Occupy __________ .

[Cutesunshine]

I was watching the news this morning and this occupy wall street movement is annoying me to death. I don't at all understand any of it, I guess. Whatever.

[Dave]

I don't really understand it either. I think it has to do with the common people (the 99%) being fed up with the corruption by the wealthy (the 1%) that has made the economy freakishly weak and the job market practically non-existent.

[trojanmiro]

I think it has to do with the common people (the 99%) being fed up with the corruption by the wealthy (the 1%)


this is 100 percent accurate in a nutshell. people are just tired of getting shit on and arent going to take it laying down anymore. When the housing market crashed 20 percent of americas net worth vanished basically overnight. People have mortgages that are more then the value of their home. peaceful protesters which have the constitutional right to gather are being arrested everyday but all the bankers who lost many peoples retirement and assests are not being charged with a single crime.
not only the fact that 1 percent of the nation control a vast amount of wealth,but they make up 50 percent of government. corporations have the money to buy politicians through lobbiest and campaign contributions. companies like GE pay no tax. The wealthiest one percent pay roughly 20 percent income tax through loopholes while middle america pays 35 percent. the government is no longer of, for, and by the people. thats what the protest is about.
its not about capitalism, socialism, dems, republicans its about corruption and greed as the basis. equality and fairness for all.

[Cutesunshine]

People who are being arrested, are probably being so for a reason. It's not like cops are super wealthy or have anything at all to gain from arresting someone in a peaceful protest.

i just feel like half the people down there protesting are younger college students, who haven't even gotten on their feet yet. And as much as the idea of corporate greed annoys me, in most cases these people didn't just wake up and bam become a ceo or investment banker, they worked hard, had good grades, paid their way through college and started at the bottom and worked their way up. Others were just born into power, but someone in the family had to go through those same steps to open up the door for their family to have such luxuries. This opportunity is given to all of us, which is what America is about. Those of us who chose to make a living not wanting to climb the corporate ladder, or to go another route of no college... or whatever our own plan was, can't really blame the people who chose the route they took. That opportunity was given to every single legal citizens of the US. We can't be angry about that. And why should these wealthy people be punished for being successful? Why should someone who made millions have to pay to keep the government afloat, and support the welfare rats that suck our system dry? Like I said on my post, a good number of these corporations and wealthy people are keeping most of our not for profits alive, which is what matters to me. They are doing their part, just not the way these people want them to.

[sws4420]

I'm never going to get upset about someone having more than I have. If people got themselves into mortgages or student loans they can't afford, I don't see how that's the government's problem. People have been living above their means for too long and it's catching up with everyone to some degree. If those living in these parks around the world and country were the ones making the money instead of owing it, they certainly wouldn't be upset. I'm indifferent. If someone wants to live in a park to protest something, go for it. I wouldn't expect anything to change at all, and I seriously doubt these people think their shenanigans will change anything.

They certainly don't seem upset while using their corporate-manufactured and operated iPhones while wearing their corporate-manufactured clothing, living in their corporate-manufactured tents, writing with their corporate-manufactured markers on their corporate-manufactured signboards. They're not anti-corporation, they're anti-paying-for-their-own-shit.

Whatever.

[trojanmiro]

I'm never going to get upset about someone having more than I have. If people got themselves into mortgages or student loans they can't afford, I don't see how that's the government's problem. People have been living above their means for too long and it's catching up with everyone to some degree. If those living in these parks around the world and country were the ones making the money instead of owing it, they certainly wouldn't be upset. I'm indifferent. If someone wants to live in a park to protest something, go for it. I wouldn't expect anything to change at all, and I seriously doubt these people think their shenanigans will change anything.

They certainly don't seem upset while using their corporate-manufactured and operated iPhones while wearing their corporate-manufactured clothing, living in their corporate-manufactured tents, writing with their corporate-manufactured markers on their corporate-manufactured signboards. They're not anti-corporation, they're anti-paying-for-their-own-shit.

