.
.
.
.
.
.
Up until a few weeks ago, I had never been on an airplane before. As part of a quarter century life crisis, I saved enough money to go to where I always wanted to go: New York City. During my planning of the trip with a travel companion, the seeds for Occupy Wall Street were being planted. On Sep. 17, I watched over a thousand protesters descend onto the streets of New York City through streaming video on Live Stream. In the weeks that followed, I kept track of the protests and actions through social networking websites. As I watched the protesters demonstrate in support of a myriad of social justice issues, I knew I had to be a part of it somehow. This is going to be huge, I thought.
On Oct. 1st, I marched with over 3,000 protesters from Liberty Plaza to the Brooklyn Bridge. As we made it to the bridge, about 2,000 of us took the walkway as the rest spilled onto the roadway. Almost a thousand protesters that I had been walking with earlier were arrested on the road below us.
We started off at Zucotti Park, also known as Liberty Plaza, the site where a group of protesters had been camping out for the past two weeks in an effort to sustain demonstrations. We marched through the streets of New York City as I heard protesters chant “Banks got bailed out! We got sold out!”, “Whose streets? Our streets!”, “Tell me what democracy looks like, this is what democracy looks like!” and “We are the 99 percent!” The 99 percent referring to often quoted statistic that 1% wealthiest of the population makes more than the 99% combined.
As we marched past the huge buildings and skyscrapers, tourists took photos of us from the double decker buses. We passed by Wall Street and the buildings of big banks, many holding signs with slogans and reasons for participating. The entrance to the New York Stock Exchange itself had been blocked off by police prior to the planned occupation. Anyone wishing to pass through would have to show identification as employees or residents of the area.
NYPD officers lined the street near the sidewalks telling us to stay off the street. The officers were docile to us as we weaved through the crowded streets of New York City. I overheard a female community unit officer telling a protester that the banks are all corrupt and she doesn’t blame us for speaking out.
I stopped at Park Avenue and Broadway Avenues to take photos and videos of the protesters. I caught up with my companion down the street. I had planned to stop at that point because I thought they were just going to march in a circle in the city. To my surprise, I saw demonstrators heading for the bridge. I knew I could not miss it. We headed in that direction.
When we approached the Brooklyn Bridge, there was a swarm of us en route to the pedestrian walkway. All I could see was a sea of colorful signs and people walking in front of me. We marched forward as we heard chanting “Whose bridge? Our bridge!” At this point, it looked like all of us protesters were on the walkway as there were so many of us packed practically elbow to elbow. Little did I know, a group of about a thousand had spilled onto the roadway. I did not realize what had happened until we seemed to be blocked right when the bridge is about to cross over the East River. I stood on the tip of my toes and saw that the NYPD was blocking our way onto the bridge. I assumed we were not going to be able to cross.
I was finally able to connect the dots as I saw a huge group of protesters lined on the east side of the bridge. Many photographers were climbing up on the cables to capture a shot of what was happening below. I heard chants saying “Let them go! Let them go!”, “The whole world is watching!” and “Bullshit! Bullshit!” I squeezed my way into the crowd lined down the railing and all I could see was hundreds of protesters and police officers. Since I was unfamiliar with the bridge, I assumed it was protesters in front who had somehow found a way down there. Although I had written down the number for the NY National Lawyers Guild chapter on my hand in case of possible detainment, I started to become concerned that we were next. My worries subsided as we began to move.
The police had cleared the way for us to march across the bridge on the pedestrian path. As I finally got a clear view of the arrestees below, I finally figured out they were being arrested for blocking traffic. We were just fine on the walkway. At first, the protesters on the bridge were sparse as many were still watching or taking photos of what was going on below. Within minutes, I looked behind me and saw at least 2,000 had rejoined us.
We made it across the bridge with no incident. We passed by two wedding photo shoots in progress. Photographers snapped at each opportunity, as to show the juxtaposition of pure American traditions. Bicyclists coming from Brooklyn trying to walk their bikes across the bridge had to push their way through the opposing foot traffic.
The overall vibe while crossing the bridge reminded me of drum circles in Venice Beach back home, except with political chants. There were people playing drums, singing chants and dancing down the walkway. They sang “Hey, hey; ho ho, this Wall Street greed has got to go!” and “Get up, get down, there’s revolution in this town!”
No matter how many different issues, agendas or angles the signs portrayed during the demonstration, there was one clear message: The idea of people over profit. The protest had marked a turning point in the movement. Solidarity actions went from about 50 actions to over 1,000 across the nation. Participants seem to be speaking out for themselves and at the same time, giving voice to the voiceless. The actions of the demonstrators in NYC have given courage and a platform for others to speak out around the country and around the world.
Through reading news and Twitter posts on my phone, I read 700 non-violent protesters had been arrested at the roadway. I found through photos posted online later on, many that I had been marching side by side with earlier were detained. One article I read quoted a law enforcement official who said the number arrested was closer to 1,000.
As we departed from the bridge, we broke off from the group to explore Brooklyn. As we sat down in a restaurant on the north side of Williamsburg, the waitress said to me “I notice you have numbers written on your hand, did you just come back from Occupy Wall Street?” I told her we had just come from crossing the Brooklyn Bridge with protesters. She asked me where I was from and I told her I was from California. She said she had heard of people going from Philadelphia or Vermont but not all the way from the West Coast.
“What did you think?” she asked me.
I told her, “I think I just witnessed a defining moment in history.”
Read more about my personal reasons as a college student for taking time to check out Occupy Wall Street at my tumblr blog.
Follow me on my Occupy Wall Street Twitter, where I follow the actions in NYC and solidarity actions around the country: http://twitter.com/amberjamie99pct
“The 99 percent referring to often quoted statistic that 1% wealthiest of the population makes more than the 99% combined.” COMPLETELY WRONG – the top 1% make about 25% of the nation’s income and pay about 30% of the nations taxes – interestingly the next 52% make 50% of the income and pay 70% of the taxes – leaving the final 47% receiving 25% of the income and paying ZERO taxes.
You are right there is a disparity – 47% of America is not pulling its weight.
