|
On October 11 2011 01:45 Offhand wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 01:40 DrainX wrote:On October 10 2011 10:16 snakeeyez wrote:
I dont really see the point of something like this. We all know capitalism is a system of classes and it always will be with the majority on the very bottom like working at 2 minimum wage jobs trying to make ends meet. Its just the way it works and there will never be a way to change that unless you try to change your own individual circumstances.
Also what does corrupt even mean? I mean people trying to make the most money possible that is just capitalism there is no such thing as corruption unless someone is cheating the system. Ever been to Europe? Huge inequality is not at all necessary in a democratic society based on a regulated capitalist economy. What most Americans don't understand is that we could have that kind of society, we just need to tax our rich like the rest of the first world does.
pff even though I said I wouldn't post in this thread anymore I wanted to respond to this.
You won't just have to tax the rich everyone will have to get taxed
Just look at the tax rates in the income taxes, it goes from 10% in the lowest bracket to 35% in the highest.
Income tax US
For 2011, the total tax on income (income tax plus mandatory pension, social security and state funded medical care payments, all of which are a percentage of income) for persons under 65 is as follows:
For the part of income up to € 18,628: 33%; tax on €18,628 is €6,147
For the part of income between €18,629 and €33,436: 41.95%; tax on €14,808 is € 6,212
For the part of income between €33,437 and €55,694: 42%; tax on €21,258 is €9,348
On all income over €55,694: 52%
Now look at that for the Netherlands, our lowest bracket is as high as your highest bracket. And we aren't the highest in Europe even ( although we're quite high up ). Don't fool yourself in thinking that you'll just have to tax the rich to get the same as we get in Europe.
income tax NL
If I spread the wrong information please correct me because I am not an expert on it of course.
|
Can someone tell me what, exactly, this movement is after? I saw the "proposed" list of demands, but it was unofficial. Is there a real list of demands somewhere? If there is no official list of demands, then this movement is doomed to fail as they have no concrete goal other than "fight the man."
|
|
|
On October 11 2011 02:21 DrainX wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 02:15 xDaunt wrote:On October 11 2011 02:09 H0i wrote:On October 11 2011 01:59 PlayX wrote:
I'm wondering if the majority of the americans support that protest. Or is it a rather "small" movement like the tea party thing? Actually the movement is spreading across the globe and oct 15th it's starting in a lot of major cities in Europe. It's growing every day and a lot of people who are not physically there still support it. It's hard to really talk about the size, because so many people support it but have not joined the protest (yet). It's also growing and fast, media coverage is only just getting started. I can see OWS-type movements becoming really big in Europe where things are about to get really ugly. I just don't see it catching on in the US. First, conditions aren't bad enough in the US (yet). Second, Americans as a whole just are less tolerant of OWS-type movements. Inequality is much worse in the US than it is in Europe. Europe might have more of a tradition of leftwing protests but I think people in the US have much more reason to protest at the moment.
I strongly disagree with this. Minorities, in particular, are far worse off in Europe than in the US. There's less racism in the US and more social mobility. Maybe it's different in Sweden where everyone's white, but I'll offer the seemingly annual race riots in Paris as exhibit A.
|
On October 11 2011 02:32 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 02:21 DrainX wrote:On October 11 2011 02:15 xDaunt wrote:On October 11 2011 02:09 H0i wrote:On October 11 2011 01:59 PlayX wrote:
I'm wondering if the majority of the americans support that protest. Or is it a rather "small" movement like the tea party thing? Actually the movement is spreading across the globe and oct 15th it's starting in a lot of major cities in Europe. It's growing every day and a lot of people who are not physically there still support it. It's hard to really talk about the size, because so many people support it but have not joined the protest (yet). It's also growing and fast, media coverage is only just getting started. I can see OWS-type movements becoming really big in Europe where things are about to get really ugly. I just don't see it catching on in the US. First, conditions aren't bad enough in the US (yet). Second, Americans as a whole just are less tolerant of OWS-type movements. Inequality is much worse in the US than it is in Europe. Europe might have more of a tradition of leftwing protests but I think people in the US have much more reason to protest at the moment. I strongly disagree with this. Minorities, in particular, are far worse off in Europe than in the US. There's less racism in the US and more social mobility. Maybe it's different in Sweden where everyone's white, but I'll offer the seemingly annual race riots in Paris as exhibit A.
