Yes some people working built the factory. And they were paid for their time.Yes, the workers built the factories.
Today I helped my neighbor put a roof over her woodpile. According to your logic do I now own the wood shed?
Yes some people working built the factory. And they were paid for their time.Yes, the workers built the factories.
Who cares? ANd what does it have to do with me?
WHy is it that millions of Americans can and do work for a better life yet the occupiers cant seem to figure out how to do it themselves?
If I was interested, I would have written more.
And now, I have responded to your question. It is the same as for the bottom 1%. Both groups have 0% because neither work in construction.
I have held my end of the bargain, but you are never going to hold your end of the bargain.
Yes some people working built the factory. And they were paid for their time.
I wrote the answer to your question in the post above. Look at paragraph 2.Sorry, but your asking another question is not an answer to my question
What portion of the 1% died while working construction?
No you are the assuming, I did not imply any such thing. I was throwing out the juxtapose to this. I am pointed out that people do work hard in America and move forward, that it is not impossible.
I wrote the answer to your question in the post above. Look at paragraph 2.
I knew you couldn't be trusted.
Still waiting for you answer
It is the same as for the bottom 1%. Both groups have 0% because neither work in construction.
I actually watched a documentary today with a reporter who joined the OWS movement in an attempt to udnerstand their goals. I have to say I was surprised to see the OWS through the eyes of someone uncensored by the major media news channels. I used to think of them as jobless hippies but in truth there are some major political concerns that the OWs brings up that I find myself agreeing with.
No the OWS movement is not against capitalism they actually support the idea in general however when it comes to matters of say in political matters they do not believe that politicans should be bought out before they ever even get into office. And I have to say I agree with them in this respect. Our political system here in america is too heavily reliant on the money flow, people who are owners of big buisnesses have the biggest political say and for the most part almost all politicians are worried about one thing, getting re-elected.
In order to get re-elected they need to follow the guidelines of the two biggest contributers to their campaign funds
1: Big buisness/lobbyist
2: their political party affiliation.
With both of these matters in mind a politicians ability to vote on an issue in true regard to their own opinion is limited in a most severe matter. If they do not represent those who helped them get into office, the chances are they will never get re-elected as they will not have the cash pool to pull from. Because of this politicians have the tendency to play it safe in most regards and only follow the will of their political party on any given issue. This is why the supercommittee we had recently failed. Two sides that will argue on any given issue no matter what with no form of compromise. No side ever wants to be the one to break party rules.
Back on the topic of the OWS movement I have actually seen a few people with signs saying 'up with capitalism down with greed' while I could not tell you the exact meaning of this sign I suppose we can infer that it has to with the ideas of those who put in a large amount of effort will get greaer rewards than those who put in less effort and the idea that anyone in America could start a buisness if they wanted and it would be up to them to make it successful. In our corrent society those huge companies who buy out politicians have a LARGE amount of control, so much that those smaller stores really just can't compete in the market. Somehting else I can infer is that this is of course referring to massive government bailouts on corporation of which they have had a lot of stock or credit with. As I stated before that is only what I can infer from this.
I encourage all of you to keep in mind what I said before however that the OWS main goal is to fight against political corruption in our government caused by the money flow and in the sense I support them.
So we have different opinions on the matter. If OWS was more transparent perhaps I would have a different opinion.
Adbusters created a premise for OWS, which is anti-Capitalism. 3 seconds at adbusters site should be telling enough on that subject.
How can you be so sure about OWS when they represent themselves as not an organization but cells of individuals working for their own beliefs and by their own methods? Are you saying that OWS is unified in their goals as a whole? An who exactly are "they"?
Out sourcing obviously is a problem and has been for decades. Tariffs on those companies would solve the problem.
No you haven't. You've posted links showing that Adbusters was involved with catalyzing the movement, which is also mentioned, in greater detail, in the first article I linked in my last post. If you read that article, you'll notice that practically the very first thing that happened at the initial gathering is that there was friction between the die hard anarchist Adbuster fans, and the other group involved. The other thing you'll notice is that basically none of the people who are influential with the NY General Assembly have anything to do with Adbusters.
So, you've really got to ask yourself, if this is an Adbusters movement, why do they have no control over what is happening, and why does OWS not actually support their politics, in general (which you'd have noticed by now, if you weren't dead set on dismissing the entire movement as useful idiots)?
You didn't read all my links. Furthermore, the links I provided are not all of the information available concerning Adbuster's control and direction of OWS...it was a starting point for a member's research. Perhaps you need to do some research as well.
