• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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.

    Votes: 11 14.5%
  • They represent some of their complaints & agenda, but also have their own unique/radical ideas.

    Votes: 20 26.3%
  • Not really, their ideas are more represent the complaints & goals of the poor and radicals.

    Votes: 17 22.4%
  • Not at all! They only speak for a radical fringe!!

    Votes: 28 36.8%

  • Total voters
    76
  • Poll closed .
The Polls section usually entails some sort of Poll.


And you are unaware these forum polls have hacked into regularly to skew the results???
 
Actually yes.

Then you know they have zero credibility. That was the point made to the person that said, what about the poll.
 
1) That is why the OWS represents your interest.




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



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




4) Fighting back against a rigged game is hardly class warfare.



5) 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.

1) Pardon? How does any of that equate to the OWS representing my interests. You're going to have to explain yourself, rather than taking a chunk of my post and saying "this is why they represent your interests."

2) How do you mean? Inflaion is much different now than back in the days of our grandparents and beyond? Are you trying to destroy them by taxing them presently as they were so long ago? Not once did I say the OWS would do away with corporations. Merely cripple them.

3) Oh please. They all rallied there because they view capitalism as the enemy. They hate capitalism. Why do you think their collection of beliefs has drawn out so many communist and socialist groups? Hey, I dunno. What anathema to capitalism? Hm, let's think. Oh! socialism and capitalism.

3.A) WHAT do you mean by "re-regulating it as it was under our parents, grandparents, and great grandparents." Something tells me that would cripple capitalism and corporations.


4) Rigged according to who? Explain yourself.

5) Bull. I used TIME magazine as a source to explain the OWS. Instead of using a left source to define the OWS, you want me to use a right source?

"they are organized simply to inject economic justice into the public debate to build the public will to re-regulate wall street."

Yeah, that won't fly here. Rolling s*** in powdered sugar doesn't make it a donut. The OWS is just as much a political/propaganda group as the TP.
 
Here is a good article to show the situation wake

This document focuses on the "Top 1%" as a whole because that's been the traditional cut-off point for "the top" in academic studies, and because it's easy for us to keep in mind that we are talking about one in a hundred. But it is also important to realize that the lower half of that top 1% has far less than those in the top half; in fact, both wealth and income are super-concentrated in the top 0.1%, which is just one in a thousand. (To get an idea of the differences, take a look at an insider account by a long-time investment manager who works for the well-to-do and very rich. It nicely explains what the different levels have -- and how they got it. Also, David Cay Johnston (2011) has written a column about the differences among the top 1%, based on 2009 IRS information.)

-snip-

So far there are only tentative projections -- based on the price of housing and stock in July 2009 -- on the effects of the Great Recession on the wealth distribution. They suggest that average Americans have been hit much harder than wealthy Americans. Edward Wolff, the economist we draw upon the most in this document, concludes that there has been an "astounding" 36.1% drop in the wealth (marketable assets) of the median household since the peak of the housing bubble in 2007. By contrast, the wealth of the top 1% of households dropped by far less: just 11.1%. So as of April 2010, it looks like the wealth distribution is even more unequal than it was in 2007. (See Wolff, 2010 for more details.)


Figure 8: CEOs' pay as a multiple of the average worker's pay, 1960-2007

Figure_8.jpg

This does not come out well but it shows the difference in CEO's pay to workers beginning in 1960 when it was about 40 times that of the worker going up and down roughly that till the 80's. Then it sprang up at it's highest reaching over 500 times that of the worker. You can see it and plenty of graphs if you use the link



There's a much deeper power story that underlies the self-dealing and mutual back-scratching by CEOs now carried out through interlocking directorates and seemingly independent outside consultants. It probably involves several factors. At the least, on the workers' side, it reflects their loss of power following the all-out attack on unions in the 1960s and 1970s, which is explained in detail in an excellent book by James Gross (1995), a labor and industrial relations professor at Cornell. That decline in union power made possible and was increased by both outsourcing at home and the movement of production to developing countries, which were facilitated by the break-up of the New Deal coalition and the rise of the New Right (Domhoff, 1990, Chapter 10). It signals the shift of the United States from a high-wage to a low-wage economy, with professionals protected by the fact that foreign-trained doctors and lawyers aren't allowed to compete with their American counterparts in the direct way that low-wage foreign-born workers are.

