Does the Occupy Wall Street movement represent the 99%?

Keridan · Nov 23, 2011

Wake said:
According to TIME that makes you apart of the 99%, in terms of income. You aren't required to agree with them.

I think you read that wrong and would like to give you a chance to rebut again. I fall below, not within, the 1%.

Wake · Nov 23, 2011

Keridan said:
I think you read that wrong and would like to give you a chance to rebut again. I fall below, not within, the 1%.

I edited it after you quoted my response, and saved it before you posted your response.

Keridan · Nov 23, 2011

Wake said:
I edited it after you quoted my response, and saved it before you posted your response.

Hehe ... we'll move forward, then.

Just because they fall within the income of the 99% and make the claim doesn't actually make them the representatives of the 99%. If a bunch of prison inmates suddenly decided to call themselves the 99%, would they be the new representatives? They fall in the income range...

Roughly a third and falling percent supports them. Maybe they represent the 33%. They make up less than 1% of the population, maybe they are the 1%...

If they were elected by 99% of the people to speak for them or held a true 99% following, I would buy that phrase. Otherwise, I'm not a fan of them claiming to speak for me.

Wake · Nov 23, 2011

Keridan said:
Just because they fall within the income of the 99% and make the claim doesn't actually make them the representatives of the 99%. If a bunch of prison inmates suddenly decided to call themselves the 99%, would they be the new representatives? They fall in the income range...

Roughly a third and falling percent supports them. Maybe they represent the 33%. They make up less than 1% of the population, maybe they are the 1%...

If they were elected by 99% of the people to speak for them or held a true 99% following, I would buy that phrase. Otherwise, I'm not a fan of them claiming to speak for me.

Well, they are the ones who have tried to represent the 99%. Though, your first sentence is understandable. Prison inmates don't have credibility, unlike disillusioned citizens.

Interesting. TIMES shows that there were European protesters who showed solidarity with the OWS. Though, I think when it comes to OWS matters, the percentages refer to citizens of America---not the whole world.

It is true they claim to represent the 99%, and that the 99% are people who make an average yearly income of $54,792. It's also understandable that there are lower class people who would support the high class..

Right now, I'm checking the arguments of others, as in yours and TIME's.

Do you think it would be wise to take TIME magazine with a couple shakes of salt?

Catawba · Nov 23, 2011

Keridan said:
My income falls below the 1% and they sure don't represent my views.

The point is that they represent your interests.

Wake · Nov 23, 2011

Catawba said:
The point is that they represent your interests.

Do they, really?

When you make such a broad claim, you're going to have to convince us.

Keridan · Nov 23, 2011

Wake said:
Well, they are the ones who have tried to represent the 99%. Though, your first sentence is understandable. Prison inmates don't have credibility, unlike disillusioned citizens.

Interesting. TIMES shows that there were European protesters who showed solidarity with the OWS. Though, I think when it comes to OWS matters, the percentages refer to citizens of America---not the whole world.

It is true they claim to represent the 99%, and that the 99% are people who make an average yearly income of $54,792. It's also understandable that there are lower class people who would support the high class..

Right now, I'm checking the arguments of others, as in yours and TIME's.

Do you think it would be wise to take TIME magazine with a couple shakes of salt?

I would treat TIME as any other source. Be wary of bias, but don't discount it. If you question the numbers, do additional research. I'm not saying they are wrong in their numbers (though I've seen different ones), just that I don't think those numbers validate the statement of representation.

I don't think they are horrible people for claiming to speak for others, pick a news outlet, elected official, or a thousand other people. It's common. It irritates me when anyone claims to speak for me without my endorsement. In this particular case, recent polling shows (by interpretation) that many folks agree with me.

If I was going to mention things that upset me about OWS, this would be low on the list. It's not a huge list but I won't give it right now because it's largely been covered in previous posts.

Josie · Nov 23, 2011

Catawba said:
The point is that they represent your interests.

The poll results prove otherwise.

Slartibartfast · Nov 23, 2011

They represent the portion of the citizenry that agrees with them.

Keridan · Nov 23, 2011

Catawba said:
The point is that they represent your interests.

That statement makes too many assumptions for me to really address. They represent what they believe my interests to be, but so do I and I disagree with them.

justabubba · Nov 23, 2011

Freedom From al said:
Dividing the population by income is a false flag. It is an attempt to manipulate people to join a movement that has a specific ideology.

we only hear complaints about the class war when we fight back

hell, Warren Buffett has advised us that we are being routed

The 99% ploy is called "Bandwagon appeal"

when the bandwagon is the 99%
duh!