Whatever.
actually everything you wrote is 100 percent wrong. the movement is not about taking away anything that anyone has earned. its about correcting injustice. having the wealthiest one percent of america pay the same tax rate as the middle class is not a punishment, its only logical and fair. enron lying about earning reports was not the fault of any consumer. a person buying their first home had no way of knowing that in a year or two it would be worth 20 percent less which leaves them holding an unbalanced mortgage. the government cut regulations like glass steagall that were put in place after the great depression in order to prevent such a disaster again. and once again when wall street is left unregulated it digs itself into a hole that affects not only themselves, but all of america, yet they face no consequences for it. people 401k's basically vanished overnight.

i actually have a hard time understanding why you are such a diehard republican. i feel as though the republicans use religion to influence middle america into shooting itself in the foot. the republican party is responsible for the attacks on labor unions, wants tax cuts for the wealthy......... i just dont understand why any middle class american would vote republican. i believe the republicans used to stand for more..... like less government....... but to me it has lost itself.

[Dave]

Obama is a great example of why I don't vote Democrat.

[sws4420]

actually everything you wrote is 100 percent wrong. the movement is not about taking away anything that anyone has earned. its about correcting injustice.And how are they demanding that? By having debts forgiven. Nobdoy knew the housing market was going to go in the toilet. A select few had an idea, based on economic principles, but when things are going good, who's going to put a lot of stock into a housing bubble bursting. If everything is working well and everyone is getting what they want, why fix what doesn't appear to be broke? And please don't insult me by saying everything I'm saying is incorrect, because it's not.

having the wealthiest one percent of america pay the same tax rate as the middle class is not a punishment, its only logical and fair.I somewhat agree, but that's a tax code issue. Close loopholes. Believe me, if you had a loophole that allowed you to pay less taxes, you would exploit it every day of the week, and you know it. I know I certainly would. Rick Perry is proposing a 20% tax rate across the board. You in favor of that? Or are you still super excited about Obama?


enron lying about earning reports was not the fault of any consumer.Enron is a completely different issue tha Occupy. It was run by crooks, they've been long-sentenced, and I'm pretty sure the guilty parties are mostly dead.


a person buying their first home had no way of knowing that in a year or two it would be worth 20 percent less which leaves them holding an unbalanced mortgage.Does anyone really know what the value of their house is going to be after they buy it? Not as far as I know. The people that this is bothering are those that take out a mortgage and then move. Make the decision not to move. Even if a mortgage is 'unbalanced', you can keep paying your mortgage, as you agreed to, and fulfill your obligation. Simple as that.


the government cut regulations like glass steagall that were put in place after the great depression in order to prevent such a disaster again. and once again when wall street is left unregulated it digs itself into a hole that affects not only themselves,It's the stock market. It's people enrolling in programs they know nothing about. Want a 100% guarantee? Get a savings account. Nobody loses money in a savings account. People want to be the ones involved in the next big thing and multiply their money, but no. People enroll, people lose money, then get pissed. I don't know if you own any stocks, mutual funds, or whatever, but they send out a prospectus for a reason. In every prospectus it shows that has happened in the past, then it makes the statement that past performance doesn't predict future results and that every fund has a risk of losing funds. If that makes someone uncomfortable, don't become a part of it.


but all of america, yet they face no consequences for it. people 401k's basically vanished overnight.Most economics is so far above the average Americans' head, it's ridiculous. When I lose money in the market, it's my fault for having/leaving the money there. It's part of the risk of the stock market.


i actually have a hard time understanding why you are such a diehard republican.What makes me a diehard Republican? I have a certain set of beliefs and I stick to them. Period.


i feel as though the republicans use religion to influence middle america into shooting itself in the foot.Where does religion calculate into anything?


the republican party is responsible for the attacks on labor unions,I'm actually a shop steward in my union. I have mixed feelings about unions, to be honest. I do know that union contracts of the past have taken a lot of benefits from the public and private sector. There comes a point where that undercuts the business/taxpayers. I've had my share of the company fucking me out of money, but I still have a well-paying job, good benefits, and provide a good life for my family. I look at what Kristen is gong through and I don't know anything about it. Without knowing the numbers involved, I can't comment on how fair or unfair the proposals are. I hear numbers like 1% raise and 5% healthcare increase, and honestly it means nothing to me without numbers. It's not for me to form an opinion. As far as places like Wisconsin, I think the Republicans have it right. Unions are useful to a point. When it causes others to lose their jobs, that's a problem. We can't just keep jacking up taxes to pay for benefit-heavy contracts. I wish everything was free. It's not.


