OWS lists of Demands

222 posts / 0 new
Last post

Comments

Kerry
Kerry's picture
From ren's and DRC's comments

From ren's and DRC's comments from the previous page:

ren wrote:

Kerry, in the positivist legal minds of these folks, corruption in America can simply be redefined and then, voilla! No more corruption!

That is the problem with using terms that one doesn't have to define--maybe even doesn't understand.   In that way, those in position to do so can 'make it mean' anything they want--even 'change its meaning' when they want to.  It's kind of sad that Obama has resorted to the same logical distortions.   Some may claim 'that's what Obama meant to do all along'.   Some may claim 'Obama has to play the cards dealt him'.   I voted for Obama--and I don't even know what to claim at this point.  They do need to get rid of corporate personhood and money as speech.....

DRC wrote:

A lot of people with a little money is not the same as a few people with a lot of money.

As many here may know, my brother is a Ron Paul-supporting libertarian.  However, my brother realizes that corporations, using the guise of 'individual freedom' in this 'free market', have wrecked this system.   I contend with his that, when it comes to correcting corporate-colluded influence in government that has wrecked this system (my brother agrees that 'corporate freedom' is NOT 'individual freedom' and a 'corporate-government colluded market' is NOT the 'free market'), what can correct it other than 'government'?   But, my brother remarks, can it be the government that we have now--already proven to collude with corporations?  And, how do you get to a government that isn't colluding with corporations?  

In agreement with Thom Hartmann, we need to get rid of corporate personhood and money as speech.....that's the point I was trying to make as one the OWS could center on before the Capital distraction tried to claim 'there was no such thing as that' and 'the Supreme Court didn't mean that--have you read the entire ruling?'  muse......

 

.ren
.ren's picture
Kerry wrote: In agreement

Kerry wrote:

In agreement with Thom Hartmann, we need to get rid of corporate personhood and money as speech.....that's the point I was trying to make as one the OWS could center on before the Capital distraction tried to claim 'there was no such thing as that' and 'the Supreme Court didn't mean that--have you read the entire ruling?'  muse......

And so we can observe the cleverness of this distractive ruse.

Kerry wrote:

That is the problem with using terms that one doesn't have to define--maybe even doesn't understand.   In that way, those in position to do so can 'make it mean' anything they want--even 'change its meaning' when they want to.

And note, at the same time claiming what they say is "fact".  What we see is the act of nihilism and now, it's inevitable results -- five pages of distraction from your original point.  And their next act is to use the mirror trick and call your efforts to put a definition and context together, nihilism.  The infinite spin machine.  And banning them does no good because this is undoubtedly one of the same spin doctors we've seen so often, over and over in new names.

polycarp2
The argument of shareholders

The argument of shareholders being just another association of individuals is pretty weak. They are legally separate from the corporation they've invested in.

The "association", if you want to call it that, often lasts for only days if not seconds.

And yep, the "spin"  Dr.'s remain a problem in all forms of communication, don't they? Recognizing propaganda for what it  is remains the best defense against it..

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

Kerry
Kerry's picture
I don't think any entity that

I don't think any entity that plays no role as a conscientious being deserves rights--in other words, deserves 'being free of governmental intervention'....if the 'free market' carries with it no conscientious bearing, it, also, shouldn't be free of governmental intervention.   I do believe that when the framers of this country spoke about 'freedom to act', they were assuming the 'rights of conscience' in such an act.   One big problem I think the present age suffers from is the privilege to judge without the obligation to act as if on one's own--or even envision it for oneself....'associations' allow such impositions......

.ren
.ren's picture
You continue to raise a good

You continue to raise a good question that demands some sort of answer here, Kerry.  If the Constitution is meant to protect all freedom to act, which includes speech where speech is an act of a conscious mind, without a coinciding demand for conscience, then the resulting actions, even without the application of conscience, can very likely become the protecting the freedom of a sociopath or a psychopath in society.  A society without the rudder of human conscience.  And who would know?  How? 

An institution like a corporation, operating mechanistically in its hierarchical structure, according to rules of order like a military, has all the characteristics of a psychopath achieving a purpose without appeal to conscience.  This is also true for government institutions.  They work on the same principles.