There you go again. 47% of Americans not paying taxes. Sure, Geoff, sure.
My brother’s just sitting here and said I should add. “Don’t you think that 47% would LOVE to have a job good enough where they had to pay income taxes?”
From that terrbily conservative source “Yahoo:”
About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That’s according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0
OH! FEDERAL INCOME TAXES! Why didn’t you SAY so???
In your youthful zeal and enthusiasm, you actually wrote: “the final 47% receiving 25% of the income and paying ZERO taxes. … 47% of America is not pulling its weight.”
Oh – you DID say that twice.
That makes it twice as dishonest I’d say.
No, Geoff, “the 99%” refers to what’s left of “the 100%” once you subtract “the 1%.” It’s “subtraction.”
The “oft-quoted statistic” you mention isn’t “oft-quoted” — I don’t know anyone who asserts that they “make more than the 99% combined.” If it’s so “oft-quoted,” though, I’m sure you’ll be able to find many examples. Right?
I was quoting the author “Amber” immediately above who claimed it was “oft qutoed” in the main body of the story.
Conceded. You’re still wrong, but not wrong about that.
The discovery of fire, the invention of the wheel, Christ’s birth, death, and resurrection, the rise and fall of the Roman Empire, the American revolution, the industrial revolution, two world wars, and Occupy ______ – defining moments in history.
This is the same sort of condescension some on the left used to dismiss the Tea Party.
Heh. That’s so true, it’s why I’m not complaining.
Although … I did show up to a couple Tea Parties and really try to listen to what they were saying actually. I’ll be surprised if Geoff or Newbie will do that this weekend in Irvine.
Vern, when the Occupiers themselves figure out what they’re saying, maybe I’ll listen.
No anon, I’m just trying to give Amber some perspective. She sounds like a young idealogue – good for her. But a defining moment in history? Under her definition, the Tea Party movement is more defining than Occupy ____. I wouldn’t expect you to have a sense of humor about it.
And if you actually read my comments, I’m not dismissing the Occupy ____ movement at all because I think it will be the final nail in Obama’s and the Democrat’s coffins in November 2012. I’m all for the madness.
You really have no idea what the results of “Occupy” will be, do you?
Maybe this will be a defining moment. Maybe it won’t. Dismissing Amber’s enthusiasm with your oozing condescension is just plain petty.
Defining moments rarely emerge from events involving “protestors” who have, at east in part, been paid to protest.
I don’t think I even want to ask what the hell you’re talking about here.
I suppose I’ll be hearing about this on FOX tomorrow. Protesters “being paid,” eh?
BTW if this was true, the word you’re looking for is “Astroturf.” Like the well-funded Teabaggers, you know.
Newbie youre wrong. The Obama admins final nail in their own coffin is the recent fedral actions against medical marijuna dispensaries. he oostthat community who supported his election in 08 and will not win them again. This losing the california elctoral college votes and thus re-election.
Oh, Paul. I’m pissed off about that too, but you don’t seriously think that that’s going to happen, do you? If so, I would like to place a bet regarding CA’s electoral votes. Surely you’ll also give me good odds.
I was wondering who would be the first to try to rain on this college students’ idealistic Occupy Wall Street parade! 🙂
What was your education grades in the world history going back 5000 years?
It is all there!
Amber —
Forgive him, for he knows not what he does (or says!)
Ps, I read your tumblr page…great writing coming from a very honest place. 🙂
Haha, no worries…I was gonna get on here and say “Sorry boys for not keeping up with the comments, I was too busy pulling my own weight as part of the 99%” 😀
and thanks for the compliment on my tumblr! It’s a very important time so I thought I’d get more personal on the matter – regardless of what anyone says, Occupy Wall Street has already made an impact in the American political sphere.
Yes, the funded protestors are making an impact by very briefly distracting the public from the Obama Administrations failures.
“regardless of what anyone says, Occupy Wall Street has already made an impact in the American political sphere”……… Hmmmm
Interesting observation Amber.
So according to you, the Americana politic require marching people on the street rather than their true representatives in the congers?
Couldn’t they simply call their representatives?
I wonder for whom these marching moron mongoloids voted?
It seems to me that if they would not vote for the left liberals who are dominating the Washington for decades they wouldn’t have to be on the bridge.
Soon they will be sleeping under the bridge after they reelect Negro Obama and pro Castro sympathizer Brown.
And then what?….. lock themselves in the restroom, turn on the sigh “occupied” and make a shit?
No, #Occupy is very focused on the Obama Administration’s failures (as well as the Republicans’ perpetual ones!)
It’s this peculiar thing called thinking outside the two-party duopoly. You should try it sometime!
It took just a little time before Geoff came in and blamed the poor for the economic problems. It is a fact that the top 400 people (not percentage) have more wealth than the bottom half of the population. You can’t spin your numbers out of the fact that too few people have too much money, and pay too little to keep the country properly funded. (Not to mention the fact that bush started two wars without figuring out how to pay for them.)
Geoff’s idea of Nirvana is Dickensian London–poorhouses, debtors’ prisons, pollution, child labor and typhoid–while the aristocratic few lived it up with no restrictions or responsibilities, and kept a stranglehold on social mobility.
Don’t worry, though, Geoff–your poor put upon wealthy people will still get to have private jets, have their own islands, and but $39k backpacks for their spoiled progeny. Even if they pay another 5%. Poor bastards.
Not blaming the poor – the issue is being framed by the Occupy forces that claim that the top 1% is not pulling its weight. The facts are to the contrary.
Geoff – Do you consider yourself as part of the top 1% wealthiest in the US?
Oh and where’s my apology for your labeling of my writings as ‘racist’ and full of ‘hate’ haha!
Objection — nonresponsive.
The cost of the wars – typical liberal drivel. Ok, I’ll bite Rapscallion. Cost of both wars since 2001 – $1.2 trillion. And that includes nearly 3 years of costs under Obama. So that’s loosely $840 billion under Bush’s watch. The stimulus cost nearly that much and that was just in Obama’s first few months. He couldn’t pay for that, either, even with a majority in both houses of Congress. That doesn’t even include the staggering debt he has run up in his first term, also with no way to pay for that, either.
