be able to have to pay taxes? Why do you focus your dispute on that the lower half is not paying enough, when the real problem is that the lower half is not earning enough? Oh, and that last 3% in the bottom half in your example? If the rest of that half isn't paying, that 3% is totally paying their own fair share.
Balancing the budget and stopping the government created inflation aren’t the only steps in fixing the economy, and I don’t feel like I ever claimed they were.
The problem will only be fixed by the federal government being forced to balance it’s budget, and being forced to show some accountability when it comes to the creation of currency.
I kind of feel you did. Define "Only." To me, when you say "only," I think you're saying that what follows is exclusive of everything else. So yeah, I do think you said these are the... crap, how to explain this without conveniently saying only two things here... these constitute the two sole relevant examples of that which you are advocating.