Occupy Wall St Discussion 1

LikeComment

Tag Photo

P I work 2 jobs and have a small business.. I am the 1%... Keep up the hard work 99%. I'll be paying 100% of your medical bills in no time! — with ...  ·  ·  · Share · October 11 8 people like this. 50 of 60 M Cute that you think you are in the 1%, Pete. But you obviously have not taken the time to research who the 1% and 99% are and what the occupation (that you are passing off so easily as just priviledged kids) is actually about AND how broad ...See More October 12 at 10:27am ·  ·  2 people A this is too funny October 12 at 10:34am ·  ·  2 people M I tagged more people who can educate you in the weaknesses of your ideas, so this conversation isn't so one-sided. Join in, guys!!! October 12 at 10:40am ·  ·  2 people M I'm writing all this while on-the-go from my mobile right now, but I'll add much more when I get to a computer. Looking forward to having this conversation. October 12 at 10:55am ·  H Hello Pete. Nice to meet you! October 12 at 11:25am ·  ·  1 person H The best thing about the occupying is the platform for discussion, for the exchange of ideas to improve our country. Go to your local occupy and express your feelings. You'd be surprised about how much you could learn about what is actually going on in your country, not what is delivered to you by the corporate hands who not only run your television stations, but most of your nations decisions. If the people who own 99% percent of the nations wealth were taxed, just like every other hard working American, then maybe you would be able to work just one extra job in order to pursue your American dream, your business. Don't assume that the people at the protest are lazy expecting handouts. I know most of these people you have tagged here and they are some of the hardest workers. Keep conversing and voicing your opinion! Even better, off of facebook and near the nearest occupy. Have a nice day. And hello fellow bums! Keep it up! October 12 at 11:34am ·  ·  5 people B honest, I just want that iphone. My crackberry is that held back child who just can't get caught up October 12 at 12:24pm ·  ·  3 people Garrett Frierson  Hey Peter, and hey Adam! Heather and Maya are right about you guys not quite understanding what these protests are about, but that's easy to do when it's mostly getting negative coverage by media that has a stake in it's failure. This movement is about inciting conversation and debate that's absent in American politics because money is what buys access to politicians, so those that have money get to shape policy in ways that are beneficial to them while the majority of American's go unheard. The supreme court cases Santa Clara County vs Pacific Railroad gave corporations the same rights as people without any of the responsibility, and the recent Citizens United Supreme Court decision deemed money as free speech and allows for limitless secret spending to influence elections. Since that decision more money has flowed from corporations and extremely wealthy persons into politics than at any time in history, essentially blocking anyone who doesn't kowtow to the wants and needs of corporations and extreme wealth can't even begin to think about entering politics, and so our national discourse becomes very limited. This movement is about restarting that discourse and talking about important issues (like holding the President and Congress accountable for their jobs) and not on frivolous matters the 'news' channels like to focus on (Obama's birth certificate). Every evening each occupy has a General Assembly that are open to the public, stop by and talk to the people about why they're there and the ways that we can move America forward. If we don't, then we're leaving the future of our nation up to a political system that most of us are extremely jaded with. October 12 at 12:56pm ·  ·  4 people S so, i don't know most of you, but i have been keeping my eye on all of this and would like to say something. first, i like the idea behind these protests, but feel that the execution is tremendously lacking. what garrett said is all too t...See More October 12 at 1:32pm ·  ·  1 person O Trolling with my homies. October 12 at 1:59pm ·  ·  4 people Al I am pretty sure he was being facetious when it comes to being 'in' the 1%. Literally speaking, he is 'for' the 1% October 12 at 2:18pm ·  ·  4 people H Of course it is not all media Sam! But yes, at the end of the day Rupert Murdoch has the right to allow or not allow certain pieces to be shown on the networks and newpapers that he owns. He has openly admitted that fox news is an entertainment channel..... October 12 at 2:31pm ·  ·  2 people S you won't see me sticking up for fox news. i am curious, though, why do you care about fox news so much? it is one network in a sea of them. and, if you want to approach things from a non biased perspective, msnbc provides the balance to a network like fox news. also, rupert murdoch makes almost no editorial decisions at fox news. October 12 at 2:42pm ·  Garrett Frierson  On the topic of why the protesters began on Wall St and are