tax cuts for the wealthy.........How many poor people hire people? How many poor people create jobs? The poor pay nothing in taxes. Wealthy people pay the lionshare of the taxes in this country. Who else are the cuts going to go to? Obama gave us $13 a week in out checks, allegedly. Big fucking deal.


i just dont understand why any middle class american would vote republican. i believe the republicans used to stand for more..... like less government....... but to me it has lost itself.I believe people should be accountable for themselves. I don't want people to pay for my shit. Social programs have their place, but things like free healthcare are ridiculous. I can't get behind creating a program that the country can't afford. Just the same as I don't think people shouldn't buy houses they can't afford, cars they can't afford, etc. Are things like free healthcare awesome? Of course. Is it realistic? No, it's not.

[trojanmiro]

And how are they demanding that? By having debts forgiven. Nobdoy knew the housing market was going to go in the toilet. A select few had an idea, based on economic principles, but when things are going good, who's going to put a lot of stock into a housing bubble bursting. If everything is working well and everyone is getting what they want, why fix what doesn't appear to be broke? And please don't insult me by saying everything I'm saying is incorrect, because it's not.
it wasnt meant as an insult, i just didnt agree with a single thing, and some are in fact incorrect. many economist were calling the housing collapse, even ron paul, but most didnt think would be as detrimental as it was. the economy should have been easy to see. every 20 or so years it was like clock work that the economy would decline with the great depression as the icing on the cake. after the depression regulations were put into place to never let that happen again, and low and behold once regulations are eliminated the same mess resurfaces.


I somewhat agree, but that's a tax code issue. Close loopholes. Believe me, if you had a loophole that allowed you to pay less taxes, you would exploit it every day of the week, and you know it. I know I certainly would. Rick Perry is proposing a 20% tax rate across the board. You in favor of that? Or are you still super excited about Obama?
im not super excited about any politician. but obama i bellieve is the best option. im not sure how a 20 percent tax rate across the board is even feasable. yes i know the arguement that we have a spending problem not a revenue problem. but you cant just jump in and drastically reduce revenue that much without reining in spending first.


Enron is a completely different issue tha Occupy. It was run by crooks, they've been long-sentenced, and I'm pretty sure the guilty parties are mostly dead.
was just an example of corporate greed that stands out, everyone knows of enron. i wouldnt say its a completely different issue though. when you reflect back on it, enron was about the start of all this.


Does anyone really know what the value of their house is going to be after they buy it? Not as far as I know. The people that this is bothering are those that take out a mortgage and then move. Make the decision not to move. Even if a mortgage is 'unbalanced', you can keep paying your mortgage, as you agreed to, and fulfill your obligation. Simple as that.
some people dont choose to move. some people have lost their jobs due to layoffs, their home gets forclosed on because they cant sell it even though they can no longer afford it. but other then that you are correct.


It's the stock market. It's people enrolling in programs they know nothing about. Want a 100% guarantee? Get a savings account. Nobody loses money in a savings account. People want to be the ones involved in the next big thing and multiply their money, but no. People enroll, people lose money, then get pissed. I don't know if you own any stocks, mutual funds, or whatever, but they send out a prospectus for a reason. In every prospectus it shows that has happened in the past, then it makes the statement that past performance doesn't predict future results and that every fund has a risk of losing funds. If that makes someone uncomfortable, don't become a part of it.
i dont have stocks.... i cant speak much about this.... i presume most people set up their 401ks with blue chip stocks. i also assume that if/when there is amarket collapse that its not the easiest thing in the world to access and change.

Most economics is so far above the average Americans' head, it's ridiculous. When I lose money in the market, it's my fault for having/leaving the money there. It's part of the risk of the stock market.to a point yes, unless the people are deceived and manipulated.


What makes me a diehard Republican? I have a certain set of beliefs and I stick to them. Period.
fair enough

Where does religion calculate into anything?
honestly, it hasnt with you. this is more or less a vast stereo type i have created. i feel as though if the abortion issue was eliminated from politics and we played by that whole separation of church and state thing that many republicans would actually be democrats.