He was talking about wealth inequality I think and in Sweden there are lot of immigrants it's quite a socialist country. And is there anything to back up your claims about there being less racism in the US because honestly saying race riots in France represents the whole of Europe is far fetched to say the least.
|
On October 11 2011 02:27 Xanbatou wrote:
Can someone tell me what, exactly, this movement is after? I saw the "proposed" list of demands, but it was unofficial. Is there a real list of demands somewhere? If there is no official list of demands, then this movement is doomed to fail as they have no concrete goal other than "fight the man."
Wikipedia:
The participants of the event are mainly protesting against social and economic inequality, corporate greed, and the influence of corporate money and lobbyists on government, among other concerns.[46][47] Adbusters states that, "Beginning from one simple demand – a presidential commission to separate money from politics – we start setting the agenda for a new America."[48]
By October 9, similar demonstrations had been held in over 70 cities[49] (Full list in sidebar).
Media theorist Douglas Rushkoff criticized the mainstream media for dismissing the protesters. "Anyone who says he has no idea what these folks are protesting is not being truthful. Whether we agree with them or not, we all know what they are upset about, and we all know that there are investment bankers working on Wall Street getting richer while things for most of the rest of us are getting tougher."[179] Rushkoff says that Occupy Wall Street is the first true Internet-era movement, and as such, it does not have a charismatic leader or particular endpoint. Unlike a traditional protest which identifies the enemy and fights for a particular solution, Rushkoff concludes that the protest is less about victory than sustainability, inclusion and consensus.[179]
Appearing on CBS's The Early Show, Michael Daly, of Newsweek and The Daily Beast characterized the position of the protestors as a "feeling that there is just a fundamental unfairness. From their point of view, the very people who almost wrecked the U.S. economy on Wall Street continue to get wealthy while working people are struggling to pay their bills. I mean, it comes down to that."[180] By October 4, economist Richard Wolff commented that the unclear shape of the movement is "mostly irrelevant" at this early stage and the priority is to invite the largest group of supporters.[181] Kalle Lasn, co-founder of Adbusters, believed that the protests had gone mainstream and expressed the opinion that "it's become kind of a political left movement in the U.S., hopefully to rival the Tea Party".[182]
On October 11 2011 02:32 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 02:21 DrainX wrote:On October 11 2011 02:15 xDaunt wrote:On October 11 2011 02:09 H0i wrote:On October 11 2011 01:59 PlayX wrote:
I'm wondering if the majority of the americans support that protest. Or is it a rather "small" movement like the tea party thing? Actually the movement is spreading across the globe and oct 15th it's starting in a lot of major cities in Europe. It's growing every day and a lot of people who are not physically there still support it. It's hard to really talk about the size, because so many people support it but have not joined the protest (yet). It's also growing and fast, media coverage is only just getting started. I can see OWS-type movements becoming really big in Europe where things are about to get really ugly. I just don't see it catching on in the US. First, conditions aren't bad enough in the US (yet). Second, Americans as a whole just are less tolerant of OWS-type movements. Inequality is much worse in the US than it is in Europe. Europe might have more of a tradition of leftwing protests but I think people in the US have much more reason to protest at the moment. I strongly disagree with this. Minorities, in particular, are far worse off in Europe than in the US. There's less racism in the US and more social mobility. Maybe it's different in Sweden where everyone's white, but I'll offer the seemingly annual race riots in Paris as exhibit A.
I hope you're joking. Tolerance is quite high in most places in Europe, and "race riots" in Paris are mostly a myth. Most of our minorities at least have a house and don't live in neighborhoods with daily gang violence and police raids. The problem is increasing, especially in England, but your minorities live in ghetto's and tent camps. And those minorities aren't even that small, together they form a huge part of the people.
|
On October 11 2011 02:32 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 02:21 DrainX wrote:On October 11 2011 02:15 xDaunt wrote:On October 11 2011 02:09 H0i wrote:On October 11 2011 01:59 PlayX wrote:
I'm wondering if the majority of the americans support that protest. Or is it a rather "small" movement like the tea party thing? Actually the movement is spreading across the globe and oct 15th it's starting in a lot of major cities in Europe. It's growing every day and a lot of people who are not physically there still support it. It's hard to really talk about the size, because so many people support it but have not joined the protest (yet). It's also growing and fast, media coverage is only just getting started. I can see OWS-type movements becoming really big in Europe where things are about to get really ugly. I just don't see it catching on in the US. First, conditions aren't bad enough in the US (yet). Second, Americans as a whole just are less tolerant of OWS-type movements. Inequality is much worse in the US than it is in Europe. Europe might have more of a tradition of leftwing protests but I think people in the US have much more reason to protest at the moment. I strongly disagree with this. Minorities, in particular, are far worse off in Europe than in the US. There's less racism in the US and more social mobility. Maybe it's different in Sweden where everyone's white, but I'll offer the seemingly annual race riots in Paris as exhibit A.