“Total costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan allocated by Congress to date – which include funding through the end of the current fiscal year on September 30, 2011 – are $1.26 trillion, with $797.3 billion to Iraq and $459.8 billion to Afghanistan. These figures include both military and non-military spending such as reconstruction. Spending includes only incremental costs – those additional funds that are expended due to the war. For example, soldiers’ regular pay is not included but combat pay is included. Potential future costs, such as future medical care for soldiers and veterans wounded in the war, are not included. These figures also do not include additional interest payments on the national debt that will result from higher deficits due to war spending.”
In other words, 1.2 trillion merely scratches the surface when it come to what we’re actually spending, and will spend.
http://costofwar.com/en/about/notes-and-sources
The same can be said for the stimulus, Obamacare, and the other “progressive” policies that Obama has forced on the American people.
Do you feel the same way about that wicked Medicare Part D that Bush forced on the American people?
I’ve noticed that certain “conservative” commentators here profess to be Christian. So, here’s a question, mssrs. christians–how do you qualify your craven support for the very wealthy, while the poor suffer? I am not burdened by the image of hell, but I do find it enjoyable to think that, if there is one, that you and your idols Karl Rove and Grover Norquist will be roasting on a spit with Jesus pouring on the butter sauce. You all seem to be concerned about one thing only–your money–and how to avoid paying a small amount more to serve the general population. Can you answer this without spewing out a talking point?
We’ll be waiting.
The fallacy of your argument lies in the premise that the government has to be the primary supporter of the poor. The government has been throwing tens of billions at poverty for decades with no appreciable dent, and a slew of fraud and other misues of public funds coming from it. God puts it on the individual, and not the government, to take care of widows and orphans. I cheerfully give to my church, as well as several charitable organizations that I choose to support, not the government. If I was able to keep more of my money that the government takes and wastes, I would be able to give even more. Are there many hypocrites out there calling themselves Christians and failing to give anything – yes. In fact, I know I’m a hypocrite myself from time to time because I’m a fallen human. However, when it comes to supporting those in need, I truly put my money where my mouth is – as do many of my believing friends.
Sadly, I blame the church for the rise in government control over programs for the poor. A long time ago, the churches did step up in their neighborhoods, counties, and states. But some time long ago, the people started caring too much about keeping up with the Joneses and too little about the people in their community who needed help. In steps the bloated, inefficient, and at times corrupt government to fill the void. And now, the behemoth is nearly unstoppable. I have heard the statistics about the tragically small number of Christians who can’t be bothered to give to their own church, let alone private charities. However, for me the answer is not flushing more of my money down the government waste hole, it’s changing the minds and hearts of Christians and non-Christians alike to sacrifice more of their own money and resources. For me, I know that God provides. For the non-Christian, I would hope he/she would simply feel good about it.
So, there’s my talking points.
I don’t believe that Rapscallion said the “government has to be the primary supporter of the poor.” That’s an overstatement.
And so there goes YOUR argument.
“commentators here profess to be Christian. So, here’s a question, mssrs. christians–how do you qualify your craven support for the very wealthy, while the poor suffer?”
MQ says:
Cause Jesus did not have to deal with welfare queens and crack heads…. He would have amended the poor as people who have hit hard times, not losers!
The rich are Gods children that actually worked and most likely give back more than the welfare queens, the crack heads and the useless in general…God say’s” help them, who help themselves”.
That’s some fantastic Biblical revisonism, MQ. An amazing stretch–congratulations!
When you compare wealth to income to taxes paid to net worth.
You will find that the poorest pay the highest percentage of net worth in taxes.
Everyone one else up to the highest top of the middle class pay though the nose and end up in poverty in their old age.
The upper middle class, use to do quite well, but not anymore.
And the top 1 percent who’s net worth comprise 90 percent? 99 percent 75 percent? (I don’t know the number) Pay the least amount of taxes compared to their net worth.
You need to define your terms.
Oh please, I have been poor, I never paid a dime in taxes when I was poor, although unlike most poor, I did not take a dime either in taxes. I fed, housed and partied myself without help! We all start off poor, unless of course you have rich parents but then you progress. So people like the government hand outs and become the chronic poor, which out number people progressing.
I am all for the rich making money and I am totally against giving losers a check each week to feed their kids crap and give themselves a nice hit on the crack pipe. What I would like to do is focus on the poor, who are they? And why are they poor? I know why the rich are rich, they either worked hard or had it pasted to them by a hard working parent!
Who are the poor and why do they need taxpayers to help them?
Michelle, You need to define your terms.
(I never paid a dime in taxes when I was poor)
Are you saying that you did not pay, utility taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, social secutiy taxes, employment taxes, etc?
(I did not take a dime either in taxes)
Are you saying you did not use the tax paid roads, busses, use tax paid libraries or parks or zoo’s, etc?
To quote Leona Helmsley, She said: “We don’t pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes.”[
So Michelle, if you are implying that you now pay taxes, then you must be one of those “little people” now.
Good work there, Cook.
Also, when she paid rent, it covered her landlord’s property taxes. And we KNOW she paid a lot of extra taxes on her beer, her cigarettes and her gasoline. And whenever she had to renew her car’s registration. And, voluntarily, when she played the Lotto.
Also, she got it back not just by using roads, buses, libraries and parks, etc., but also in peace of mind knowing that if her house caught fire there’d be a department there putting it out, she’d be ten times less likely to get mugged because there were cops on the street, if something bad did happen there’d be cops she could call, she is immeasurably less likely to be hurt by a terrorist attack or foreign invasion because of all the money the government pays to protect her from that, and more!
OH – and doesn’t she have
FIVELITTLE QUINNLETS all going to our public schools, much as she likes to bitch about them?I’ve always thought that people with more children should pay more in taxes, rather than get a child tax credit of $1k per. So, we’re subsidizing her profilgate breeding, right?
FORGOT about that!
I don’t smoke, I was too busy working to drink beer and i biked to work and I don’t like gambling. So I am this countries dream immigrant: I work, I pay taxes and I breed to produce the best of the best.