I'm actually a shop steward in my union. I have mixed feelings about unions, to be honest. I do know that union contracts of the past have taken a lot of benefits from the public and private sector. There comes a point where that undercuts the business/taxpayers. I've had my share of the company fucking me out of money, but I still have a well-paying job, good benefits, and provide a good life for my family. I look at what Kristen is gong through and I don't know anything about it. Without knowing the numbers involved, I can't comment on how fair or unfair the proposals are. I hear numbers like 1% raise and 5% healthcare increase, and honestly it means nothing to me without numbers. It's not for me to form an opinion. As far as places like Wisconsin, I think the Republicans have it right. Unions are useful to a point. When it causes others to lose their jobs, that's a problem. We can't just keep jacking up taxes to pay for benefit-heavy contracts. I wish everything was free. It's not.
im not sure where free came into the conversation. and yes, some unions do become too powerful which leads to the demise of some companies. if i get into detail about kristins current situations it will get me sidetracked so i will leave that out. but unions are not necessarily the devil. i would like to hear how you say they hurt private sector jobs? in my opinion they help. they provide competition for the private sector to compete with on wage, hours and vacation and such. i fear if we break unions, we are going back in time. working conditions go down hill, longer hours, 6-7 day work weaks, less pay incentives. corporations can not be given too much power, and definitely not more then they currently have.


How many poor people hire people? How many poor people create jobs? The poor pay nothing in taxes. Wealthy people pay the lionshare of the taxes in this country. Who else are the cuts going to go to? Obama gave us $13 a week in out checks, allegedly. Big fucking deal.
small business owners are not given an opportunity to compete. and wealthy people pay a lions share based on scale, not percentage. 20 percent of 20 million is going to be a lions share more then 35 percent of 35k.

I believe people should be accountable for themselves. I don't want people to pay for my shit. Social programs have their place, but things like free healthcare are ridiculous. I can't get behind creating a program that the country can't afford. Just the same as I don't think people shouldn't buy houses they can't afford, cars they can't afford, etc. Are things like free healthcare awesome? Of course. Is it realistic? No, it's not.
again i am not aware of anything that was going to be free, besides social programs such as medicaid. at one of the republican debates there was a question asked that if a person was hospitalized and unresponsive, without healthcare, do we let them die because we are concerned about cost, and many from the audience shouted yes. it has just grown increasingly hard for me to wrap my brain about what they stand for anymore, besides anything obama proposes. party alliance in general has just gotten absolutely absurd. atleast obama is willing to negotiate, the republicans just flat out refuse to try.


Obama is a great example of why I don't vote Democrat.

care to be more specific........perhaps an example of policy that you dont agree with?


And how are they demanding that? By having debts forgiven.


this is out of order, my apologies, but i very much did want to adress this line. what pisses me off, and the 99 percent movement, is that when it comes to helping people, its socialism or communism and thats bad. but when the banks and auto got into trouble then socialistic programs such as the bailouts were ok. that is what pisses people off.

. i kinda miss these debates sometimes.

[sws4420]

If I may offer something new to the discussion, this Occupy Movement isn't what it should be. I'd bet over 75% of the people down there have no inkling what the movement is about. They're running the camps like little communes, not reporting crimes that are being committed among them, etc. It's ridiculous. In today's NY Post, there's an article that talks about the businesses they're seriously damaging. I'm talking about damaging physically and economically. They're pissing and shitting all over private property. Yesterday in Oakland they keyed in on some guy in a Mercedes and had the guy trapped on the street from the way it was explained. The 'protesters' started pounding on the guy's car and he gunned the engine, injuring some of them. I don't blame him. Block my way, ok. Touch my car, less than ok. Damage my property in a manner in which I feel threatened and I'll run those fuckers over and then back up and hit them again. At that point they're not protesters, they're rioters. It's disgusting. You compare that to the Tea Party rally that was held in DC this past August where the National Mall was used by the rally supporters, all was peaceful, and then the park was left cleaner than when they arrived. There's ways to get your message across, and this nothing more than a bastardization of our rights to assemble.