now camped out in most of the financial districts in major cities across the country: Protests are symbols used to call attention to problems and issues, and Wall St is the biggest symbol in our culture for our broken financial system and it's collusion with the government. Politicians are (theoretically at this point) the ones we hold accountable, but we have no power to hold them accountable. The amounts of money they need to run for office (to pay for things like television time) are generally only accessible through big money donors, who use this as leverage for getting the reforms they want. Congress is bought, and it seems the most effective way to show this is to bring focus on the symbol that bought them. October 12 at 3:03pm ·  ·  1 person Garrett Frierson  Also, it should generally be acknowledged that Fox is a pretty blatant propaganda machine that is a great example of how media skews our American discourse. That being said, I agree with Sam that people waist a lot of energy hating fox and getting riled up about it. Yes it is big, serves it's own interests, and is owned by a creepy Australian billionaire. The people running the network know how what they're doing, they're out to make a profit. They thrive on 'controversy' that walks the line between comic and insane, but their opponents always take the bait and try to point out the hypocrisies and flaws in their 'news' instead of ignoring it and getting on with more pressing problems. Every minute waisted on them is a minute we should be spending trying to fix the real problems we have. October 12 at 3:11pm ·  ·  2 people Garrett Frierson  Other media organizations are less blatant than Fox, but, with respect to Sam, I think they also limit our national discourse. They tend to be reactionary, sensational, and profit driven, swinging the national focus to whatever is hottest at the moment instead of being the forum for democracy. We can talk about how this is as much a social trend as it is a business/media one, but the two are related and shape each other. It should say something about the American media when millions of Americans choose to get their news from Al Jazeera and the BBC. October 12 at 3:17pm ·  S i disagree with you that "wall street is the biggest symbol in our culture for our broken financial system and it's collusion with government" (not meaning to use the quotes in a snarky way, i just think you described it well). i still maintain that the steps of congress are where that is symbolized to a gross level, not wall street. when our bill of rights guarantees america's citizens the right to participation in government, and we are put on the back burner for corporate interests, it gets me boiling. but corporations are not always going to have our back. they strive for profit. government, on the other hand, is supposed to represent our interests. i think we are both upset about similar things, so there isn't any use debating the point of the protests or where they are happening. in general, i would like to see our government figures catching the heat for this (all of them, bush, obama, clinton, congress), because they are the ones who make, the laws in this country which allowed us to be in the state we are in. as for the media aspect, it is the thing i struggle with the most in regards to working in the industry. every time i produce a show, i have to consider what things are the most current and sensational things happening in the world. later in life i want to pursue something more educational and less limited by typical the news format. however, the good news is that you can make decisions which give some attention to things that may get overlooked elsewhere (occupy wall street is typically prominently featured in my newscasts). October 12 at 3:37pm ·  B I think its amazing how much attention liberals give fox news. Do you understand that MSNBC, NPR (which everyone pays for), half of CNN, all of ABC, NBC, CBS are left leaning? I'm not supporting fox, b/c I honestly cringe every time I see h...See More October 12 at 3:45pm ·  ·  4 people Garrett Frierson  ‎@Sam Whole heartedly yes on holding public figures accountable, but I feel we should also shine a light on those who profit from the system and use their influence behind the scenes to influence our policy makers. That's why Citizens United and campaign finance reform are so important, making the way politicians get their money transparent so the public knows where their financial interests lie. Also, kudos for doing your best in the confines of the media industry, I'm of the opinion that our problems are systematic and not the fault of most of the people working in it (similar to most wall st employees). October 12 at 3:50pm ·  ·  3 people Garrett Frierson Also, Occupy DC just started up October 12 at 3:52pm ·  ·  1 person Garrett Frierson  ‎@Bo actually Obama has been completely silent about OWS, I think he's scared to commit either way because that will divide his supporters, just like he's been scared to take a firm stance on just about everything else he talked about in his campaign. Fox's