Occupy Wall Street

[Shorty]

Just switch to using the CC option on your card, then the retailers will pay the banks again and you won't have to think about it

... well, the retailers will charge you for it in the cost, and you'll pay it anyway. It's a lose-lose for the consumer-- just like the "taxes" that corporations "should pay." Consumers will pay them either way, up front-- or in their taxes.

Charge the retailer, and they won't profit-- loss of jobs.
Charge the consumer up front-- loss of buying power-- no profit--loss of jobs
Charge the consumer in taxes-- see above

 

[Shorty]

Thanks for the info but I switched to a credit union. No fees.

retailer still pays (and charges you) for C.C. use

 

[kndrewa]

As far as I can tell, the point of the protest is to remove financial influence from Democracy, which makes a lot of sense. Right now, the rich people have all the power and the money. I'm fine with them having the money, but, not the power.

"at the core of why the American political establishment is currently unworthy of being called a democracy: we demand that Barack Obama ordain a Presidential Commission tasked with ending the influence money has over our representatives in Washington. It's time for DEMOCRACY NOT CORPORATOCRACY, we're doomed without it."

From:

http://www.adbusters.org/blogs/adbusters-blog/occupywallstreet.html

 

[XJEEPER]

They can demand all they want......how motivated do you think Obama is going to be to make this happen? More than half of Obama's cabinet members are millionaires.

Individuals from some of the firms listed below wound up in his admin after he was elected.



Obama's top campaign contributors - 2008

University of California $1,648,685
Goldman Sachs $1,013,091
Harvard University $864,654
Microsoft Corp $852,167
Google Inc $814,540
JPMorgan Chase & Co $808,799
Citigroup Inc $736,771
Time Warner $624,618
Sidley Austin LLP $600,298
Stanford University $595,716
National Amusements Inc $563,798
Wilmerhale Llp $550,168
Skadden, Arps et al $543,539
Columbia University $541,002
UBS AG $532,674
IBM Corp $532,372
General Electric $529,855
US Government $517,908
Morgan Stanley $512,232
Latham & Watkins $503,295

Note that the campiagn funds did not come from the corporations themselves, but individuals employed by/affilliated with the listed organizations.

I'm all for making lobbying illegal, fwiw.

 

[souske]

\

tea party, occupy wall street, or whatever crowd, will allways have certain people that arent that brite, or maybe cant act a lawyer for their cause as good as others.... but the tea party is only 500% more embarassing. many cant even spell america.

if your down with the tea party, but not this... it shows 100%, that youve been pwnt by the mainstream media.. its unexcusable.

Wait, what?

Were you the guy the NY Times interviewed that had never heard of Warren Buffet?

Maybe you and 420BlackXJ can move to a state where you can get legally married.

Hey hey, ho ho, capitalisms got to go!

 

[Manic Mechanic]

I'm all for making lobbying illegal, fwiw.

It should be illegal. Lobbyist should be about raising awareness about laws, policies, etc in order to gain votes for somebody, not finance their campaign/pocket books. There should be no money changing hands between lobbyist and elected officials.

Of course, I also believe we should do away with party lines. All they will do is continue to polarize the two canidates, leaving the populace to vote for "the lesser of two evils". Their is no compromise with a 2 party system. Also, it would give independents a chance.

I honestly think that the OWS group isn't a bad deal. they just have to keep from getting mixed up and absorbed into the union movements and socialists.

-Eric

 

[bigalpha]

What's up with all the Universities contributing that much to a Presidential candidate?

Obama's top campaign contributors - 2008

University of California $1,648,685
Goldman Sachs $1,013,091
Harvard University $864,654
Microsoft Corp $852,167
Google Inc $814,540
JPMorgan Chase & Co $808,799
Citigroup Inc $736,771
Time Warner $624,618
Sidley Austin LLP $600,298
Stanford University $595,716
National Amusements Inc $563,798
Wilmerhale Llp $550,168
Skadden, Arps et al $543,539
Columbia University $541,002
UBS AG $532,674
IBM Corp $532,372
General Electric $529,855
US Government $517,908
Morgan Stanley $512,232
Latham & Watkins $503,295

 

[Boatwrench]

union movements

-Eric

You do realize that:
1. People who belong to unions are also Americans.
2. Unions represent roughly less than 7% of the workforce.

