How does blocking people from buying forclosed houses prevent the 1% from abusing the 99%? Most of those who are buying these cheap houses can’t afford something more and so are trying to get a good deal on an underpriced house. I doubt many of those bidding on cheap property are in the top 1%.
Don’t be disingenuous.
That was your statement. I was just asking you about it. To say it more succinctly, do you think OWS objects to the perceived fact of “1% abusing and taking advantage of 99%” or to the perceived methods of them doing so?
It depends, Kimmy. If the title is taken literally, yes, I know what the protesters (say they) want. But the OP says:
Note the words “real”, “specific”, and “exactly”. What the protesters say they want makes no sense. They’ll go on and on with soundbites and pithy signs, but they don’t point to specific laws that should be passed or policies that need to be changed. They don’t say anything like “Another stimulus bill!” or “No more stimulus bills!” They’ll say things like “Forgive student loan debt!” but they don’t explain how they’d deal with the fallout of that (stupid) course of action. They don’t even specify who they want to address their issues. Here’s an example from this very thread:
This is mere conjecture. No one has named any names of Congressman that have taken bribes. It’s a well-repeated meme, but it is…less than honest.
So while I know what they say they want, I don’t know what they actually, realistically want anyone to do.
Nice snark, Gibbs, but I don’t think I ever pretended to have no clue what they’re talking about. See post #5. I know what they want; their wants are just pie in the sky.
They have a set of general grievances that essentially amount to being mad at the world. Great – so am I. Now get out the park already. They’re “creating a dialogue” about income inequality, I suppose, as if this were an issue that cropped up overnight. Oh my, the rich people control everything! When did this happen? Oh, since Moses? I suppose they’re occupying the streets *now *because the economy is in the shitter, and the way things have always been aren’t working in their favor at the moment they way they wanted it to. They went to college and wanted an overpaid job too, but it’s not happening the way it’s been promised, and now they’re pissed. I suppose now, because of this global economic clusterfuck, they’re seeing the light. “Holy shit – it is fucked up that a few people run everything. Let’s tear down the banks and forgive everyone’s debts!” I understand your dissatisfaction, kids, but seriously?
OWS isn’t unworthy outrage, but the movement isn’t going anywhere because nobody cares about income inequality. People care about unemployment. If we returned to 2007 employment rates, where uneven wealth distribution existed merrily, no one would be occupying anything, except maybe the mall. It would be nice if wealth more generally distributed, but people wouldn’t actually favor the intervention required to make that happen, and the wealthy aren’t going to voluntarily even things out. No worries, though. When the economy rebounds and they’re loving their salary at whatever insurance company they end up working at, they won’t be still miffed at the 1 percent until catastrophe strikes again. No, this isn’t a “I was against income inequality before it was cool” post even though it’s starting to sound like it.
Yes, and yes.
I think the Occupy movement’s heart is in the right place. But because of how they come off to others, they are losing a lot of potential support.
They basically appear to be hippies, unkempt, disorganized, and now their camps are being cited for unsanitary conditions, urine and feces, and there have been deaths at the camps. If having people actually fucking dying at your protests isn’t the definition of presenting the wrong kind of image, I don’t know what is.
I think most folk object to the fact, but also acknowledge that it’s human nature. The powerful are going to want to retain more power for themselves and leave as little as they can manage for everyone else.
What makes it galling and offensive is that the government, who is supposed to be of the people and for the people and help prevent such oppression, is instead of the people with money and for the people with money. It seemingly doesn’t matter who we vote in, they’re just going to continue to make things easier for the people with money to run roughshod over the people without. The ways I mentioned are just examples of how they’re doing that, stuff including but not limited to (because apparently I need the legalese) deregulation allowing banks to create situations where they have an incentive to tell people who can’t afford mortgages that they can. (And no, I will not participate in a hijack about this. I’m just giving reasons and examples.)
Anyway, that as far as I can tell, as someone who’s watching the movement through news and blogs, is what kicked off OWS and its original ostensible goal. What the individuals of the movement have decided it is may or may not be at all similar.
I think most folk object to the fact, but also acknowledge that it’s human nature. The powerful are going to want to retain more power for themselves and leave as little as they can manage for everyone else.
What makes it galling and offensive is that the government, who is supposed to be of the people and for the people and help prevent such oppression, is instead of the people with money and for the people with money. It seemingly doesn’t matter who we vote in, they’re just going to continue to make things easier for the people with money to run roughshod over the people without. The ways I mentioned are just examples of how they’re doing that, stuff including but not limited to (because apparently I need the legalese) deregulation allowing banks to create situations where they have an incentive to tell people who can’t afford mortgages that they can. (And no, I will not participate in a hijack about this. I’m just giving reasons and examples.)