Those terms 'sociopath' and 'psychopath' as they are used today refer to people who can act towards others without the slightest sense of empathy, respect, or social concern.  One of our now missing, and I feel I can safely assume banned, posters once said: I don't believe empathy exists.  I'm paraphrasing because I don't want to look for it.  To me it's not much different than saying conscience doesn't exist because empathy and conscience seem to me to be deeply intertwined.

But when I hear someone saying something like that, I make a connection noting that it goes hand in hand with a positivist attitude which only requires a proof of what can be brought to bear as facts, or definitions. And when someone demands that proof, they are demanding I give up my conscience and I must, without that conscience, attempt to do something on their level.  For me, there are deep seated feelings that go with that demand.  And I have no recourse other than to personally rebel, because I have discovered we are beyond negotiation as conscientious human beings of conscience, empathy, and mutual respect for these unseeable characteristics of our humanity.

What cannot be seen can be done away with by demanding so-called "empirical facts" as proof.  Yet we can see without these empirical crutches, as free and conscientious beings, that the make up of a conscience can only be induced from behavior or words, it can only be guessed at.  And some people are very good at creating an illusion.  Modern day advertising is based on such illusions.  One cannot pull a conscience out of a mind and show it to anyone in a courtroom.  And that's why a jury of human beings, not programmed machines, makes the difference between natural law in action with real live, human beings of conscience, and an abstract positivist law oriented judge, of whom our SCOTUS now has a majority making these judgements.

I think you made that point over and over, Kerry.  And as you say, it's a big problem of the present "privilege" to judge.  And that's an important term as well: privilege.  How does authority to judge come about?  With authority goes an implicit assumption: accuracy, correctness, perfection, and so on.  All of that becomes abstracted from our active, living conscience involved with each act of our lives.  And yeah, that's the problem that positivism in law or positivism in science encounters.  Inevitably fact is subject to human perception. 

We humans of conscience cannot be done away with, not without the risk of something ultimately horrendous: the creation of a world of machines without conscience running human society, not human beings. 

A military is such an institution, thus the founders created a constitution that put a non military person in charge, the President. We have only to hope that an elected president is not a sociopath. Thus the people were given a national vote, one each, to select that individual.  A government bureaucracy is such an institution. And now, the Unitary Executive Theory sees the President in a similar role in charge of these government institutions as a CEO in a corporate bureaucracy making sure the corporation achieves it's chartered goals, which is, ultimately, to make a profit for the owners, conscience about effects of achieving that goal be damned.  What we now see is people giving the President excuses, much like a corporate CEO automatically gets excuses, for making sociopathic-like decisions as long as those decisions follow the guidelines of the Constitution, or the corporation's charter, which is the positivist law as privilege to judge.  And what is a corporation if not such an institutional machine? 

And now the Supremes, in their positivist law wisdom, reading the First Amendment, despite all the efforts to divorce the influence of money as conscience from our political system, decide that the money these sociopathic, machine-like institutions spend (through their made up association of associations) is equal to the same free speech of a human being of conscience deciding to vote for the President.  Now, if that's not a conundrum...

Kerry
Kerry's picture
Basically, ren, I am in

Basically, ren, I am in agreement with most of what you say.   The only distinction that I might make is, again, distinguishing the idea of 'rationalism' from 'postiivism' in the context of social and governmental theories on authorizing impositional activities (and such justifications in such authorizations).  And, again, the very fundamental rational distinction to make is what's the very basic entity from which to rationalize.   From the perspective of 'law', is it 'the written law' (as a postivist, intent on authoritarian decrees, might 'rationalize')--or is it what 'every thinking entity with conscience' can interpret (as a natural law advocate I think proposes)?   In either case, there is a rational perspective--however, the basic component being rationalized from ('positive, written, law' vs. 'natural law based on each moral and ethical principled entity so considered')  produces very different results in the 'logic' offered with respect to its 'legal (and political, social, and governmental) conclusions'.  