Everyone isn't white in Sweden, we have lots of immigrants. I'm pretty sure racism and segregation is a lot worse in the US than it is in Sweden. Social mobility is also higher in Europe than it is in the US. One reason for this is probably that many countries in Europe have free higher education.
Source: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/2/7/45002641.pdf
|
On October 11 2011 02:35 H0i wrote:
I hope you're joking. Tolerance is quite high in most places in Europe, and "race riots" in Paris are mostly a myth. Most of our minorities at least have a house and don't live in neighborhoods with daily gang violence and police raids. The problem is increasing, especially in England, but your minorities live in ghetto's and tent camps. And those minorities aren't even that small, together they form a huge part of the people.
Nope, not joking. I even know a bunch of minority immigrants who have lived in both Europe and the US and they say that it's better in the US. Interestingly, the comment that I hear repeatedly is that, in the US, they don't have to worry about people throwing bananas at them. I shit you not.
|
On October 11 2011 02:35 H0i wrote:Wikipedia: Show nested quote +The participants of the event are mainly protesting against social and economic inequality, corporate greed, and the influence of corporate money and lobbyists on government, among other concerns.[46][47] Adbusters states that, "Beginning from one simple demand – a presidential commission to separate money from politics – we start setting the agenda for a new America."[48]
By October 9, similar demonstrations had been held in over 70 cities[49] (Full list in sidebar). Show nested quote +Media theorist Douglas Rushkoff criticized the mainstream media for dismissing the protesters. "Anyone who says he has no idea what these folks are protesting is not being truthful. Whether we agree with them or not, we all know what they are upset about, and we all know that there are investment bankers working on Wall Street getting richer while things for most of the rest of us are getting tougher."[179] Rushkoff says that Occupy Wall Street is the first true Internet-era movement, and as such, it does not have a charismatic leader or particular endpoint. Unlike a traditional protest which identifies the enemy and fights for a particular solution, Rushkoff concludes that the protest is less about victory than sustainability, inclusion and consensus.[179]
Appearing on CBS's The Early Show, Michael Daly, of Newsweek and The Daily Beast characterized the position of the protestors as a "feeling that there is just a fundamental unfairness. From their point of view, the very people who almost wrecked the U.S. economy on Wall Street continue to get wealthy while working people are struggling to pay their bills. I mean, it comes down to that."[180] By October 4, economist Richard Wolff commented that the unclear shape of the movement is "mostly irrelevant" at this early stage and the priority is to invite the largest group of supporters.[181] Kalle Lasn, co-founder of Adbusters, believed that the protests had gone mainstream and expressed the opinion that "it's become kind of a political left movement in the U.S., hopefully to rival the Tea Party".[182]
Obviously I know it's about the financial disparity. I'm not obtuse. My question was:
What exactly are they proposing?
If they don't come up with some solid plan, then their movement won't last for very long.
|
On October 11 2011 02:38 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 02:35 H0i wrote:
I hope you're joking. Tolerance is quite high in most places in Europe, and "race riots" in Paris are mostly a myth. Most of our minorities at least have a house and don't live in neighborhoods with daily gang violence and police raids. The problem is increasing, especially in England, but your minorities live in ghetto's and tent camps. And those minorities aren't even that small, together they form a huge part of the people. Nope, not joking. I even know a bunch of minority immigrants who have lived in both Europe and the US and they say that it's better in the US. Interestingly, the comment that I hear repeatedly is that, in the US, they don't have to worry about people throwing bananas at them. I shit you not.