anchors are hotter because they understand how much entertainment is now apart of American news (or at least they're less shameful about it). A common misconception about the protesters is that they are 'hippies' and wholly anti-corporate so people love to point out they use iPhones and where H&M. These are not 'anti-corporate' protesters, they are anti-corporatocracy protesters. Corporations do many things well within the confines of the free market, but because they are wholly profit driven, regulation is needed to make sure that they pursue their interests in a way that does not damage the common good. The corporate influence on politics has nullified just about all regulations that are meant to protect our physical and financial health, as well as that of our planet. These protesters aren't out calling for a tearing down of the modern world so everyone can eat granola and hold hands (ew) but rather they are calling for everyone to take a step back and come to the table with a fresh perspective. Many occupiers have very different opinions about what needs to happen, but they all agree something needs to happen and the way to bring about any kind of change is to re-open our democratic channels of debate and discussion. Every General Assembly includes debate and voting about the direction each occupation should take, while people are always free to go off and do their own thing. The corporate tax you're talking about is something we need to discuss as a nation, because they're is a lot of debate and misinformation floating around that make it hard to understand what the historical and economic predictors indicate would happen if that tax was instated. October 12 at 4:40pm ·  ·  2 people B The corporate tax is a fact actually. The corporations will just hand down the cost of extra taxes to the consumer, or ship more jobs overseas, or just keep money on the sidelines. Right now there are trillions of dollars on the sidelines waiting to be invested, but they aren't because there is uncertainty surrounding taxes, the ability to hire and repercussions of doing so once health care overhaul takes place. I'm not a super pro corporate person.. I share almost nothing in common with those that run those companies, but I don't know what OWS wants to gain from their protests. Obama has actually not been silent. He's spoken numerous times explaining that he shares the same feelings and frustrations as the protests, and the democratic party has backed OWS as well as every major union in america, which all of them financially support obama and his party. I was definitely joking about Fox's anchors, but I'm glad you found it to be true. My point that I made earlier is simply saying that I believe OWS is centering its arguments completely at the wrong people.. if they want change it needs to be in DC where policy makers drive decisions that affect all of us, and corporations. There should be more outcry that our government is bankrupt, spending trillions more than we have, robbing our social security, and putting our futures in jeopardy. October 12 at 4:48pm ·  ·  3 people Garrett Frierson  Personally, I'm a huge proponent of deliberative democracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberative_democracy (http://www.deliberative-democracy.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=57) as a way for us to tackle many of our problems. Essentially, It circumvents moneyed interests affecting decision making by taking a sampling of citizens from all walks of life and then letting experts on both sides of major issues each give them a presentation. These citizens are then directly involved in policy making. Deliberative democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia en.wikipedia.org Deliberative democracy (also called discursive democracy) is a form of democracy...See More October 12 at 4:50pm ·  ·  1 person ·  Garrett Frierson  I think there is a break in the discussion where we talk about the corporate tax rate and the actual taxes paid by corporations. It's true that we have a high corporate tax rate, and bringing it down to levels of other modern nations is a good idea, but it's also a good idea to make sure the corporations actually pay taxes. Google and most other multinationals use loopholes to pay an affective tax rate lower than 5%http://www.npr.org/2011/09/10/138867588/corporate-taxes-how-low-can-you-go and many others paid none at all. Lowering the tax rate down into the 20% range should co-inside with closing tax loopholes that allow them to pay very little no matter what the tax rate. In regards to what the protesters want to gain, I noted to Sam that they look to open up debate and discussion that's currently lacking in America. They're pointing out that the line between private and public has been blurred with bank bailouts, subsidies to oil companies and the like. Many of these companies use these profits to boost CEO pay and corporate profit while laying off workers http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/09/01/paid-off-for-layoffs-ceos-at-pink-slip-leaders-earned-42-more/ You can argue that it's their right to do so and that's the way the free market works, but thousands and thousands of people are losing their livelihoods and their homes while a small group of people are getting wealthier and wealthier. Bank of America (recipient of $45 billion in bailout funds) announced it is cutting 30,000 jobs this year just around the time it announced payouts to 2 former and one current executive totally $30 million, all while foreclosing on thousands of American homes. It also spent $4 million on lobbyists fighting regulation last year alone. Occupying Wall St, Boston, SF, Chicago, St. Louis, Seattle, Portland, Atlanta, Toronto, and hundreds of other cities is a way of bringing these facts to light and letting others know that we the citizenry have the power to stand up and fight for our economic and political rights. October 12 at 5:26pm ·  ·  2 people Garrett Frierson This isn't by the OWS, but Bernie Sanders recently wrote an article outlining 6 demands for Wall St (via Congress) to help return our financial industry to it's proper state, accumalating and providing capital for business and industry.http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/10/12-6 Six Demands to Make of Wall Street www.commondreams.org The Occupy Wall Street protests are shining a national spotlight on the most pow...See More October 12 at 5:33pm ·  ·  2 people ·  S Disclaimer: I didn't read ANY of this. The 1%= the people who use their money to BUY political power by financing elections and such. Not like, making donations to people you like sometimes, but funding campaigns in the millions- koch brothers and such. Do you do that? I doubt it. October 12 at 10:20pm ·  ·  3 people S you are the 99% October 12 at 10:20pm ·  ·  2 people T http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/s720x720/310316_2125660338210_1146954628_32011350_1390187753_n.jpg October 12 at 10:20pm ·  ·  4 people S ‎@garrett i like a lot of your ideas, especially deliberative democracy. i am not entirely informed on the issue (plan on going back and reading more), but didn't iceland recently engage in something similar, which resulted in the country rejecting bailouts and nationalizing debt? if so, i am all for it. you are also correct that all forms of corporate welfare should be brought to an end. my man john huntsman speaks the truth when he says "broaden the base and lower the rate". a thorough reform of the corporate tax code is in order. then, we need to work on restoring credibility to our process of government. campaign finance is a messy, and ultimately corrupt game. stephen colbert recently did a highly entertaining and informative segment about PAC's and 501 (c)(4) organizations which essentially allow for money to go towards campaigns without any knowledge of where it originated. scary stuff. at the same time, though, i think we have to realize that most money in elections is bad, not just corporate. the fact that unions can form PAC's and become political entities is in some ways just as scary as corporations having those rights. unions are not meant to have political sway and be able to make large donations to campaigns. it is another example of politicians being submitted to special interests which do not represent the average person. while we romanticize unions being the answer to corporate interests and on the side of the everyday man, there are many examples of them dictating policy which only furthers their own interests. corporate personhood is bad, so is union personhood. that should be clear. also @steve powerdrill (not that he will read this, since he clearly has something against reading), thanks for assuming we are not intelligent and don't get the very simple sentiment of who the 99 and 1 percent are. i think what pete was saying, though, (correct me if i am wrong) is that he does not associate himself with the claims the "99%" are making. and i think we should be ok with that being his opinion, since we also have to subject ourselves to yours. October 13 at 1:07am ·  ·  2 people P Thank you Sam October 13 at 1:49am ·  ·  1 person Garrett Frierson  ‎  ‎@S I'm in total agreement, union personhood can be just as destructive as corporate personhood, both should simply be ways of organizing people and should counterbalance each other when it comes to the relationship between capital and labor. It's just over the past few decades corporations have become much more powerful than unions and therefore have caused the majority of the problems, any solutions we come up with should keep both corporations and unions in check. Money in politics is a losing game for everyone but the top players. October 13 at 2:10am ·  Garrett Frierson On a side note, I think the Colbert Super PAC is fucking genius. October 13 at 2:10am ·  E Steve, shoulda just read it... A's comment, lol. P.S. , this was a fun read, thank you for posting this. October 13 at 2:33am ·  ·  1 person J Let not your ignorance get in the way of your intelligence. Most Americans are happy with 2.4 kids a mortgage on a house in the suburbs, a SUV and a latte. Fill