And by the way, the public school I have my children in is the best of the best, best teachers, best parents and best students. And I pay a nice penny to the school in appreciation 😛
So hate me, love me, I got it all, anyway:)
Jesus! Quinn has 5 kids?
She likes to think that she’s not a drag on the system , but she’d have to be paying at least 50k a year in taxes just to make up for her spawn.
5 – I think that’s what she told us a while back. Isn’t that right MQ?
I don’t have 5 kids lol My mom did though, I am not that brave!
And as far as taxes goes….lets just say, I pay for more than 5:(
Sorry musta got you mixed up with someone else. 3 was it?
Anonster,
Spawn is my favorite movie:) watch it, its about a bad guy who becomes good. You remind me of the devils little clown guy who wants spawn (me) to go bad!
🙂
I worked as a waitress for two years and in those two years I was one of the 45+ % who don’t pay federal/state income taxes, because I got it back. But then I got a better job and yepeee I have paid for years, and years and years and years etc……………….To help fund losers the 9% of the poor who take some sort of dope!
The little people don’t pay taxes the responsible do and I am one of them….But we are kind of getting sick of it, when the 99+ week morons are sitting on their as****. Well, maybe a few are looking for a job, but why should they?
Didn’t read, grasp, or retain a word of what Cook, me, or Rapscallion wrote. Well, that’s what we expected… at least others are.
See you at Occupy Irvine Amber and maybe Santa Ana. You are a fellow Patriot-Good Soul.
“I’ve always thought that people with more children should pay more in taxes, rather than get a child tax credit of $1k per”……… Hmmmm
Pisscallion, and when they turn 18 they should surrender their children to state to fight and die in the war to protect your fucking ass without you paying for that…… Huh?
Pisscallion! lol You must have been a solider, you are quite the fighter Mr. Exile 🙂
Obviously, MQ and Exile are cut from the same cloth, in which one is to never actually adress a point. It’s also clear that they just hate the idea of some undeserving drag on the system getting a free cheese sandwich.
Do you people not see how mean, petty, and small you are?
Of course not.
Rapscallion, who do you want breeding the fit or the unfit….Margaret Sanger, put it so well ” the unfit should not have kids, the fit should”. Well, I am on of those people Margaret would have loved ( the old Bit**).
My children at very young ages are top of their classes, and most likely will be the new 1% that give the responsible like me a job!
So I deserve that credit back to have my children become cultured in music, defense, language. I am breeding the best of the best:0) Their mothers blood, with unlimited opportunity and time:0)
“My children … most likely will be the new 1% … ”
Well, there you have it, that’s exactly why fools like MQ continue to vote and agitate against their own interests, because they believe that they or their kids will be rich someday.
MQ, your kids will NEVER be among the 1%, the odds are stacked against them (million to 1). The US now has less upward mobility than Europe does.
We saddle our kids with so much debt from college that they will never be able to take the risks that entrepreneurs need to in order to “make it”.
The same with healthcare, people can’t risk starting a business because it means losing their insurance.
The kind of money that the 1% has is not made by working, it’s made by investing and people like MQ have no idea just how much money the 1% have.
From Who Owns America;
In terms of types of financial wealth, the top one percent of households have 38.3% of all privately held stock, 60.6% of financial securities, and 62.4% of business equity. The top 10% have 80% to 90% of stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and over 75% of non-home real estate. Since financial wealth is what counts as far as the control of income-producing assets, we can say that just 10% of the people own the United States of America.
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
The top 20% of Americans OWN 85% of the wealth in this country, that means that the bottom 80% share the paltry 15% that’s left over, in fact the bottom 40% have NO or NEGATIVE assets.
This kind on inequality will continue to grow and instead of the top 20% owning all the assets, it will become the top 10% and then the top 5% and so on, because that is the nature of unfettered capitalism.
Anyone who believes that this kind of wealth inequality can continue and that we can still have a “middle class” is a fool.
“Your kids will NEVER be among the 1% the odds are stacked against them (million to 1).”
ACTUALLY THE ODDS ARE DEFINITIONALLY 100 TO 1.
“We saddle our kids with so much debt from college that they weill never be able to take the rists that entrepreneurs need in order to “make it.”
1) I WENT TO PRIVATE COLLEGE AND THEN LAW SCHOOL ON MY OWN WITH NO PARENTAL HELP AND WITH LITTLE SCHOOL DEBT. MY KIDS MAY HAVE SOME HELP FROM ME BUT NONE OF THEM WILL HAVE CRIPPLING DEBT – IT CAN BE DONE IF YOU APPROACH IT RESPONSIBLY INSTEAD OF BLINDLY TAKING OUT DEBT, 2) ONLY 2% OF THE 1% ARE ENTREPRENEURS, 3) EVERY SUCCESSFUL ENTREPRENEUR THAT I KNOW WAS BANKRUPT SEVERAL TIMES BEFORE “MAKING IT.” REAL ENTREPRENEURS ARE NOT AFRAID OF FAILURE.
“The kind of money that the 1% has is not made by working, it is made by investing and people like MQ have no idea just how much money the 1% have.”
1) THE 1% IS 3,124,000 AMERICANS THAT MAKE ABOUT $380,000 A YEAR OR MORE (SO WE ALL SHOULD KNOW HOW MUCH MONEY THEY HAVE), 2) ONLY 4% OF THE 1% (OR .04% OF ALL AMERICANS) HAVE MADE THEIR WAY THROUGH INVESTMENTS, 3) WHEN ANONSTER TALKS ABOUT THE 1% SHE MEANS TO TALK ABOUT THE .01% THAT ARE “SUPER RICH” BUT THAT IS JUST DETAILS.
“The top 20% of Americans OWN 85% of the wealth in this country, that means that the bottom 80% share the paltry 15% that’s left over.”
WITHOUT GETTING INTO HOW THESE NUMBERS WERE “CREATED” LET’S ASSUME FOR ARGUMENTS SAKE THAT THEY ARE TRUE. THE TOP 5% PAY MORE TAXES THAN THE REMAINING 95% COMBINED. WE ALREADY HAVE A REGRESSIVE TAX SYSTEMS THAT DISPROPORIONATELY PUNISHES SUCCESS AND ACCOMPLISHMENT BY INCREASING YOUR TAX BURDEN AS YOUR SUCCESS AND ACCOMPLISHMENT INCREASE.