Anything else than anecdotal evidence to support your claims? And you're talking like Europe is 1 entity while in fact every country has a whole different culture.
|
On October 11 2011 02:37 DrainX wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 02:32 xDaunt wrote:On October 11 2011 02:21 DrainX wrote:On October 11 2011 02:15 xDaunt wrote:On October 11 2011 02:09 H0i wrote:On October 11 2011 01:59 PlayX wrote:
I'm wondering if the majority of the americans support that protest. Or is it a rather "small" movement like the tea party thing? Actually the movement is spreading across the globe and oct 15th it's starting in a lot of major cities in Europe. It's growing every day and a lot of people who are not physically there still support it. It's hard to really talk about the size, because so many people support it but have not joined the protest (yet). It's also growing and fast, media coverage is only just getting started. I can see OWS-type movements becoming really big in Europe where things are about to get really ugly. I just don't see it catching on in the US. First, conditions aren't bad enough in the US (yet). Second, Americans as a whole just are less tolerant of OWS-type movements. Inequality is much worse in the US than it is in Europe. Europe might have more of a tradition of leftwing protests but I think people in the US have much more reason to protest at the moment. I strongly disagree with this. Minorities, in particular, are far worse off in Europe than in the US. There's less racism in the US and more social mobility. Maybe it's different in Sweden where everyone's white, but I'll offer the seemingly annual race riots in Paris as exhibit A. Everyone isn't white in Sweden, we have lots of immigrants. I'm pretty sure racism and segregation is a lot worse in the US than it is in Sweden. Social mobility is also higher in Europe than it is in the US. One reason for this is probably that many countries in Europe have free higher education. Source: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/2/7/45002641.pdf
"Lots of immigrants?" Less than 10% of your population is non-white. Who are you kidding?
|
On October 11 2011 02:44 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 02:37 DrainX wrote:On October 11 2011 02:32 xDaunt wrote:On October 11 2011 02:21 DrainX wrote:On October 11 2011 02:15 xDaunt wrote:On October 11 2011 02:09 H0i wrote:On October 11 2011 01:59 PlayX wrote:
I'm wondering if the majority of the americans support that protest. Or is it a rather "small" movement like the tea party thing? Actually the movement is spreading across the globe and oct 15th it's starting in a lot of major cities in Europe. It's growing every day and a lot of people who are not physically there still support it. It's hard to really talk about the size, because so many people support it but have not joined the protest (yet). It's also growing and fast, media coverage is only just getting started. I can see OWS-type movements becoming really big in Europe where things are about to get really ugly. I just don't see it catching on in the US. First, conditions aren't bad enough in the US (yet). Second, Americans as a whole just are less tolerant of OWS-type movements. Inequality is much worse in the US than it is in Europe. Europe might have more of a tradition of leftwing protests but I think people in the US have much more reason to protest at the moment. I strongly disagree with this. Minorities, in particular, are far worse off in Europe than in the US. There's less racism in the US and more social mobility. Maybe it's different in Sweden where everyone's white, but I'll offer the seemingly annual race riots in Paris as exhibit A. Everyone isn't white in Sweden, we have lots of immigrants. I'm pretty sure racism and segregation is a lot worse in the US than it is in Sweden. Social mobility is also higher in Europe than it is in the US. One reason for this is probably that many countries in Europe have free higher education. Source: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/2/7/45002641.pdf "Lots of immigrants?" Less than 10% of your population is non-white. Who are you kidding?
Since when is the definition of an immigrant "non-white"?
|
On October 11 2011 02:44 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 02:37 DrainX wrote:On October 11 2011 02:32 xDaunt wrote:On October 11 2011 02:21 DrainX wrote:On October 11 2011 02:15 xDaunt wrote:On October 11 2011 02:09 H0i wrote:On October 11 2011 01:59 PlayX wrote:
I'm wondering if the majority of the americans support that protest. Or is it a rather "small" movement like the tea party thing? Actually the movement is spreading across the globe and oct 15th it's starting in a lot of major cities in Europe. It's growing every day and a lot of people who are not physically there still support it. It's hard to really talk about the size, because so many people support it but have not joined the protest (yet). It's also growing and fast, media coverage is only just getting started. I can see OWS-type movements becoming really big in Europe where things are about to get really ugly. I just don't see it catching on in the US. First, conditions aren't bad enough in the US (yet). Second, Americans as a whole just are less tolerant of OWS-type movements. Inequality is much worse in the US than it is in Europe. Europe might have more of a tradition of leftwing protests but I think people in the US have much more reason to protest at the moment. I strongly disagree with this. Minorities, in particular, are far worse off in Europe than in the US. There's less racism in the US and more social mobility. Maybe it's different in Sweden where everyone's white, but I'll offer the seemingly annual race riots in Paris as exhibit A. Everyone isn't white in Sweden, we have lots of immigrants. I'm pretty sure racism and segregation is a lot worse in the US than it is in Sweden. Social mobility is also higher in Europe than it is in the US. One reason for this is probably that many countries in Europe have free higher education. Source: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/2/7/45002641.pdf "Lots of immigrants?" Less than 10% of your population is non-white. Who are you kidding?