 

[ocean_jet]

Obama's top campaign contributors - 2008

US Government $517,908

Is that the money that you can contribute by checking that box on your tax rerturn about contributing to the presidential election fund?

 

[kastein]

Note that the campiagn funds did not come from the corporations themselves, but individuals employed by/affilliated with the listed organizations.

 

[Sniggs]

LOL "The Entitled"

Hey Trophy Kids, how's that hope and change working out for you?

 

[XJEEPER]

Great news! If you want to be a professional protester in NYC, apply here: http://newyork.craigslist.org/brk/gov/2618821815.html


Earn $350-$650 a week! You must be an energetic communicator, with a passion for social and economic justice.

In the Working Families Party, ACORN has created a conglomerate that is one part campaign machine, one part commercial enterprise and one part lobbying-clearinghouse for special-interest money and muscle -- a conglomerate that is shored up by its privileges as a state-registered political party and shielded from scrutiny by a corporate subsidiary.

 

[Milford Cubicle II]

...will allways have certain people that arent that brite... but the tea party is only 500% more embarassing. many cant even spell america.

 

[CherBear]

2 Party system is to blame IMO. Government approval ratings are at many times below 50%, logically, the majority would vote for some one else. But you can not do that in a two party system. You either throw away your vote on a 3rd party or you vote for lesser of two evils. We need more proportional representation. The problem is that none of the 2 major parties want that, because it would lead to fewer votes for them, therefore being near impossible to pass into legislature.

I would bet that these protesters feel almost disenfranchised due to the fact that neither major party represents their interests.

Capitalism is not our problem by any means, it has proven to be the most successful market system in history. The government has just really managed to dip their pen in the company ink...

 

[Darky]

The way I see a third party vote, if people stop seeing it as throwing away your vote, we might see some change.

 

[CherBear]

The way I see a third party vote, if people stop seeing it as throwing away your vote, we might see some change.

That's exactly what I am saying! Proportional Representation!

Using state legislature as an example;
Each district picks who represents them in the house. Rarely will any 3rd party have enough votes in 1 district to elect them, so each district goes either Rep or Dem.

Implementing a more proportional representation model, districts are thrown out the window. Each party gets a percentage of the positions based on popular vote. Using MA (10 seats) for an example; If the Dems get 30% Reps 50% and a 3rd party gets 20%, then the MA house of reps will include 2 dems, 5 reps and 2 third party candidates.

So you end up voting for more of a party than a person... but at least you don't have to waste your vote.

This is essentially how all European democracies work, which is why they have more than 2 parties.

 

[Manic Mechanic]

You do realize that:
1. People who belong to unions are also Americans.
2. Unions represent roughly less than 7% of the workforce.

Please don't get me wrong. I don't believe the unions to be the evil that threatens America or whatever people are saying today. Where did you find the statistic for 7%? Considering the amount of power the union wields, if they are doing that with only 7% of the workforce, that's really interesting.

The idea behind unions is a good idea, but its place in this world has changed as opposed to what it was in the late 1800's and early 1900's. They should be there to act as a watchdog group for labor workers. But I do believe that they should be kept in check.

Take for example, the Toyota plant in Kentucky. The union has been trying to get established there for some time (20ys+), and hasn't had any luck due to the workers being content with their jobs. The other week there was an article about how the union wanted to threaten legal action against the company, for what? If the people don't feel they need a union, then they don't need the union. The workers get paid only a dollar or two less than those in Detroit without the unions help, and they see no need to involve the union. What I see is it's a power grab for the union, a way to generate more money. It is not the union's job to force people to join.

On the flip side, this same plant is looking at requiring more expensive health insurance premiums (but just about everyone is about to). If the plant decided to really stick it to the employees, then the employees may go through the process to join the union if needed. Which, I would hope just bringing the process to the table would be enough to keep Toyota from screwing over their employees.