The 'occupy movement' is asking us to jump off a bridge just because they are.

no bridge jumping going on

i believe you are confused. it is among the tea party that one should expect to see the lemmings jump without thinking; doing as they have been told

By trying to make the majority of the 'common folk' hostile towards the 'rich folk'.

the only parties initiating hostility appear to be law enforcement. OWS has been about passive resistance
and the reich wing media and those that follow it seem hostile about the OWS ... but that is likely because they don't have the mental firepower to grasp what it is about

Meanwhile the Occupiers purposely makes the appearance of having no real agenda.

for you to say that, then you must have proof that they actually do have an agenda that has not been disclosed. share your proof with us ... or are you just making this **** up

But there are some facts about the Occupy movement: The movement is entirely from the Left.

that is interesting. how is it you are so certain that there are no participants with a right lean

Is factional. There is not any agreement among those factions.

so, this coming together to participate in peaceful protest is by non-aligned groups. but would it not seem that they are aligned if they have come together to participate together in the protest
your presentation makes no sense. show us your proof about these disharmonious factions

There is a large amount of far leftists among the General Assemblies.

now, you already asserted that the OWS participants - ALL of them - are from the left. so aren't you being redundant when you tell us that is the lean of the OWS participants who also serve in the General Assemblies

The General Assembly mechanism makes all of the decisions for the Occupy movement.

again, interesting to know
now share with us the evidence that shows your assertion to be correct
for me, it is difficult to imagine that every protesting participant is waiting around just waiting to be told what to do. especially when the participants are those protesting to preserve their individual rights as provided by the Constitution
but i will be opened minded about it and will give you the opportunity to show us that ALL OWS decisions are made by the members of the General Assemblies and that no other participants make individual decisions
maybe you will also tell us how the General Assembly members are chosen and who they are, recognizing you profess to have all this first hand insight about the OWS' internal operations
you are just a treasure trove of information. thank you in advance

Any action by the Occupy movement must be by consensus.

now you are confusing me. admittedly, an easy thing to do
but you just got thru telling us that the General Assemblies made ALL the OWS decisions
now you are saying something quite different. you are now telling us that OWS decisions are made by consensus. so, which is it, consensus or General Assembly that drives the decision making

You can only get that consensus through the General assemblies.

that does not make sense, either
consensus indicates that all have provided their consent to a decision
but it also indicates that consensus can also be blocked by one (or a designated portion) of the participants participating in the decision making
so, explain for us the process used to establish consensus developed at the General Assemblies' level

The general assembly is a small percentage of the Occupy movement. So the reality is that the General assembly is dictating to the majority of the followers of the Occupy movement.

but that is the opposite outcome than is expected when decisions are made by consensus
the decision is not finalized until whatever degree of consent has been established as satisfactory has been attained

so, what you have done with your post is prompt a lot of questions, while you have offered - at least thus far - very few answers

Wake · Nov 23, 2011

megaprogman said:
They represent the portion of the citizenry that agrees with them.

Agreed.

Then they shouldn't claim to be the 99%...?

Keridan · Nov 23, 2011

Wake said:
Agreed.

Then they shouldn't claim to be the 99%...?

I don't think they should, no. However, I would say it's a minor sin. Both statements are obviously opinion.

alexa · Nov 23, 2011

Freedom From al said:
Dividing the population by income is a false flag. It is an attempt to manipulate people to join a movement that has a specific ideology.

No, it is a statement about what they represent. All movements have a theme which they represent. Hence we had movements to get rid of racist policies, to get equal rights for women, to make being gay legal and get equal rights for them and working for workers rights through Unions or the Labour party in the UK. The occupy is a movement. As such it has something which it is addressing. Now in the '80's the movement was all against the Unions who were blamed for getting everyone into recession. Unions lost rights and workers lost rights. Politics lost. In the UK the Labour Party became New Labour simply carrying on the neo liberal policies of Thatcherism. Voices went quiet and people were left with no one to represent them and speak for them. This made people available to movements in the UK like the BNP and the EDL - far right groups. I am sure you have your own.

That was then, this is now. Who caused this recession? The very worst since the Great Depression - some say even worse than that and more to come? The 1% of course, or maybe more accurately the 0.1% who have been quietly making society more unequal since the 1980's recession.

The Occupy movement concerns this. That is what it is about. Now you do not need to agree with them. Indeed they seem to be the most democratic people I have heard for quite some time, but like it or not, if you are in the 99% then they are also speaking about you.

You may stay where you are. That is your right. I don't even know that much about them but I am very glad to at last see some people willing to make a stand.