THE CONSTITUTION AND OUR COUNTRY WERE NOT ESTABLISHED TO CREATE EQUALITY OF OUTCOME, SIMPLY EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY. EQUALITY OF OUTCOME IS COMMUNISM – EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY IS DEMOCRACY.
Actually, the Constitution has very little to say about these things. But it did create a particular form of Government, didn’t it?
That means that we, the people, get to elect representatives who hopefully represent our interests. And everyone’s got different interests. Many people are becoming alarmed by growing wealth disparities and STAGNANT WAGES. Becoming alarmed by things like that doesn’t mean that one is opposed to people becoming rich. It means that people are questioning a particular trend and its positive and/or negative effects on the country.
“Actually, the Constitution has very little to say about these things.”
Another blanket statement that is stupid and simply a lie. The Constitution goes to great lengths to detail the concept of equality of opportunity. When inequity was pointed out and came to the forefront, action was taken to remedy the inequity. Slavery, the ultimate barrier to having a chance to move up through society and achieve the American Dream – a fair and just legal system, the right of women to fully participate in government, lifting prejudice based on religion or ethnicity, age discrimination – ALL DIRECTLY ADDRESSED IN THE CONSTITUTION.
Article XIII – “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
Article XIV – “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Article XV – “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”
Article XIX – “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”
Article XXIV – “The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.”
Article XXVI – “The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.”
Geoff, don’t bother with quoting the Constitution. Liberals really don’t care what’s in it anyway.
LOL. Nothing you quoted says anything specific about the kind of economic system we have or whether or not great wealth disparity is a good thing or a bad thing. But thanks nonetheless for your sanctimonious preaching.
“LOL. Nothing you quoted says anything specific about the kind of economic system we have or whether or not great wealth disparity is a good thing or a bad thing.”………. Hmmmmmm
Onan,
If you read correctly and understand your own language the constitution clearly states:
What is yours is non of my business and what is mine is non of your business.
However the leftist interpretation is:
What is yours is mine and what is mine non of your business.
So read it again, Onan!
Sorry Stanley, but the Founders did not create the Libertarian utopia you speak of. When we pay taxes (which they granted Congress the power to levy) we have a vested interest in how that money is spent. And when corporations break the law and it affects people’s investments, we all become a bit more interconnected than your silly caricature of American society suggests.
Stanislav has the excuse that growing up in the Eastern Bloc made him a traumatized anti-social extremist. I don’t know what Geoff’s and Newbie’s excuses would be.
“Founders did not create the Libertarian utopia you speak of”…….. Hmmm
Onan,
They did!….. and income tax were levied only on corporations [not] on individuals because constitutionally people were sovereign.
That changed by fraudulent amendment in 1913 by idiots like you and Nelson which ended the most beautiful social system on the earth.
Study your history leftist, liberal moron mongoloids.
As to my traumatized anti-social extremism?…… I did found my way over the Iron Curtain you did not dullard Nelson.
Here is something to piss you off because you will never get money from rich people you lumpenproletariat. See http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-13/irs-auditing-how-google-shifted-profits-offshore-to-avoid-taxes.html
Quote:
Enforcement Setback
The win for Veritas was a major setback for the IRS’s ability to enforce transfer-pricing rules, according to H. David Rosenbloom, an attorney at Caplin & Drysdale in Washington, and director of the International Tax program at New York University School of Law.
Income shifting by multinational companies cost the U.S. $90 billion in federal tax revenue during 2008, according to a March article in the trade journal Tax Notes by Kimberly Clausing, an economics professor at Reed College in Portland, Oregon.
Google cuts its tax bill by about $1 billion a year using a technique that allocates profits to a unit managed out of a law firm in Bermuda, where there is no corporate income tax. In 2009, the most recent year for which records are available, this subsidiary collected 4.34 billion euros (about $6.1 billion) in royalties from a Google unit in the Netherlands, according to a Dutch corporate filing.
As of June 30, Google held $18.8 billion in cash in its foreign subsidiaries, almost half its total $39.1 billion in cash and marketable securities.
Geoff,
You’re right on the odds, but wrong on just about everything else.
1) Your college experience is no longer relevant as the cost of a college degree has gone up exponentially compared to real wages in the last twenty years.
Yes, there are ways to reduce the cost of college but here’s the lowdown on costs per year (on-campus living);
Community college-$13,416
Cal State-$22,577
UC-$31,200
Private University-$45,147
http://californiacolleges.edu/finance/how-much-does-college-cost.asp
Not cheap- and the costs have been going up by 10% a year, at that rate a UC will cost $45,000+, in just 5 more years.
Good luck educating all those kids!
2/3) You’re using a very narrow definition of “entrepreneur”, I would include anyone who starts their own business, including professionals (doctors, lawyers etc.), but anyway, my point was that the ability to take risks is severely dampened when you have debt and/or are worried about affording health care. As in, people can’t qualify for loans to start a new business because of their student loan debt or they can’t leave their jobs because they need the health insurance.
“THE 1% IS 3,124,000 AMERICANS THAT MAKE ABOUT $380,000 A YEAR OR MORE (SO WE ALL SHOULD KNOW HOW MUCH MONEY THEY HAVE)”
From the NYT’s;
American households right at the 99th percentile (that is, the cut-off for the top 1 percent) will earn about $506,553 in cash income this year, according to a Tax Policy Center analysis. The income curve is very steep at the high end, meaning that people just a few tenths of a percentile point above that make much, much more. A family at the 99.5th percentile, for example, makes $815,868; its neighbor at the 99.9th percentile makes more than double that, at $2,075,574 a year.
” ONLY 4% OF THE 1% (OR .04% OF ALL AMERICANS) HAVE MADE THEIR WAY THROUGH INVESTMENTS”
From the Washington Post;
“And the vast majority of the wealth held by the top 1 percent doesn’t come from income, but from stocks, securities, business equity and other investments. Edward Wolff, an economist at Bard College, examined the proportion of assets held by the top 1 percent in 2007 … ”
“THE CONSTITUTION AND OUR COUNTRY WERE NOT ESTABLISHED TO CREATE EQUALITY OF OUTCOME, SIMPLY EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY. EQUALITY OF OUTCOME IS COMMUNISM – EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY IS DEMOCRACY.”