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power
 
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%.

Okay, then we are back to broad assumptions. They believe they represent my interests. I fully believe they are wrong. There is a big question of what my best interests are and even if we knew that, there is an even bigger question of whether they are actually furthering those.
 
Here is a good article to show the situation wake




Figure 8: CEOs' pay as a multiple of the average worker's pay, 1960-2007

View attachment 67118711

This does not come out well but it shows the difference in CEO's pay to workers beginning in 1960 when it was about 40 times that of the worker going up and down roughly that till the 80's. Then it sprang up at it's highest reaching over 500 times that of the worker. You can see it and plenty of graphs if you use the link





Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

Thanks Alexa for explaining to Wake how the OWS protesters represent him!
 
Okay, then we are back to broad assumptions. They believe they represent my interests. I fully believe they are wrong. There is a big question of what my best interests are and even if we knew that, there is an even bigger question of whether they are actually furthering those.

Is your interest served by banks too big to fail, that require bailout with public tax dollars?

Is you interest served by the outsourcing of American jobs?

Is you interest served by high unemployment/large welfare roles?

Is your interest served by having politicians sold to the highest anonymous bidder?

If your answer is no to any of these questions, the OWS represents your interests.
 
OWS is not proposing to do away with capitalism, just re-regulating it as it was under our parents, grandparents, and great grandparents.

OWS is ran by the NYC General Assembly.
The NYC General Assembly is composed of dozens of groups working together to organize and set the vision for the #occupywallstreet movement. This is our official website.About | NYC General Assembly # Occupy Wall Street


If OWS does not want to get rid of Capitalism one must ask then, why do they have a work group on alternative economics? Alternative Economy | Forum | Before we start suggesting alternate economies | NYC General Assembly # Occupy Wall Street
Mike: The public budgets play a big role in the alt econ including what they own and manage, so this is a wedge and they could fund an aquaponics project—again this is capital budget. Capitalism cant function without capital, so just taking money out of developers pockets and instead putting it into social and decommodified spaces can be used to build the alt economy.

Think Tank | Forum | EVENT: #Occupy movement political roundtable discussion at NYU tonight (Friday 7pm / October 28, 201 | NYC General Assembly # Occupy Wall Street

Friday 7pm | October 28, 2011
Kimmel, room 406 NYU
60 Washington Square S., NYC

The recent #Occupy protests are driven by discontent with the present state of affairs: glaring economic inequality, dead-end Democratic Party politics, and, for some, the suspicion that capitalism could never produce an equitable society. These concerns are coupled with aspirations for social transformation at an international level. For many, the protests at Wall St. and elsewhere provide an avenue to raise questions the Left has long fallen silent on:
1. How could we begin to overcome social conditions that adversely affect every part of life?

2. What would it mean to challenge capitalism on a global scale?

3. And, how could a new international radical movement address these concerns in practice?


- Google Search

Read some of the results from this search. There are many many conversations that OWS is having about how to end Capitalism.


They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce.
 
Is your interest served by banks too big to fail, that require bailout with public tax dollars?

Is you interest served by the outsourcing of American jobs?

Is you interest served by high unemployment/large welfare roles?

Is your interest served by having politicians sold to the highest anonymous bidder?

If your answer is no to any of these questions, the OWS represents your interests.

This is all based on the assumption that they are going the correct route to fix these issues. If I said I wanted to protect your safety by locking you in a prison cell, do I get to say I'm serving your best interest? My intention is good...

It also assumes they are right about the causes of these problems. I don't grant that, obviously. Look at my lean.

I say that the premise is false for your final conclusion.
 
OWS is ran by the NYC General Assembly.

You failed to prove the OWS has the goal of doing away with capitalism. Got a quote???