Freedom From al said:
The 'occupy movement' is asking us to jump off a bridge just because they are. By trying to make the majority of the 'common folk' hostile towards the 'rich folk'.

Oh that is so silly. Did the people who worked for gay rights try to make people hostile towards heterosexuals. They are pointing out a very real situation which has been going on since the 1980's and which is the reason why we are in the situation we are in now and suggesting we change.

Freedom From al said:
Meanwhile the Occupiers purposely makes the appearance of having no real agenda. But there are some facts about the Occupy movement: The movement is entirely from the Left. Is factional. There is not any agreement among those factions. There is a large amount of far leftists among the General Assemblies. The General Assembly mechanism makes all of the decisions for the Occupy movement. Any action by the Occupy movement must be by consensus. You can only get that consensus through the General assemblies.

I don't think it will only be left and certainly not far left. What you have is people making a statement. In time things will develop simply because they have got people talking. Vince Cable for instance a LibDem MP says he can understand a lot of where they come from. We have long time been just for ourselves - as Madam Thatcher said 'There is no society'. They are saying 'Yes there is'.

They are talking about 'Turning a Global Crises into a Global Opportunity'. Assuming the Movement grows, it is going to attract lots of different people. The best ideas will be picked up and it could indeed move towards Global change but that will be because people want it. They are just opening the conversation.

So here is a start Robin Hood Tax | Robin Hood Tax

Catawba · Nov 23, 2011

Wake said:
Do they, really?

When you make such a broad claim, you're going to have to convince us.

If you are already convinced the super rich are the ones most looking out for your interests, rather than their bottom line, there is nothing I can say to make you think otherwise.

Catawba · Nov 23, 2011

Josie said:
The poll results prove otherwise.

What poll???

Wake · Nov 23, 2011

Catawba said:
If you are already convinced the super rich are the ones most looking out for your interests, rather than their bottom line, there is nothing I can say to make you think otherwise.

You see, that's not listening.

I never said/implied the bolded part.

You're trying to sell me an idea, so show me some good salesmanship and convince me.

Catawba · Nov 23, 2011

Wake said:
I never said/implied the bolded part.

Than you are confused about what the OWS protest is about. The OWS protest is about building the political will to re-regulate the 1% so there will once again be a more even playing field for the 99%.

Keridan · Nov 23, 2011

Catawba said:
Than you are confused about what the OWS protest is about. The OWS protest is about building the political will to re-regulate the 1% so there will once again be a more even playing field for the 99%.

False dichotomy. It's not that you either support OWS or think the 1% has your best interests at heart. I don't support OWS because I think their proposed answers are flawed, I think they have the wrong target, and I don't think it's evil for the 1% to have a lot of money. I certainly don't believe that it's the government's job to redistribute that money. I can not support either group.

Wake · Nov 23, 2011

Catawba said:
Than you are confused about what the OWS protest is about. The OWS protest is about building the political will to re-regulate the 1% so there will once again be a more even playing field for the 99%.

Actually, you are the one who may be confused. I have an understanding of what the OWS is about. That fact known, there is nothing about me being confused. You are confused when you said this: "If you are already convinced the super rich are the ones most looking out for your interests, rather than their bottom line." You see, I never said I was convinced that the super rich are looking out for my best interests. They undoubtedly don't, because humans are typically selfish and like luxury. HOWEVER, laziness and irresponsibility, as well as lack of ambition and will, are other negative aspects that humans have. You see, those same businessmen as a whole work, and trade, and compete, in order to draw in more jobs and create ever better technology.

I cannot look at the bad without looking at the good. We need corporations to fuel our economy. As with many things in life, there are both positives and negatives. You may not like the wealthy/selfish businessman because he's wealthy and arrogant, but you shouldn't discount the possibility that what he's doing might be helping our economy.

I may not like capitalism, but I also realize how bad socialism is, too. We either have freedom and people who live freely and better than others, or we bring in government regulation, which eventually leads to ever increasing regulation. I understand how valuable it is to be individualistic, as in wanting to improve one's self under capitalism. Then again, I understand how people can be so completely screwed under capitalism, as in me losing my insurance because the right keeps cutting benefits that people need. You see, there are poisons on both sides. Under a more socialistic form of healthcare, it can take hours to get treatment. I can play ping-pong with you back and foward on the pros and cons of each system, but I really don't care right now to go through that laborious process.

I never said the super rich care for my best interests. Then again, they probably do indirectly by getting trade/competition going. Then again, I don't know of any billionaire that ever came to talk honestly with the poor folk. Then again, I know how horrible it is when government stifles/sequesters competition. It's a merry-go-round of pros and cons, really.