You know Geoff, you can argue and quibble over facts and figures, constitutionality, etc.,etc., you can feel put upon and overburdened by your tax load, you can look down your nose at those less fortunate or in your mind; less worthy, but if we don’t deal with this growing wealth inequality we will eliminate the middle class and with it, ANY semblance of the America you and I grew up with.
WE ARE IN BANANA REPUBLIC TERRITORY and you “conservatives” had better wake-up because you and your kids are every bit as much at risk for the bleak future that a stratified economy will bring,as us “liberals”.
From Slate;
All my life I’ve heard Latin America described as a failed society (or collection of failed societies) because of its grotesque maldistribution of wealth. Peasants in rags beg for food outside the high walls of opulent villas, and so on. But according to the Central Intelligence Agency (whose patriotism I hesitate to question), income distribution in the United States is more unequal than in Guyana, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, and roughly on par with Uruguay, Argentina, and Ecuador. Income inequality is actually declining in Latin America even as it continues to increase in the United States.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_great_divergence/features/2010/the_united_states_of_inequality/introducing_the_great_divergence.html
Right on the odds? Of course he isn’t.
His statement that Mitey Quinn’s kids would not be among the 1%. Not “some random person,” but hers. Those odds need not be 1%.
Frankly, the odds that someone’s kids in OC will be among the 1% is probably much higher than 1% because OC is a wealthy area. (The odds for a resident of Santa Ana south of 17th or westernmost Anaheim, by contrast, will probably be well under 1%.)
How would we assign odds to MQ’s kids? That’s an interesting problem. Most likely, we would want to know one thing above all others: “how much money does Michelle have?” If she’s part of the 1%, her kids probably will be as well. The further that is from true, the less likely.
This used to be less true than it is today.
This is a concept called “social mobility,” and along with “a decent floor level of benefits” it’s probably among the main generators of today’s unrest. Social mobility is down. We thus have moved towards a money-based aristocracy. When elementary education depends so much on where you live and higher education is unaffordable for most and years in unpaid internships are prerequisite for better jobs, how much your parent’s make become a better and better indicator of how much you will make.
That’s not how America used to work and it’s not how it should work.
So, yes, my guess is that MQ’s kids are less than 1% likely to become one of the 1%, except perhaps for one thing: her willingness to argue for the interests of the wealthy may tend to pay off for her, and thus for them. That’s another terrible commentary on getting ahead in the U.S. these days: to do well, you may be best off shaping your views so as to support those with the most money, who can afford to tip you for your loyalty.
And that is another reason to distrust statements that support the neo-aristocracy: there’s too much reason to suspect that they are motivated not by support for the truth, but by hopes of advancement.
I don’t care if my children are rich, I just want them to attain to be the best of the best….There you have it, the reason why hispanic children are failing, like you, their parents don’t care if the achieve, its way too much work, too much to invest in, and for what to be RICH? Money only comes with working hard and SMART, it’s what you gain in success that is more important in what you earn…..YOU will never get that, because most likely YOU grew up with a silverspoon up your tweeter! And one that would advocate for “take from them who attain and give to them who have not”…is either clueless or resentful!
My kids may not attain the 1% status, but they sure will be close, I have the confidence in their ability and their drive to be the best, even at a very young age my kids are top of their class in everything they do.
I know quite a few 1% people, yes they are MEGA rich and they are the ones that make my company able to hire and feed people….So don’t be an old hateful fart, the 1% that I know give millions in charity and are very good people. They have earned everything they have, and god love their drive to be the best, We will still have a middle class, if idiots like you will only realize the government does not create, it destroys, and the rich create jobs that keeps most middle class people in their middle class homes like me!
YOU are not a Tea partier, you are a Flea Partier (Ann Coulter..LOL) a person that believes that some of humanity have the right to live off a few of humanity that try to attain the best of the best…YOU believe in parasites and I believe in self worth!
I have one question for you and Geoff, WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE?
At what point will the “best of the best” have too much?
Should they be allowed to reach 100% or very close to it, of the income and assets of this country?
Working people are LOSING GROUND, not because they are lazy, but because our tax policies/regulations are working against them;
FromDailyMarkets.com;
Something has fundamentally changed in the U.S. economy over the last decade. In the past, the well-being of corporations was generally tied to the well being of their workers. Gains from improvements in productivity were shared between higher returns to labor through higher wages, and higher returns to capital in the form of higher profits.
If a firm went from making 100 widgets a day to making 110 a day and used the same 10 workers to do so, over time, both sides would tend to see their income rise by about 10%. It was not always in lockstep and profits were a bit more volatile than wages, but within a year or two things would even out.
That stopped starting about a decade ago. Now all the return is going to capital. Wages, particularly if you exclude the wages at the very top of the spectrum, have been stagnant at best. When adjusted for inflation, the median income has been shrinking.
http://www.dailymarkets.com/stock/2011/10/11/wages-profits-occupy-wall-street/
I have one question for you and Geoff, WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE?
At what point will the “best of the best” have too much?
Anonster – I am not sure those are the right questions, but they are good questions.
First, I can never tell if you are talking about income or accumulated assets because those are very different things. While you mix these two concepts, let’s talk about wealth first.
Any system that tries to make a determination of when someone has “too much wealth” is in effect rewarding reckless or irresponsible behavior and punishing careful or intelligent behavior. For example: two people begin the year with a $10,000,000 net worth. Person A takes a jet to Vegas and has a great time and ends the year with zero. Person B continues to work, invests the money wisely and ends the year with $12,000,000. Under your theory, you would find a way to “reallocate” money from person A and give it to person B because person B has “too much money.” This kind of taxing or reallocation of assets rewards non productive and counterproductive behavior while imposing punishment on productive and constructive behavior. That’s not right.