up the tank and watch football on the weekends. Go shopping at the mega mall....See More October 13 at 8:41am ·  R Jager Naut, I don't think voting is the answer, by any means. Judging from the above comments, people overwhelmingly think casting votes into a plutocratic system won't change much. Besides, people voted for Obama because he was going to ge...See More October 13 at 9:05am ·  J ‎@R.. It seems as though you are thinking in a revolutionary mindset. This is good. Voting is the answer... now.. You see, Obama had said he would make change, but the power does not lie with him alone. Congress blocks for their own interests. Look at the voting records. Have you? Why do republicans stand together and filibuster? If there were term limits, they would not be concerned about re-election. PERIOD. I have ancestors who fought and died in the American Revolution. They were tired of their wealth going to the corporation called Great Britain. The 1% of their time. They revolted and came up with this plan, which is now being whored out to the 1% again. Action. Vote them out! October 13 at 9:40am ·  J ‎@ S Where do you work? What do you decide goes on the air? Is it local news or political, economic, national security? October 13 at 9:56am ·  S ‎@r we can agree to disagree on the point of unions and campaign money. the reality, though, is that the only way campaign finance reform is going to come is if the entire country is subject to the same regulations, meaning both unions and corporations would both have to be barred from political contributions for it to actually work. one other thing, i strongly disagree that this movement is "a blueprint for a new society". while they would like to believe otherwise, OWS does not represent 99% of the country. @jager you may have some more success if you stop approaching the situation from the perspective that everyone except the people participating in occupy are 'ignorant'. when you say things like that, you immediately turn away a substantial amount of people, meaning your protests are gaining that much less traction. October 13 at 10:00am ·  ·  1 person R S, why do you want to limit union power? I think these 'occupations' are the blueprint for a new society. Society should not be a replica of these occupations. But they serve as a rubric, one subject to revision and constant re-revision. I never thought they did represent 99% of the country. It's a mostly white, male-led movement and the last time I checked, NYC was 60% non-white. This is changing, though, as more people are getting involved and people are being educated on the issues that people encounter every day. The good thing about not having demands is that it reflects the mutable nature of movements. As I said, everyone is affected by capitalism differently, so to demand things is structuring something that has little structure. October 13 at 10:08am ·  S Ryan, why do you think unions should have power beyond ensuring the rights of the worker within the company/organization they exist in? allowing them to have political influence reflects the same drawback of corporations having influence : politicians have to bend to them in order to get elected, and ultimately will require a $ campaign contribution in return. it is crony politics, and it does not help us. unions are good right up until the point they become politically motivated. in short, unions helping workers = good, unions giving campaign contributions = bad. @Jager, i work at a local news station, so we cover local politics/government and other local issues. we are not opinion or editorial based, so we have to confirm and balance all of our reporting, unlike fox or msnbc. October 13 at 10:34am ·  ·  2 people J ‎@S That is good.. keep up the good work, localism is the best way. Seriously. Buy local food, become connected in the community.... Don't sell out to the corps. I guarantee that a producer, while being interviewed for a position in the national scene, will be asked what his/her beliefs are from politics to religion. October 13 at 10:38am ·  R Well, I'm a syndicalist and, by extension, I favor worker control of factories, controlling the means of production, output, and the state of their workplace, etc. If we are talking voting and party politics, then I think unions should have power to fight depreciating wages, bad conditions, and bad pension schemes through voting and through industrial action. Party politicians need to know where the power lies: not with them, but with workers. Because unions are democratic in their structure (they aren't democratically accountable to the public, though) they are accountable to their members. They ballott for strike action and hold meetings which are open to all members. If you are worried about this crony politics, you should join a union so their endeavours would become yours! Unions do not exploit the underclasses as they are composed of the underclasses. Unions aren't all good, of course, as they relinquish responsibilities and often throw some of their members under the bus when it comes to fighting for individuals in