Moving along.


it wasnt meant as an insult, i just didnt agree with a single thing, and some are in fact incorrect. many economist were calling the housing collapse, even ron paul, but most didnt think would be as detrimental as it was. the economy should have been easy to see. every 20 or so years it was like clock work that the economy would decline with the great depression as the icing on the cake. after the depression regulations were put into place to never let that happen again, and low and behold once regulations are eliminated the same mess resurfaces. That's what I said. I distinctly recall certain economists predicting exactly what happened, including Ron Paul, and they were considered the lunatic fringe. To the masses, nothing seemed broken, so why would anyone try to fix it. The problem with listening and believing the fringe on a regular basis is that they're usually wrong and most times downright stupid.



im not super excited about any politician. but obama i bellieve is the best option. im not sure how a 20 percent tax rate across the board is even feasable. yes i know the arguement that we have a spending problem not a revenue problem. but you cant just jump in and drastically reduce revenue that much without reining in spending first.Well, you'd have to look at the total tax revenue of the whole country now and apply it to the 20% option. Right now, the top 1% of wage earners pay 40% of total income taxes. The top 50% of wage earners, starting around $35k+, pay 97% of all income taxes. That means that half of the country's wage earners pay 3% of the taxes. Is that fair? Is it really fairer for people who make more to pay more than their fair share of things like defense and other governmental expenses? I don't really think so. I'll use me as an example only because I don't delve into the personal finances of anyone else we both know. Amy and I make just over $100k a year. If I have a next door neighbor that makes $25k a year, or roughly $12 an hour, how is it fair that I'm paying for both my family's share of the governmental benefit plus his? Because I can afford it? What incentive does that give me to make more money? Make more so I can pay more? Having the job I have and living in the state we live in, I've learned a lot about the amount of money that is taken from me to be put towards various entitlement programs and other crap that I don't think I should be paying for, but it is what it is, I guess. Is a system where he and I pay the same tax rate fairer? I don't know. Seems fairer. May not seem fair to half the country that pays nothing, but to the guys carrying the finances of the country on their backs, it may be a nice relief.

What I get an enormous kick out of is seeing celebrities and politicians bitching about the taxes that they pay. Guess what they can do, if they're so concerned about how much they pay? They can pay as much in taxes as they want a year. Seriously If they make $100 million a year, they can cut a check to the US Government for $100 million and the government will accept it. Now how many people have you heard that do that? Warren Buffet? Financial genius. Why doesn't he lead by example? You could tax every millionaire in the country at a 100% tax rate, and guess what. The deficit would be cut by 4%. Worth it?



some people dont choose to move. some people have lost their jobs due to layoffs, their home gets forclosed on because they cant sell it even though they can no longer afford it. but other then that you are correct.Agreed, but it's all due to unforeseen circumstances. It's a risk of home ownership, similar to the stock market. I think what people need to educate themselves about it the correct method of purchasing a home. Save up. You hear of extreme cases of home values going down in the news and such, but that isn't the norm. I don't know how you or anyone else on here paid for their homes, but let's say you have a child that wants to buy a house. You have the money to lend him, and he comes to you and asks you to finance 90%-100% of the loan, but he PROMISES to pay it back. Would you just go along with that? I certainly wouldn't. Now what if he came to you and said that he had saved up 40% of the home's value and wanted to borrow the other 60% and he PROMISED to pay it back? Which loan would you be more comfortable with? In the second case, I'd know they at least have a sizable investment in what they're about to take on and that he'd be more likely to pay me back. Have you ever heard of the Community Reinvestment Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act)? Read up on it. The government essentially ordered banks to do away with their previous practice of requiring collateral or down payment for loans because they felt it was unfair to poorer people in the country. So if someone wants to look for an actual start of this housing collapse, you need not look further than the Carter Administration.



i dont have stocks.... i cant speak much about this.... i presume most people set up their 401ks with blue chip stocks. i also assume that if/when there is amarket collapse that its not the easiest thing in the world to access and change.It's basically this. The company gives you 1001 reasons why they're the greatest thing on earth, including charts, more numbers than anyone can understand, and then they end it with the phrase 'past performance does not guarantee future results', or something to that effect. People can't and shouldn't blindly enter the stock market without doing their own research. If they do, and they lose, it's part of the risk. Hard to say, but it's the way it is. I'm sure the good people of Enron felt real good about investing every dollar they had into the company based on what they were told. But they broke one of the primary rules of investment: portfolio diversity. You can't have all your eggs in one basket. Does it suck for them? Yes. Was what Enron executives did to those people despicable and illegal? Hell yes. Know where the fault primarily lies? On the investors. The company isn't going to come to you and tell you the bad things about themselves. If someone was invested with maybe 10% of their portfolio in Enron and then they tanked, they'd have lost 10% and not 100%. It's the reality of the situation, for better or worse.