On the other end of the scale, there are certainly people in need and I do everything I can to give to these folks so that they can eat and have a warm place to stay. These people are the flip side However, we define “poverty” to be a place where the average person living in poverty today has a higher standard of living that all but the .01% a hundred years ago – having one or two cars, all ordinary appliance and more living space than they AVERAGE European (not the average poor European, the average European).
While we might not ever agree on where the line is, I think we do agree that the system is not fair. I am a pure capitalist as your can tell from my remarks. I do not think the bailouts represent capitalism any more than subsidies for corporations or their products. I think a fair system that provided NO ONE a way around the rules and made them earn their keep would be the simplest most straightforward way to fix the system.
Define “pure capitalist” for us, please.
Because you use that phrase, then you speak of “rules”. Would those “rules” be laws and/or regulations, created by governments, that restrain “pure capitalist” malfeasance?
“Any system that tries to make a determination of when someone has “too much wealth” is in effect rewarding reckless or irresponsible behavior and punishing careful or intelligent behavior.”
At some point Geoff, you do need to draw the line, unfettered capitalism doesn’t “reward” responsible behavior, MONEY REWARDS MONEY, NOT HARD WORK, I’m sure you’ve heard the old adage “it takes money to make money”, truer words were never spoken.
Your “pure capitalism” left unrestrained will eventually end up with very few winners, imagine if we had no laws against monopolies, would average people stand a chance or would they forever be beholden to the “company store”?
And you are assuming that our “pure capitalism” is restricted to the USA, in our new global world, communist China is winning the “pure capitalism” game, are you okay with that outcome or would you like to see some protectionism?
In reality, NO economic system can function in its “pure” form and it’s up to each society to determine just what kind of world they want to live in and that requires, DRAWING LINES.
Just for your eyes censoring idiot!
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/10/occupy-wall-street-blame-the-jews-hitlers-bankers-wall-street.html
LOL – As I have predicted the pogrom is cumming.
LOL I’m really interested in some provocateur or flake that Pam Gellar claims to have seen in a crowd (in her fevered Muslim-hating dreams.) I wouldn’t infect my browser with Pam’s site.
No, let me coin a phrase: I wouldn’t browse PAM’s site with YOUR modem.
Geoff is never going to get the point that the very few having most of the wealth is just not going to be a sustainable system, unless of course we just continue to degenerate into a third world country, with his full complicity. How very sad for those with so much having to contribute to schools, libraries, and healthcare for the great unwashed. Poor bastards.
I’m still awaiting his defense of the Dickensian worldview and how he suwares it with his professed Christianity.
gw I agree with newbie and renember nobama thinks the constitution is a FLAWED DOCUMENT .
As originally written (which I think what his comment referred to), it was. Do you dispute that?
Think, Grate One! Use that little gusano noggin of yours! A slave is three-fifths of a white man? No vote for women? NO BILL OF RIGHTS? Flaws, you think?
The Three-Fifths Clause is often misinterpreted. Don’t think of it as “60%”. Think of it as “-60%.”
It doesn’t deal with the value of a person or anything like that. It’s purely about state representation in the House of Representatives. Slaves were considered to be 0% of a person, for voting purposes. But the slave states wanted them to be counted as 100% of a person for purposes of apportioning representatives. That means that their slavemasters would get extra power in Congress to vote against the interests of the slaves.
The northern states said “no, we’re not going to give you extra votes to ‘represent’ your slaves.” They haggled and settled at 60% representation. This artificially inflated the power of the South. Counting them as “100%” for this particular purpose would have been even worse.
And Mr. Diamond…What is the chances of a Girl from a single family home, on welfare, thousands a miles away with no real education, no money, no job and from a war torn part of the world, coming to Sunny California and becoming pretty successful….And doing it on her own at 18yrs old!!!! Would you say a 1% chance!
The reason they have a 1% chance is because of my 1% personality!
MQ,
FYI; 1% isn’t good.
Although maybe you’ve finally joined the reality based community;
“The reason they have a 1% chance is because of my 1% personality!”
So true!
LOL, Anonster!
Oh, I disagree, you can have a 9% substance abuse in welfare recipients and a 100% idiot rate in liberals and for me who left their home thousands of miles away at such an early age on my own and has done better than 49% of the population that does not work. I would say, 1 might be just 1% of the population that has done that, and done it well.
And being 1% is fine by me!
So true, right LAURA! lol
Bye the way Anonster, could you be the wee elderly woman with the red hair at the BIG occupy Irvine? If so how cute and scottish you look lol…
Grow your hair out more in a bob; it would be a younger style on you. Mr. Diamond, no advice for you on looks:(
Oh THAT’s what the freak is thinking – she thinks you are Marselle, Anonster.
Whatever, I guess she’ll believe what she wants. Marselle IS pretty cool, as is anonster. But neither are elderly….
I was not guessing, I was asking….did not mean to offend with the elderly thing (just meant older lady)and she would suit a bob:0)
Thank you, Mitey. I’ll notify my wife.
She is a very nice looking lady, nothing meant by it! And I do again think her hair would look fab, if she bobbed it, so please do let her know! :0)
Fine, fine, Quinn, I will pass that on.
flaw = NOBAMA , LIBS , DEM PARTY
Okay. I guess that’s the best you can do.
It’s like arguing with a biscuit.
By the way, Editor – Incoming!
Wait, wait, wait…let’s not let The Grating One off quite THAT easily.
Hey Grating One, do you think that the Constitution, as originally written, was a perfect document without ANY flaws?
Step up to the plate and share your wisdom with us on this fine Friday!
The comma usage alone leaves much to be desired.
Not to step on TGO’s tail (he can very much answer for himself). But I would like to say, NO, the constitution is not flawed at all! The founders wrote the very words to make it flawless, “We the People”. You see they did not say, “We the repres, courts, congress, etc…They made it clear that the people could have the power to change things by voting, cultural trends etc…..See idiots like you Anon, Diamond, silly little liberals believe the constitution is flawed because you can not change the constitution without the people’s consent…And yes the liberal activist judges and people in power will try, but the constitution as constructed is flawless!
I Corinthians 13:11:
I’ll bet that I’m not the only one who thought about this when reading MQ’s “the founders wrote it so it’s flawless screed, am I?