workplaces. They are also bureaucratic. Ideally, we wouldn't have any money in politics, but as that isn't going to happen, I support unions because they support workers. I don't think equating the power of corporations to the power of unions is possible or useful. October 13 at 10:52am ·  S once again, i completely support unions representing workers within a company to ensure rights. you have given no instance where unions contributing to campaigns is actually a good thing, just a means to an end. furthermore, besides giving a framework for a minimum/living wage, working conditions, and ethical practices, the government does not really have any role within the machinations of a private company, therefore the unions influence should not extend past the organization they exist within, because politicians should not be giving sweetheart deals to corporation or unions. also, the cynicism in your closing statement is alarming. you say you believe that OWS helps provide a "framework for a new society" but say "ideally, we wouldn't have money in politics, but as that isn't going to happen"... so what is your purpose in supporting OWS? Isn't this an attempt to get corporate/financial interest out of politics to ensure the everyday citizen is represented in government? my point is that unions are another example of issues being dominated by special interests which have the financial means to sway politicians. just because they represent employees does not make them outside the realm of crony politics. it all needs to go. also @jager, it is illegal for any questions to come up which inquire about politics, religion, personal beliefs in an interview. you should know your rights in those situations if that ever comes up. October 13 at 1:58pm ·  R Right. Getting money out of politics won't happen through voting. Sorry if I wasn't clear. The reason I support OWS is because it has no affiliation to any party. Politics as we know it won't regress into a more primitive system unless something outside of the ballot box happens, which is where something like OWS comes in. I see OWS-and its offshoots-as something that won't beg for treats from the system. I see it as a potentially radical force that can evolve into something much more important than occupying a public park. They should support the jobs bill, yeah, but ultimately if they say 'we want money out of politics' the power still lies with those in Washington. I don't want that and I think people are willing to fight for the decentralization of power. They shouldn't work with politicians, MoveOn or any other bullshit organization that's just going to pander to parties. And why do I need to give a concrete example of why unions are a good thing? Aren't collectives of workers good? Shouldn't self-determination be valued? Shouldn't they value their work and refuse to be exploited? Don't get me wrong, I don't want anyone contributing to the two party system, but when push comes to shove, I support unions giving money to politicians over corporations. If that means having more political power in this system, fine, but that isn't what I would work towards. I'm not necessarily advocating for contributing to a party because I'm against that, but it's certainly better than corporations giving money-the other part of your equation. If we are to compare unions with corporation, unions need political leverage to support their workers. The 'special interests' you point out are the interests of workers. I don't know if they count as special interests in the way you mean it. They are people, not balance sheets. Individuals supporting their families, not corporations, are not and should not be seen as 'special interests'. Message me if you want to keep taking about this, I won't be visiting this page again. October 13 at 3:05pm ·  ·  2 people G this is extremely enlightening. October 13 at 6:25pm ·  ·  3 people S definitely enlightening. haha, going back, it seems like i was trolling everyone in here, taking opposing viewpoint from people. i should say i agree almost wholeheartedly with ryan, our two party system is completely bogus, and that OWS is giving a forum for people to experience some form of empowerment when our government seemingly boxes them out from our political process. our financial institutions need to be scaled back, glass-steagall reinstated, and campaign finance needs an overhaul. then, we need to implement a system of government which represent's it's citizens better. i personally favor proportional representation on the local level, there are a lot of positive aspects to PR and i recommend people understand that there are options besides the two party system we have. i do disagree with ryan over unions, but who cares? that's a well informed guy right there, and i respect his view. October 13 at 9:19pm ·  ·  3 people Garrett Frierson Here here! The main point is that we all think our current system is fucked up, and that through discussion, debate, and dissidence we can (hopefully) bring some very needed change to this country. October 13 at 11:15pm ·  ·  1 person R And I love you all.