81% of our population are ethnically Swedish. Compared to surrounding countries like Denmark(90%) this places us high. Who cares if the immigrants are white or not? I find it funny how you only respond to the least important point in my post.
|
On October 11 2011 02:49 H0i wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 02:44 xDaunt wrote:On October 11 2011 02:37 DrainX wrote:On October 11 2011 02:32 xDaunt wrote:On October 11 2011 02:21 DrainX wrote:On October 11 2011 02:15 xDaunt wrote:On October 11 2011 02:09 H0i wrote:On October 11 2011 01:59 PlayX wrote:
I'm wondering if the majority of the americans support that protest. Or is it a rather "small" movement like the tea party thing? Actually the movement is spreading across the globe and oct 15th it's starting in a lot of major cities in Europe. It's growing every day and a lot of people who are not physically there still support it. It's hard to really talk about the size, because so many people support it but have not joined the protest (yet). It's also growing and fast, media coverage is only just getting started. I can see OWS-type movements becoming really big in Europe where things are about to get really ugly. I just don't see it catching on in the US. First, conditions aren't bad enough in the US (yet). Second, Americans as a whole just are less tolerant of OWS-type movements. Inequality is much worse in the US than it is in Europe. Europe might have more of a tradition of leftwing protests but I think people in the US have much more reason to protest at the moment. I strongly disagree with this. Minorities, in particular, are far worse off in Europe than in the US. There's less racism in the US and more social mobility. Maybe it's different in Sweden where everyone's white, but I'll offer the seemingly annual race riots in Paris as exhibit A. Everyone isn't white in Sweden, we have lots of immigrants. I'm pretty sure racism and segregation is a lot worse in the US than it is in Sweden. Social mobility is also higher in Europe than it is in the US. One reason for this is probably that many countries in Europe have free higher education. Source: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/2/7/45002641.pdf "Lots of immigrants?" Less than 10% of your population is non-white. Who are you kidding? Since when is the definition of an immigrant "non-white"?
Don't bother I asked him twice to post anything to back himself up and he just ignored it let's get back on topic guys.
|
On October 11 2011 02:42 Xanbatou wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 02:35 H0i wrote:Wikipedia: The participants of the event are mainly protesting against social and economic inequality, corporate greed, and the influence of corporate money and lobbyists on government, among other concerns.[46][47] Adbusters states that, "Beginning from one simple demand – a presidential commission to separate money from politics – we start setting the agenda for a new America."[48]
By October 9, similar demonstrations had been held in over 70 cities[49] (Full list in sidebar). Media theorist Douglas Rushkoff criticized the mainstream media for dismissing the protesters. "Anyone who says he has no idea what these folks are protesting is not being truthful. Whether we agree with them or not, we all know what they are upset about, and we all know that there are investment bankers working on Wall Street getting richer while things for most of the rest of us are getting tougher."[179] Rushkoff says that Occupy Wall Street is the first true Internet-era movement, and as such, it does not have a charismatic leader or particular endpoint. Unlike a traditional protest which identifies the enemy and fights for a particular solution, Rushkoff concludes that the protest is less about victory than sustainability, inclusion and consensus.[179]
Appearing on CBS's The Early Show, Michael Daly, of Newsweek and The Daily Beast characterized the position of the protestors as a "feeling that there is just a fundamental unfairness. From their point of view, the very people who almost wrecked the U.S. economy on Wall Street continue to get wealthy while working people are struggling to pay their bills. I mean, it comes down to that."[180] By October 4, economist Richard Wolff commented that the unclear shape of the movement is "mostly irrelevant" at this early stage and the priority is to invite the largest group of supporters.[181] Kalle Lasn, co-founder of Adbusters, believed that the protests had gone mainstream and expressed the opinion that "it's become kind of a political left movement in the U.S., hopefully to rival the Tea Party".[182] Obviously I know it's about the financial disparity. I'm not obtuse. My question was: What exactly are they proposing? If they don't come up with some solid plan, then their movement won't last for very long.