Oh yeah, even according to who, Catawba? Iirc, you seem as though you've dabbled in talk of class warfare, so it's really interesting how you'd define "even."

My understanding is that the OWS want to reduce collusion between Washington and Wall Street, but, as the OWS have made it, there's no official list of demands. Hey, what can I say? The OWS haven't really explained their ideas, so it's nobody's fault but theirs when they're met with derision.

a351 · Nov 23, 2011

Catawba said:
What poll???

The Polls section usually entails some sort of Poll.

justabubba · Nov 23, 2011

Wake said:
Actually, you are the one who may be confused. I have an understanding of what the OWS is about. That fact known, there is nothing about me being confused. You are confused when you said this: "If you are already convinced the super rich are the ones most looking out for your interests, rather than their bottom line." You see, I never said I was convinced that the super rich are looking out for my best interests. They undoubtedly don't, because humans are typically selfish and like luxury. HOWEVER, laziness and irresponsibility, as well as lack of ambition and will, are other negative aspects that humans have. You see, those same businessmen as a whole work, and trade, and compete, in order to draw in more jobs and create ever better technology.

I cannot look at the bad without looking at the good. We need corporations to fuel our economy. As with many things in life, there are both positives and negatives. You may not like the wealthy/selfish businessman because he's wealthy and arrogant, but you shouldn't discount the possibility that what he's doing might be helping our economy.

I may not like capitalism, but I also realize how bad socialism is, too. We either have freedom and people who live freely and better than others, or we bring in government regulation, which eventually leads to ever increasing regulation. I understand how valuable it is to be individualistic, as in wanting to improve one's self under capitalism. Then again, I understand how people can be so completely screwed under capitalism, as in me losing my insurance because the right keeps cutting benefits that people need. You see, there are poisons on both sides. Under a more socialistic form of healthcare, it can take hours to get treatment. I can play ping-pong with you back and foward on the pros and cons of each system, but I really don't care right now to go through that laborious process.

I never said the super rich care for my best interests. Then again, they probably do indirectly by getting trade/competition going. Then again, I don't know of any billionaire that ever came to talk honestly with the poor folk. Then again, I know how horrible it is when government stifles/sequesters competition. It's a merry-go-round of pros and cons, really.

Oh yeah, even according to who, Catawba? Iirc, you seem as though you've dabbled in talk of class warfare, so it's really interesting how you'd define "even."

My understanding is that the OWS want to reduce collusion between Washington and Wall Street, but, as the OWS have made it, there's no official list of demands. Hey, what can I say? The OWS haven't really explained their ideas, so it's nobody's fault but theirs when they're met with derision.

you do seem to be confused
you open your post professing to know what OWS is about
but then you close insisting OWS has not explained their ideas

possibly, you can appreciate why your statements do not reconcile

here is something i have found which appears to be representative of the positions of many of the OWS participants. hopefully, it might help clarify things for you:

Declaration of the Occupation of New York City

As we gather together in solidarity to express a feeling of mass injustice, we must not lose sight of what brought us together. We write so that all people who feel wronged by the corporate forces of the world can know that we are your allies.
As one people, united, we acknowledge the reality: that the future of the human race requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their neighbors; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power. We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments. We have peaceably assembled here, as is our right, to let these facts be known.
They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage.
They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give Executives exorbitant bonuses.
They have perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of one’s skin, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation.
They have poisoned the food supply through negligence, and undermined the farming system through monopolization.
They have profited off of the torture, confinement, and cruel treatment of countless animals, and actively hide these practices.
They have continuously sought to strip employees of the right to negotiate for better pay and safer working conditions.
They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right.
They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers’ healthcare and pay.
They have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility.
They have spent millions of dollars on legal teams that look for ways to get them out of contracts in regards to health insurance.
They have sold our privacy as a commodity.
They have used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press. They have deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of profit.
They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce.
They have donated large sums of money to politicians, who are responsible for regulating them.
They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil.
They continue to block generic forms of medicine that could save people’s lives or provide relief in order to protect investments that have already turned a substantial profit.
They have purposely covered up oil spills, accidents, faulty bookkeeping, and inactive ingredients in pursuit of profit.
They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media.
They have accepted private contracts to murder prisoners even when presented with serious doubts about their guilt.
They have perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad. They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas.
They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government contracts. *
To the people of the world,
We, the New York City General Assembly occupying Wall Street in Liberty Square, urge you to assert your power.
Exercise your right to peaceably assemble; occupy public space; create a process to address the problems we face, and generate solutions accessible to everyone.
To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal.
Join us and make your voices heard!
*These grievances are not all-inclusive.