You failed to prove the OWS has the goal of doing away with capitalism. Got a quote???



- Google Search

Read some of the results from this search. There are many many conversations that OWS is having about how to end Capitalism.


You failed to prove the OWS has the goal of doing away with capitalism. Got a quote???
 
This is all based on the assumption that they are going the correct route to fix these issues. If I said I wanted to protect your safety by locking you in a prison cell, do I get to say I'm serving your best interest? My intention is good...

It also assumes they are right about the causes of these problems. I don't grant that, obviously. Look at my lean.

I say that the premise is false for your final conclusion.

Ah you are part of the 0.1% that votes Libertarian, that would explain why you think unregulated greed is a good thing. Carry on!
 
Ah you are part of the 0.1% that votes Libertarian, that would explain why you think unregulated greed is a good thing. Carry on!

as opposed to the government regulated and sponsored greed that you live by?
 
Ah you are part of the 0.1% that votes Libertarian, that would explain why you think unregulated greed is a good thing. Carry on!

Hmm... can we say ad hominem? Please address my statement instead of my lean. Also, note it is a lean, not a religion. There are some libertarian policies I disagree with.

Edit: I might also add that some of the founders of libertarian philosophy felt, as I do, that regulation is necessary, but only in limited circumstances. Your strawman falls short.
 
Last edited:
Does the Occupy Wall Street movement represent the 99%? When someone or some group claims to represent someone or a group, it is possible for people or groups to state that they do not want to be represented by that group or person. In fact it is our liberty to deny OWS their claim of representing us. We can go on until the cattle come home but it will not change the fact that many Americans do not relate with the premise that the Occupy movement represents.

The Occupy movement speaks for themselves not everyone. So OWS should respect our voice and remove the 99% claim. "We are the 99%" claims unity among 99% of the country in support of what OWS is doing and saying, nothing could be more dishonest and offensive.
 
Last edited:
as opposed to the government regulated and sponsored greed that you live by?

For the last 30 years it has been the unregulated greed of Reaganomics. Not surprising, the Gop is only offering more of the same. The 99% aren't buying it!
 
Hmm... can we say ad hominem? Please address my statement instead of my lean. Also, note it is a lean, not a religion. There are some libertarian policies I disagree with.

Edit: I might also add that some of the founders of libertarian philosophy felt, as I do, that regulation is necessary, but only in limited circumstances. Your strawman falls short.

Sorry, if we can't agree on these issues, we are never going to come to a meeting of minds:

.
Is your interest served by banks too big to fail, that require bailout with public tax dollars?

Is you interest served by the outsourcing of American jobs?

Is you interest served by high unemployment/large welfare roles?

Is your interest served by having politicians sold to the highest anonymous bidder?
 
Sorry, if we can't agree on these issues, we are never going to come to a meeting of minds:

.
Is your interest served by banks too big to fail, that require bailout with public tax dollars?

Is you interest served by the outsourcing of American jobs?

Is you interest served by high unemployment/large welfare roles?

Is your interest served by having politicians sold to the highest anonymous bidder?

Is there part of you that thinks I will say yes to these questions? The problem is discussion of them is pointless and only lead to irrelevant discussion of who is to blame. Those subjects are discussed ad nauseum on these boards and we won't come to a meeting of minds. Since we won't be able to agree on the cause, we won't be able to agree on the solution.

There is no way OWS or you can establish you are representing my best interests. Too many variables apply. Even if you could, by some miracle, establish it, you wouldn't be able to establish that it's in the full interest of 99% of the country. My needs are different than everyone else's.
 
Last edited:
Is there part of you that thinks I will say yes to these questions?

Nope, because I know you, like the rest of us, are part of the 99% represented by the goals of the OWS protesters.

The problem is discussion of them is pointless and only lead to irrelevant discussion of who is to blame. Those subjects are discussed ad nauseum on these boards and we won't come to a meeting of minds. Since we won't be able to agree on the cause, we won't be able to agree on the solution.