Many things from different smaller groups inside occupy wallstreet, the reason why it's come down to this is because the people who are suppose to come up with solutions ie the politicians, fail to do so. It's just anger placed in the right area but unable to express itself fully.
|
On October 11 2011 02:42 Xanbatou wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 02:35 H0i wrote:Wikipedia: The participants of the event are mainly protesting against social and economic inequality, corporate greed, and the influence of corporate money and lobbyists on government, among other concerns.[46][47] Adbusters states that, "Beginning from one simple demand – a presidential commission to separate money from politics – we start setting the agenda for a new America."[48]
By October 9, similar demonstrations had been held in over 70 cities[49] (Full list in sidebar). Media theorist Douglas Rushkoff criticized the mainstream media for dismissing the protesters. "Anyone who says he has no idea what these folks are protesting is not being truthful. Whether we agree with them or not, we all know what they are upset about, and we all know that there are investment bankers working on Wall Street getting richer while things for most of the rest of us are getting tougher."[179] Rushkoff says that Occupy Wall Street is the first true Internet-era movement, and as such, it does not have a charismatic leader or particular endpoint. Unlike a traditional protest which identifies the enemy and fights for a particular solution, Rushkoff concludes that the protest is less about victory than sustainability, inclusion and consensus.[179]
Appearing on CBS's The Early Show, Michael Daly, of Newsweek and The Daily Beast characterized the position of the protestors as a "feeling that there is just a fundamental unfairness. From their point of view, the very people who almost wrecked the U.S. economy on Wall Street continue to get wealthy while working people are struggling to pay their bills. I mean, it comes down to that."[180] By October 4, economist Richard Wolff commented that the unclear shape of the movement is "mostly irrelevant" at this early stage and the priority is to invite the largest group of supporters.[181] Kalle Lasn, co-founder of Adbusters, believed that the protests had gone mainstream and expressed the opinion that "it's become kind of a political left movement in the U.S., hopefully to rival the Tea Party".[182] Obviously I know it's about the financial disparity. I'm not obtuse. My question was: What exactly are they proposing? If they don't come up with some solid plan, then their movement won't last for very long.
It's difficult because not everyone thinks in the same way, obviously. But I can give a general idea.
First of all re-read this quote:
The participants of the event are mainly protesting against social and economic inequality, corporate greed, and the influence of corporate money and lobbyists on government, among other concerns.[46][47] Adbusters states that, "Beginning from one simple demand – a presidential commission to separate money from politics – we start setting the agenda for a new America."[48]
By October 9, similar demonstrations had been held in over 70 cities[49] (Full list in sidebar).
One of the primary goals is to remove money/lobbying/corporate influence from politics which will help with removing and stopping corruption. Other primary goals are anything from destroying the patriot act, stopping drone strikes and removing global usa military presence, to ending bailouts (corporate welfare), closing tax loopholes, improving regulation in the financial sector and trying to make the inequality smaller and chances fair again. There's much much more but those are some of the most important goals.
|
As much as people love to quote lots of complicated sounding bullshit as "this is list of demands" or "this is what people want" which is pretty much echoed by the fucking media which uses the protest diversity as an excuse to be deaf to the issue: this is why there is a protest:
Durring the crisis in 2008, the Government took a FUCKING HUGE amount of tax payer money and used it as a defibrillator for failing US banks... The INTENTION was for the money to enable the banks to continue their practices of loaning money to PEOPLE WHO NEED LoANS... instead the banks sat on the cash and divided out large sums to the orchestrator of the crisis.
After sitting on the taxpayer money, the banks went around throwing down forclosures and siezures left and right... now they are not only sitting on huge amounts of tax payer money (that should have gone toward paying off the bad mortgages) but the banks are also sitting on thousands of unnocupied houses and is responsible for thousands of homeless and jobless people...
The protest is angry because the big businesses that are sitting on the citezens money and taking the citezens' homes are also financing the governmental institutions... There are almost no American Politicians who are not financed and influenced by large business interests...
The protestors want 2 main things: firstly that the banks be held accountible for the damage their fraudulent practices caused in '08 and they also want reform of the political party funding to exclude the corperate influence on a national level.
America has become a Kleptarchy... where the voice of the corporations is louder than the voice of the voters. The main reason that I am a democrat, is because democratic platforms tend to desire regulation of big business, and reduction of big business influence in government... in contrast, the GOP/republican platform tends to encourage reductions of regulations concerning big business practices and reducing the authority of the government.