honestly, it hasnt with you. this is more or less a vast stereo type i have created. i feel as though if the abortion issue was eliminated from politics and we played by that whole separation of church and state thing that many republicans would actually be democrats.Honestly, I can't think of one Republican I know that is as religious as you usually make them sound. I base my views on topics like abortion on my own personal beliefs and not really with anything to do with religion. I'd have to sit down and think about it, but I doubt any of my political beliefs have anything to do with religion.


im not sure where free came into the conversation. and yes, some unions do become too powerful which leads to the demise of some companies. if i get into detail about kristins current situations it will get me sidetracked so i will leave that out. but unions are not necessarily the devil. i would like to hear how you say they hurt private sector jobs? in my opinion they help. they provide competition for the private sector to compete with on wage, hours and vacation and such. i fear if we break unions, we are going back in time. working conditions go down hill, longer hours, 6-7 day work weaks, less pay incentives. corporations can not be given too much power, and definitely not more then they currently have.It's hard to really break this down, being so new to the Union system, but as someone who has been on the management side of things from when I was a supervisor at TrustCo to this role as a shop steward in my Union, I can certainly see both sides of the aisle. It boils down to this: People need to be paid fairly. Where 'fairly' falls is anybody's guess depending on the job. The problem lies in each party's view of 'fair'. The Company would like to pay everyone as little as possible, while the worker is aiming to be paid as much as possible. A lot of Unions made very sweet deals in the past to get their membership their current perks, but there is a tipping point where the worker and Company need to, and should, negotiate and both offer fair offers and concessions to each other. A lot of people in my plant made a huge deal about the insurance going up $5 a week. In my mind, it's very reasonable to pay $5 more a week in insurance costs, especially given the price of medical care these days. Each side needs to be reasonable.


small business owners are not given an opportunity to compete. and wealthy people pay a lions share based on scale, not percentage. 20 percent of 20 million is going to be a lions share more then 35 percent of 35k. Well, it's a benefit of being larger. Wal-Mart is able to get goods from manufacturers cheaper than Mom & Pop shops because they buy in larger volume, too. Is that fair?


again i am not aware of anything that was going to be free, besides social programs such as medicaid. at one of the republican debates there was a question asked that if a person was hospitalized and unresponsive, without healthcare, do we let them die because we are concerned about cost, and many from the audience shouted yes. it has just grown increasingly hard for me to wrap my brain about what they stand for anymore, besides anything obama proposes. party alliance in general has just gotten absolutely absurd. atleast obama is willing to negotiate, the republicans just flat out refuse to try.Well, that's never been an issue in my mind and it's also illegal. It's hard for me to verbalize where I stand on the healthcare issue, but it's certainly not ObamaCare. It's too mammoth. It'd be cheaper just to buy a health insurance policy for all uninsured Americans than this system is going to be. Again, living within our means. I hope ObamaCare gets overturned because it's a ridiculous concept, given its cost.

As far as figuring out what the candidates stand for, I'll offer this. Figure out the most important issues to you, and then figure out your positions on them. Nobody can back a candidate with any intellect without figuring out what you're in favor of or against. Whichever party it happens to align with is irrelevant. I've voted for Democrats. I'd vote for anyone that fought for what I believed in. What I really dislike it generalizations of both parties. I try not to make them, but it happens. I can't stand voting along party lines. Democrats are just as guilty of it as Republicans.


this is out of order, my apologies, but i very much did want to adress this line. what pisses me off, and the 99 percent movement, is that when it comes to helping people, its socialism or communism and thats bad. but when the banks and auto got into trouble then socialistic programs such as the bailouts were ok. that is what pisses people off. Personally, I agree. I think people and businesses alike deserve the right to flourish and to fail. It's like never disciplining your child and then bitching that the kid grew up to be an asshole.


. i kinda miss these debates sometimes.Agreed. :)