Who’s intelligence would you bet on, an old guy who thinks it’s right to take from people who achieve and give it to people who don’t and won’t, or a young woman half his age that knows socialism has never worked and never will?
Michelle Quinn Says and Quote:
“When I was a child, I said it as it was, I tried not to lie, steal from others, spoke only the truth as I saw it, and used my common sense to solve problems. Then I grew up and I lied to hide the truth, stole from others like Marxism taught me too and found collectiveness instead of individuality . I became a liberal and with that, I lost all common sense and pure reasoning”.
You’re 25 or younger and have three kids, but spend the weekends drinking cold beer with your steak-and-kidney pie? That’s interesting.
Sorry, No I am older, but alas time has been good to me, not so for you it appears. 🙁
And there is nothing wrong with drinking a few beers on the weekend, just as long as it’s not distributed money to pay for it and what is wrong with steak and kidney pie on the weekend I might ask?
And relax, I am pulling your very liberal and easy chain.
Yes, yeeessss, and “the people” always make perfect, unflawed decisions too. How would that Constitutional Amendment banning the manufacture and sale of alcohol be working for you if it was still in effect?
Usually, among the intelligent people the arguments are decided and resolved based on preponderance of the evidence.
With liberal left socialists that impossible to achieve.
Nelson name one socialistic country which lasted for about 200 years, having major civil war, and achieved economic strength and prosperity as did USA based on the socialistic system.
How long do you think socialism has formally been around, Camarillo? What you’re doing is like saying “name me one baseball team that’s been around for 200 years” in an attempt to prove the impossibility of baseball. Shame would compel a lesser human being to stop.
“How long do you think socialism has formally been around, Camarillo?”……… Hmmmm
Firstly, it is Camaro not Camarillo you idiot and my question was directed to these who can argue intelligently which excludes idiots.
Since you have ask stupid question like that, based on preponderance of the evidence, not what I think, the answer is that socialism was around since the caveman and it always failed.
Prior to USA, the pilgrims try it in the Plymouth Rock Colony and virtually starved to death. The Indians felt sorry for the idiots and bring them some turkey to save moron mongoloids from the socialism.
So do not forget on November 24 to celebrate the end of the socialism in the Plymouth Rock Colony.
Learn moron mongoloid leftist!
You may start here: William Bradford’s History of Plimoth Plantation, 1620-1647
Now crawl back under your rock you socialist.
It’s “Camarillo.” You’ll never get to be “Camaro.” If they build a prominent psych hospital in Corona, you may become “Corona,” but that’s your best possible aspiration.
Who among the cavemen owned the means of production? What sort of social welfare system did they have?
I’m not surprised that you can’t define “socialism.” Aghast, but not surprised.
“Who among the cavemen owned the means of production?”……. Hmmmm
I knew it, you are total uneducated moron mongoloid!
You and Nelson, two pseudo intellectual snobs.
FYI, Corona spells Caro you idiot.
You apparently think that “socialism” means “whatever I don’t like.” Given your alleged personal history, Camarillo, that’s amazing.
[You apparently think that “socialism” means “whatever I don’t like.”]…… Hmmmmm
Once a while I do feel sorry for challenged individuals with learning disorder so I will try to help you.
The socialism is:
A social system in which the means of producing and distributing goods are owned collectively and political power is exercised by the whole community.
Therefore, stone hits Mammoth which produces goods. The goods are own collectively by the cave community which will decide based on politics who will get what. So the community leaders will get most and the rest will get little.
In contrast Individualism is:
I kill rabbit it is my goods and I will decide what to do with it. Multiplicity of many individuals who decide their own destiny produces society build on a coalitions and politics for purpose of need.
Historically, only individualistically based communities prevailed over the socialistic one.
Do you understand idiot?
If you disagree, name one community based on socialism which existed for about 200 years.
Well, if you’re defining cave dweller communities as being “socialist,” then you’ve answered your own question. They appear to have persisted more than 200 years. (You’re not a “Young Earth” creationist, right?)
Faila (I’ll stop using “Camarillo” for a while), you seem obsessed with calling people “idiot” and “moron mongoloid.” Did you get a lot of this as a child or something? I don’t think I’ve met anyone who does it so much.
“Well, if you’re defining cave dweller communities as being “socialist,” then you’ve answered your own question.”……. Hmmmmm
I have defined both socialist based communities and individually based communities.
The only individually based communities survived because there is no evidence that any larger empire which followed was based on the socialism.
anon did you come back from the stinkfest rally in ny . did you pick up lots of anti american slogans , along with the i want everything crowd .
Well that didn’t really answer my question, Grating One.
Would you like to try again?
you didnt anwser mine .. your anwser is back then yes . now what flaws does it have currently i want to hear your anwser . our prentender in chife thinks its flawed
I’m sure you’ve repeated that so many times you think it’s true. Most other people know that Obama correctly said it was flawed at the start.
But I can think of a few little ways it could be better (and that’s why our Founding Fathers gave us the ability to amend it – DUH.) First of all it should clearly say that corporations do not have the same rights as people – it should enumerate what corporations rights and responsibilities are and aren’t – and specify that spending money is not protected free speech. And then it could also get rid of those anti-democratic anachronisms, the electoral college and the Senate itself. And there’s no reason we shouldn’t have an Equal Rights Amendment after all these decades.
Course, that’s me talking, not President Obama.
I didn’t ask you what flaws it has currently. I asked you if the original document had any flaws. You can play these childish games, but if you’re not going to provide a simple answer to a simple question, then just go away.
I think, anon, that these sorts of responses only work if you write them backwards, paste it to their foreheads, and hope that they eventually find a mirror.
Even pasted and posted, stupid is stupid!
I could say the same with liberals, but I don’t think anything could stick to the flea party and I can bet the mirror would break…..OMG!
I though my husband was a slob, but OMG!
no anon you go away and crawl back to liberal hippie hole just like your party .
I guess the Occupiers only believe in redistributing wealth when it doesn’t belong to them:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/criminal_occupation_oh3CnKANUqYHrGPCaZaLRK