Basically, democratic votes are votes for the people, because they put power in the hands of their elected representatives. Republican votes are against the people because the remove power from the elected representatives and increase the personal power of CEOs and big businesses.
I would rather power belong to the president or congressman that I choose, than power belong to the CEO and board of trusties that i cannot choose.
Banks and big business needs to be regulated and held accountable... change is necessary.
TLDR?
Banks fuck up economy and need money...
Government took peoples money...
Government gave peoples money to banks (so banks could give loans)
instead, banks just keeping money, instead of using it for its purpose...
Protestors want banks to pay up (because the people need the money)
Democrats want banks to start playing fair, and republican's think banks shouldn't have to.
|
For those asking what the OWS is, they have a "statement of intentions" on the right side of their main page. At the same time it seems they are arranging different activities as described below the "statement of intentions"
http://occupywallst.org/
It seems they are educating people to better understand the situation and probably it will be coloured. Therefore it is likely they are not ready to come up with any political demands yet.
But I guess it is a lot better to have educated inputs on the topic before you identify the problems and get to a consensus about what to demand.
|
On October 11 2011 02:13 H0i wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 02:04 Bigtony wrote:On October 11 2011 01:59 PlayX wrote:
I'm wondering if the majority of the americans support that protest. Or is it a rather "small" movement like the tea party thing? It's would be a valid comparison to say this is a left wing/ liberal counterpart to the tea-party, but less specifically associated with either party. I have to say while I agree with the implications and some of the goals of this process, I am increasingly uncomfortable with all these "I am the 99%" things floating around of people complaining about their debt and how it's impossible to have a job and how they need help...again I realize we live in tough times, but that makes it even more important that you do not do things you cannot afford. You do not accumulate debt for no reason. You do not go to uni and study something stupid and useless. I'm a young person who went to uni, with little to no debt, worked most of the time, maintained a 3.0+ gpa, did 2 study abroad, and now have a nice full time job. That might be true for you, but a lot of other people are in trouble. There simply aren't enough jobs, there is a limit to growth and growth rate and we are hitting the limit. The +-8% unemployment rate is not the true one, in official numbers that include every person living in the US above 21 and below the retirement age there are more than 15% or even 20% unemployed. In this world it is nearly impossible to do something without debt because the world is based on it. Many people cannot buy a house, cannot go to a university, not without going in big debt.
The point I'm making is that it is not just true for me. There is a difference between having some debt (lets say...under $50,000 in school loans) and being mired in debt ($200,000 in school loans like too many people have). the reality is that there are many jobs out there, especially in manufacturing, engineering, and computers. People go to uni for weak fields and then expect to pay back their school loans...very bad financial decision. Too many people move out from home too early, live at uni for no reason, go to a far away uni instead of close, go to the school they "love" instead of the one they can afford.
How did I stay out of debt? I did good in high school so I got some scholarships for uni, I worked in high school and in uni, I went to an affordable school, I did not live on campus, I drove an old car, etc etc. I studied "my passion" but I had a clear, concrete goal for post uni and a viable career path. When I graduated I worked hard, lived with my parents, still drove the old car, and took every opportunity to improve myself. These are decisions that anyone can make.
Someone posted a little bit about how we can't just "tax the rich." I think it's important to note that that rich in America are significantly richer than the rich in some other places, and there are more of them. Also, at this time some of them are almost completely avoiding paying taxes; just read the things that Warren Buffet keeps putting out.
|
On October 11 2011 01:51 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 01:42 GeyzeR wrote:
I guess because they do not see how it is connected with their everyday life. True. Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 01:42 GeyzeR wrote:
They do not understand why banks and corporation are the ones to blame. It depends upon what you're blaming the banks and corporations for. They aren't responsible for the current economic situation. Governments are. Ultimately, the people who elected the governments that enacted all of these stupid policies and shat up their fiscal situation are truly the responsible parties. Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 01:42 GeyzeR wrote:
And, the most important, they do not understand what do the protesters want. As far as I can tell, not even the protesters understand what they want.
When you argue a problem with the people electing the wrong candidates it is important to look at what choises they have. It seems these poeple are unsatisfied with both the republican and democratic candidates and especially presidents. Thus it might not be as simple as pointing at the voters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