[/QUOTE]
Ok then - if the OWS people are objection to the perceived FACT that “1% abuse and take advantage of the 99%”, do you think any of them can
-
point out a period in history, either in the US or elsewhere, where such a phenomenon was not occurring?
-
suggest any meaningful method or system under which the 1% cannot possibly “abuse and take advantage” of the 99%?
Ah. “If it’s not perfect, it’s not worth doing.” No, I gave what I saw as the reason for OWS. I’m not going to walk into GD-style BS.
Oh I understood that you gave what you saw as the reason for OWS. I just cannot see any difference between what you gave as the reason and the general lament of “life is unfair”. So I was trying to narrow stuff down to see if there is any difference.
Good heavens, Terr! What a scathing critique. Now for the coup de grâce: Terr will identify for all of us which political movements have not been fundamentally based in correcting perceived unfairness and thereby demonstrating that his sneering dismissal above really is more than a thoroughly transparent pretension to some sort of political sophistication.
We all look forward to this…
Being “fundamentally based in correcting perceived unfairness” is no problem as long as you’re offering some kind of specific solutions that would work toward removing such unfairness. The problem is that, as the poster I was corresponding with stated, the OWS’s complaint is not about the methods of perceived oppression, but about the oppression itself, and since such perceived oppression has always existed, and OWS is not suggesting any specifics on how to rectify it, it just amounts to the “life is unfair” lament. Which is what I pointed out.
If you want an example of political movements that did, in fact, offer solutions (whether correct or incorrect ones) other than just lamenting the oppression, I would give you the founders of the United States. Bolsheviks. Tea Party, to some extent. Just as examples.
n.m.
Reinstate recently-repealed regulations. Close tax loopholes. Raise taxes on those most able to bear the burden, ie the wealthy and corporations. Get them to reinvest and put the money they have back into the economy rather than sit on it and get richer.
There. I have offered broad-view solutions as good as anything the Tea Party ever came up with. The first one was even alliterative. Do I get a cookie?
People who attempted to end the unfairness of Jim Crow offered ways to end that unfairness. OWS people are not offering any such ways. Probably because there is no such way. 1% will always be there, as will the 99%, because you cannot create a society in which everyone is exactly equal. And there will always be perceived oppression of the 99% by the 1%. Note the “perceived” part. So if that is what you’re protesting, that’s an exercise in futility.
Look, I grew up in the country that, on paper, OWSers would have loved. There was no private property (although there was some “personal property”). “Right to work”, “right to medical care”, “right to education”, “right to housing” were all enshrined in the Constitution. The difference between the salaries of a janitor in the clinic and the doctor was maximum around 3 times. The difference between the salaries of the lowest worker in the factory and the director of the factory was maybe 6-7 times.
Paradise on Earth, right? Yet there was the 1% and the 99%, and the 1% abused, oppressed and took advantage of the 99% MUCH more than here in the US.
You did. OWS didn’t. Not only that, OWS can’t - because they have no organization to present such solutions.
Terr, my comment wasn’t directed toward you, and there’s really no comparison between the US Civil Rights movement and this OWS silliness, but anyway, I withdrew the comment because I don’t feel like this conversation anymore.
I don’t particularly know what the Occupiers in Calgary want, but I do know that every time they interview one of those douchebags, it makes my slappin’ hand itch.
I think that a lot of the big picture is missing here.
It is not as though I find what people are protesting against all that hard to grasp. Because I don’t. It it pretty obvious that people are getting sick of the gamed system, of where you end up having more to do with where you start than any particular merit of effort and of the general looting of the country by the super rich. And I do agree that these protests would be a lot more effective if people showed up in business casual, got rid of the bongo drums and patchouli and stayed on message.
But I don’t think that any of that is the real point or important issue here. The real issue as near as I can see is that conditions are such that we are starting to see spreading social unrest. Which is the sort of thing that can be a pretty big deal (see the Arab spring). Now we have a long way to go before we are looking at even the beginnings of a revolution, but at the same time I think that many people just have no more to give and are continuing to be squeezed and increasingly have nothing left to lose.
Time will tell, I guess, but I don’t think that it is wise to not pay attention to this.
Agreed, and in that respect I think the Tea Party and OWS are on the same page. They just blame different groups for the problems.