Catawba · Nov 23, 2011

Wake said:
Actually, you are the one who may be confused. I have an understanding of what the OWS is about. That fact known, there is nothing about me being confused. You are confused when you said this: "If you are already convinced the super rich are the ones most looking out for your interests, rather than their bottom line." You see, I never said I was convinced that the super rich are looking out for my best interests.

That is why the OWS represents your interest.

I cannot look at the bad without looking at the good. We need corporations to fuel our economy. As with many things in life, there are both positives and negatives. You may not like the wealthy/selfish businessman because he's wealthy and arrogant, but you shouldn't discount the possibility that what he's doing might be helping our economy.

The OWS is not proposing to do away with corporations, just taxing them closer to the rates under our parents, grandparents, and great grandparents.

I may not like capitalism, but I also realize how bad socialism is, too. We either have freedom and people who live freely and better than others, or we bring in government regulation, which eventually leads to ever increasing regulation. I understand how valuable it is to be individualistic, as in wanting to improve one's self under capitalism. Then again, I understand how people can be so completely screwed under capitalism, as in me losing my insurance because the right keeps cutting benefits that people need. You see, there are poisons on both sides. Under a more socialistic form of healthcare, it can take hours to get treatment. I can play ping-pong with you back and foward on the pros and cons of each system, but I really don't care right now to go through that laborious process.

OWS is not proposing to do away with capitalism, just re-regulating it as it was under our parents, grandparents, and great grandparents.

Oh yeah, even according to who, Catawba? Iirc, you seem as though you've dabbled in talk of class warfare, so it's really interesting how you'd define "even."

Fighting back against a rigged game is hardly class warfare.

My understanding is that the OWS want to reduce collusion between Washington and Wall Street, but, as the OWS have made it, there's no official list of demands. Hey, what can I say? The OWS haven't really explained their ideas, so it's nobody's fault but theirs when they're met with derision.

Like I said, you don't understand what the OWS is about. They are not a political party splinter group like the tea party, they are organized simply to inject economic justice into the public debate to build the public will to re-regulate wall street and eliminate the tax breaks for the super rich that are hurting the the economy.

Catawba · Nov 23, 2011

Keridan said:
False dichotomy. It's not that you either support OWS or think the 1% has your best interests at heart. I don't support OWS because I think their proposed answers are flawed, I think they have the wrong target, and I don't think it's evil for the 1% to have a lot of money. I certainly don't believe that it's the government's job to redistribute that money. I can not support either group.

I never claimed you supported the 99%, I said they represent your interests, unless you are the 1%. BTW, the OWS also does not believe the 1% is evil, they just understand that unfettered greed by the 1% has not worked well for the 99%.

Wake · Nov 23, 2011

justabubba said:
you do seem to be confused
you open your post professing to know what OWS is about
but then you close insisting OWS has not explained their ideas

possibly, you can appreciate why your statements do not reconcile

here is something i have found which appears to be representative of the positions of many of the OWS participants. hopefully, it might help clarify things for you:

You may have failed.

When I profess I know what the OWS is about, I draw on certain sources to make that claim.

I used TIME magazine. Oct 31, 2011 edition, in the Briefing Section

What the Protesters Want:

In general, they want to reduce collusion between Washington and Wall Street. There's no official list of demands, but here's how some would do it:

(Then 4 ideas from OWS supporters are explained.

I used TIME as a source. What is the date of your "Declaration of the Occupation of New York City,' and which leader did it come from?

Also, if I'm not mistaken...

...huh...

...you posted a freaking declaration, while I was talking about a list of demands from the OWS. Tell me, is a declaration the exact same thing as a list of demands, Justa?

You have failed.

Why have you failed?

You failed because you said I had no understanding of the OWS when I used TIME MAGAZINE, of all sources, to explain what they believed. Maybe you'd have me use FOX as a source for understanding the OWS, hmm? Furthermore, I was talking about a list of demands from the OWS, and you try to cross me with a list of grievances on a declaration.

Does the Occupy Wall Street movement represent the 99%?

Does the Occupy Wall Street movement represent the 99%?

Yes, they very much represent their complaints & agenda.

They represent some of their complaints & agenda, but also have their own unique/radical ideas.

Not really, their ideas are more represent the complaints & goals of the poor and radicals.

Not at all! They only speak for a radical fringe!!

Disappointed Evolutionist

*probably reading smut*

Jesus loves you.

long standing member

Disappointed Evolutionist

Disappointed Evolutionist

Disappointed Evolutionist

#NeverTrump

long standing member

Disappointed Evolutionist

Disappointed Evolutionist

probably reading smut