I did read all your links. They don't really say what you're claiming they say. The reinforce the facts (that I freely admit) that Adbusters had a hand in creating the seed for OWS (although the wikipedia entry has some bad info on how that went down), and that Adbusters is an anti-capitalist group. None of your links say much of anything about how influential Adbusters is in the movement at the moment. By contrast, if you look at the info I provided you a couple of pages ago, you'll find that it does lead to some conclusions on that point. Conclusions you're not going to like.
In somewhat-related news, I saw on the TV news today, during my break at work, a story about a local “medical” marijuana dispensary that is going out of business. Supposedly, they are going to be holding some event in which they are going to give out their remaining inventory for free.
It has occurred to me that if the Sacramento police would like to temporarily clear Chavez park of the vermin that are currently “occupying” it, that a very easy way to do so would be to spread word there about this event. Surely, no OccuVermin would pass up the chance at free pot.
Do you support the bill to end subsidies to companies outsourcing jobs?
"WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Companies would get a break on payroll taxes for creating new jobs in the United States under a bill coming up for a vote in the Senate this week.
To get relief from the employer share of the Social Security payroll tax, companies would have to certify that a new U.S. worker is replacing an employee who’d been working overseas.
"Introduced last week by Sen. Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, the bill also would end subsidies for firms that move facilities abroad."
Senate Democrats target job outsourcing - MarketWatch
Basically the Chamber is asserting that Americans dont need jobs. Either way one could spin that it is ****ed up.“Replacing a job that is based in another country with a domestic job does not stimulate economic growth or enhance the competitiveness of American worldwide companies,” wrote Bruce Josten, the Chamber’s vice president for government affairs, in a letter to senators last week.
Your links only show that individual useful idiots may or may not even be aware of Adbusters...that individual useful idiots may or may not be aware of the influence Adbusters has on the course and direction of the movement. But if you read the blog entries from Adbusters, themselves, it's very easy to see that what they propose in their blogs...happens. So, even though individual useful idiots may think they are directing their own course...they are not.
Thats not exactly accurate.Bull****. If you read the first article I posted, you'll see, first, that the very first thing that happened after Adbusters initiated a meeting with another organization is that there was friction between the two. You'd also notice that the leadership of the general assembly in New York has basically no ties to Adbusters. You're engaged in a very sad attempt at wishful thinking right now.
Adbusters did not initiate a meeting.David Graeber: On Playing By The Rules On August 2, I showed up at a 7 PM meeting at Bowling Green, that a Greek anarchist friend, who I’d met at a recent activist get together at 16 Beaver Street, had told me was meant to plan some kind of action on Wall Street in mid-September. At the time I was only vaguely aware of the background: that a month before, the Canadian magazine Adbusters had put out the call to “Occupy Wall Street”, but had really just floated the idea on the internet, along with some very compelling graphics, to see if it would take hold; that a local anti-budget cut coalition top-heavy with NGOs, unions, and socialist groups had tried to take possession of the process and called for a “General Assembly” at Bowling Green. The title proved extremely misleading. When I arrived, I found the event had been effectively taken over by a veteran protest group called the Worker’s World Party, most famous for having patched together ANSWER one of the two great anti-war coalitions, back in 2003. They had already set up their banners, megaphones, and were making speeches—after which, someone explained, they were planning on leading the 80-odd assembled people in a march past the Stock Exchange itself.
Bull****. If you read the first article I posted, you'll see, first, that the very first thing that happened after Adbusters initiated a meeting with another organization is that there was friction between the two. You'd also notice that the leadership of the general assembly in New York has basically no ties to Adbusters. You're engaged in a very sad attempt at wishful thinking right now.
This is exactly what I thought the OWS movement was all about but, a lot of times other people with different agendas like to muddy the waters.OWS is fighting back against the corrosive power of major banks and multinational corporations over the democratic process, and the role of Wall Street in creating an economic collapse that has caused the greatest recession in generations.
Thats great but I am not a Teabagger, so it really means nothing to me, since I was talking about millions of Americans not some faction within them.Why are you pretending that you forgot what you said?
OWSers are more likely to have a job that teabaggers while the teabaggers are more likely to be dependent on govt assistance
Yes I support it. I think it could be better but when you read what the opposition rational, I think anything is better than what they assert:
Basically the Chamber is asserting that Americans dont need jobs. Either way one could spin that it is ****ed up.