OK, you don't wish to discuss how the OWS represents us both.

There is no way OWS or you can establish you are representing my best interests.

Only through my vote, a very passive form of representation. The OWS protesters are the ones really putting themselves on the line in representing us.

Too many variables apply. Even if you could, by some miracle, establish it, you wouldn't be able to establish that it's in the full interest of 99% of the country. My needs are different than everyone else's.

How about this since you do not wish to discuss how the OWS represents you? You continue to believe whatever you like, and I will continue to believe that economic justice (not having most of the wealth, income, and power concentrated at the top) benefits us both.
 
Nope, because I know you, like the rest of us, are part of the 99% represented by the goals of the OWS protesters.

OK, you don't wish to discuss how the OWS represents us both.

Only through my vote, a very passive form of representation. The OWS protesters are the ones really putting themselves on the line in representing us.

How about this since you do not wish to discuss how the OWS represents you? You continue to believe whatever you like, and I will continue to believe that economic justice (not having most of the wealth, income, and power concentrated at the top) benefits us both.

I don't wish to get drowned in details while you try to prove something that just won't end up proven. I'm fine with you walking away self-assured in your beliefs. I didn't post here thinking OWS (including you, even if you aren't physically there) was going to stop using the same tactic as politicians always do. I was just sharing a view point.
 
I don't wish to get drowned in details while you try to prove something that just won't end up proven. I'm fine with you walking away self-assured in your beliefs. I didn't post here thinking OWS (including you, even if you aren't physically there) was going to stop using the same tactic as politicians always do. I was just sharing a view point.

Which politicians always use non-violent civil disobedience to raise public consciousness and debate???
 
Which politicians always use non-violent civil disobedience to raise public consciousness and debate???

I realize that was a little vague. I could have meant the law breaking, but I was referring to pretending to speak for the greater good of everyone.
 
I realize that was a little vague. I could have meant the law breaking, but I was referring to pretending to speak for the greater good of everyone.

The OWS are just providing a progressive voice to the public debate between the two conservative parties. As a progressive, I value that greatly!
 
The OWS are just providing a progressive voice to the public debate between the two conservative parties. As a progressive, I value that greatly!

I have no need to convince you otherwise. I'm glad you're happy about it.
 
You failed to prove the OWS has the goal of doing away with capitalism. Got a quote???


Among the most persistent ideological obstacles to understanding and transforming our current (and really messed-up) economic system are the beliefs that humans are unalterably greedy and that capitalism, because it is grounded in greed, will exist as long as greed exists. The purpose of this teach-in is to challenge those belief. In doing so, we’ll talk about human nature and the nature of capitalism. Greed and Capitalism | Occupy Chicago


In Oakland they marched under a banner saying "Death to Capitalism" as seen in the link below
http://www.radarproductions.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2.jpg

Noam Chomsky is not shy about denouncing Capitalism. Yet OWS protesters cheered him on when giving a speech do just that, denouncing Capitalism.

The video below is touted as hitting the point by OWS.

#OWS Protester Nails It! Federal Reserve : Fractional Banking : FIAT Currency : Wars - YouTube

Micheal Moore was applauded very loudly at Occupy Oakland in his speech that was nothing but Anti-Capitalists.

this link below is a speech from Slavoj Zizek at OWS

Today Liberty Plaza had a visit from Slavoj Zizek | OccupyWallSt.org

We are not Communists if Communism means a system which collapsed in 1990. Remember that today those Communists are the most efficient, ruthless Capitalists. In China today, we have Capitalism which is even more dynamic than your American Capitalism, but doesn’t need democracy. Which means when you criticize Capitalism, don’t allow yourself to be blackmailed that you are against democracy. The marriage between democracy and Capitalism is over. The change is possible.

"Zizek's got it" You can keep your head in the sand or whatever it is that you assume that you are gaining by denying the obvious, it doesnt really matter to me. But it is a proven fact that OWS = anti-Capitalism, I can go on and get you much more links and quotes if you wish.....
 
Back
Top Bottom