Anyways, I could go in to detail more, but hopefully that clarifies my opinon/statement. I did not want to present my argument as 100% ani-union, just as with just about everything these days, it needs a overhaul.

-Eric

 

[Boatwrench]

Where did you find the statistic for 7%? Considering the amount of power the union wields, if they are doing that with only 7% of the workforce, that's really interesting.

-Eric

87% of statistics are made up.

Actually I misread the article, it is 6.9% for private sector jobs & 11.9% of the workforce. "The percentage of private sector workers in unions fell to 6.9 percent, down from 7.2 percent, the lowest rate for private sector workers in more than a century, labor historians said." Full artcile is here.

More numbers.
U.S. Labor Department numbers for 2010 Interesting with the fed numbers are how even the breakout is between public and private employees. government employees just edge out private sector employees a by 500K difference.

So do Unions really wage that much power or is it just the fear of organized labor that has been beaten into everyone's head by corporate owned media? Even at 12% of the work force, that still leaves 88% that is not union. My 1st grade grand daughter can tell you that eighty-eight cents can buy more candy than twelve cents. So why do unions have so much power to sway politicians as claimed? If I was running for office I would rather have 88 votes than 12, why would I pander to 12?

I don't get it.

 

[Manic Mechanic]

Well, I wouldn't scoff at 12% (14.7 million according to the NYT article), even at a national level. And you wouldn't have to pander to the 12% while isolating the remaining 88%. Also, take any race that is close, and throw that 12% in on a particular canidate and it will shake things up a bit. But that 12% isn't spread out evenly across the country, its grouped together. It's more concetrated in northern states, more so in industrial cities and regions. Not to pick on any one city, but Detroit probably has a was higher union worker to non-union worker ratio than say Dallas would. Take into the fact that there are local elections that are only a couple hundred thousand for either canidate. Now, let's look at the amount of people that are not union workers but support unions(family, friends, those that wish they were in a union). The number grows exponentially. I think that is where you would see more of the influence, or power so to speak, unions would have.

Now, as far as the OWS people getting mixed in with unions, I'm not saying its bad, I'm saying it will dilute their message, which would be bad for them in a way.
Let's say hypothetically, that I'm running a group that wants to protest Federal actions against the 2nd Amendment. My groups message would be "Don't screw with my right to own firearms". Now let's say the Tea Party gets involved. Suddenly, the message is "Support your troops. Fiscal Responsibility. Don't screw with my right to own firearms. Let me pray at school. Don't have abortions. Etc". Message kinda gets drowned out there, doesn't it? I may or may not even support all the additions to my message, but it is out there now, and I'm guilty by association.

Anyways, point being, OWS has a message. And if the unions get mixed in, it will be drowned out by their message. And then what if people calling for redistribution of wealth are mixed (was watching the news the other night and saw some kid calling for it, which really isn't what OWS was originally about) then the message is lost even more so. Then all you will see are union reps or far left liberal spokes persons on tv discussing the OWS protests, getting credit for it, and suddenly public perception of what is going will be skewed, whether for or against, doesn't really matter.

I'll tackle the "fear of organized labor" bit here in a little while.

Thanks for the link to the article, interesting read. Great for numbers...assuming its not in the 87% of all statistics category, lol

-Eric

 

[ocean_jet]

As far as I can tell, the point of the protest is to remove financial influence from Democracy, which makes a lot of sense. Right now, the rich people have all the power and the money. I'm fine with them having the money, but, not the power.

"at the core of why the American political establishment is currently unworthy of being called a democracy: we demand that Barack Obama ordain a Presidential Commission tasked with ending the influence money has over our representatives in Washington. It's time for DEMOCRACY NOT CORPORATOCRACY, we're doomed without it."

I think if OSW can stay focused on that message and not stray into things like free college education ahd health care... I think they would get a ton of support... I think they may then really represent the 99%ers...


But, when someone is walking down the street carrying a sign whining about student loans... and then claiming they represent the 99%... welll... they don't represent me. Personally.. I am thankful for the student loan progam that allowed me to get an education I otherwise couldn't have afforded.