This was the distinction that I was trying to make on Antifascist's Republican Neoliberlism thread (after reading Andrew Feenberg's short book on Heidegger and Marcuse describing the historical contexts of 'forms of logic') between 'substantive logic' and 'formal logic'--the former being one in which the 'thinking entity' (with 'rights of conscience' assuming 'obligations of personal responsibility' to me) is part of the 'facts to be rationalized'--the latter leaves that out as a more 'rational technique' without the thinker needing to consider what the rational consequences might mean to them, personally....either way, I see it as 'rational'--the 'source' and the 'results' (in its political context) is, I believe, the only distinction to be made.....most importantly, perhaps, as I tried to say on the abortion thread in the other section here in thomland, is that this idea that I am holding as 'substantive logic' (a concept I got from Andrew Feenberg's book) doesn't actually reach the very factual source of what such 'logic' is (nor manner in how they come to such decisions or conclusions) other than to say that 'the one thinking it' is part of the logical content of it.....positivism appears to try to extract out any component of moral or ethical principles (and its inevitable intertwining with 'the thinking person') in claiming an 'empirical nature in law' as if 'law' were, or could be, an exacting science--which, with respect to what I see 'law' as (in its 'natural' context), is logically (and, therefore, rationally) impossible....

.ren
.ren's picture
Kerry, I agree with the

Kerry, I agree with the problem of substantive logic you raise -- here and elsewhere,

If you can figure out how to get the Supremes to take substantive logic into consideration in this latest misruling, allowing money from powerful monied institutions to continue to corrupt our system, please let me know.  I promise to be happy about it.  I can then hope that justice, along with our humanity, may return some day.

Kerry
Kerry's picture
Someday, ren.  I've wondered

Someday, ren.  I've wondered what the framers of our form of government would think of today's 'Supreme Court' (and 'government', for that matter)--I think that I have read enough about Thomas Jefferson and I have read enough of his writings, to believe that Jefferson would say, 'See, I told you that Marbury vs. Madison was going too far and was going to ruin our proposed impetuses of separations of powers for the foundation of this nation'--hell, Jefferson said it even then. 

And, I am absolutely positive Jefferson would have hated the Unitary Executive idea--with respect to the Alien and Sedition Act of the time, Jefferson held such a stand against any "accumulation of central power" in his successful run for presidency--and, an issue that eventually dissolved the Federalist Party of the age, also.  So, even from the beginning of the American era,  Americans have seemed to understand that this 'centralized accumulation of political power' which was supposed to be impeded by a 'governmental separation of powers with ongoing checks and balances' was going to be a problem that was to have constant vigilance against such power accumulations to prevent it.  Lately, in that concern, we seemed to have been asleep at the wheel for the past few decades or so but, now, maybe--just maybe--we are waking up from our coma--hopefully, not too late to wrestle it from a totalitarian extermination....

.ren
.ren's picture
Chris Hedges wrote this

Chris Hedges wrote this morning:

Chris Hedges wrote:

 

Those who resist—the doubters, outcasts, renegades, skeptics and rebels—rarely come from the elite. They ask different questions. They seek something else—a life of meaning. They have grasped Immanuel Kant’s dictum, “If justice perishes, human life on Earth has lost its meaning.” And in their search they come to the conclusion that, as Socrates said, it is better to suffer wrong than to do wrong. This conclusion is rational, yet cannot be rationally defended. It makes a leap into the moral, which is beyond rational thought. It refuses to place a monetary value on human life. It acknowledges human life, indeed all life, as sacred. And this is why, as Arendt points out, the only morally reliable people when the chips are down are not those who say “this is wrong,” or “this should not be done,” but those who say “I can’t.”

 

“The greatest evildoers are those who don’t remember because they have never given thought to the matter, and, without remembrance, nothing can hold them back,” Arendt writes. “For human beings, thinking of past matters means moving in the dimension of depth, striking roots and thus stabilizing ourselves, so as not to be swept away by whatever may occur—the Zeitgeist or History or simple temptation. The greatest evil is not radical, it has no roots, and because it has no roots it has no limitations, it can go to unthinkable extremes and sweep over the whole world.”

 

 

The Hannah Arendt quote -- especially the sentence at the end of the paragraph -- says much more eloquently than any of my contorted explanations what I meant above by a nihilism of judicial positivism.

And how about this one, isn't it a prize?:

"This conclusion is rational, yet cannot be rationally defended. It makes a leap into the moral, which is beyond rational thought. It refuses to place a monetary value on human life." --C. Hedges

 

 One of your favorite long gone cons you used to argue with once told me I was a capitalist, everyone is a capitalist.

Oh? I responded.

Yes, your body is your capital, we all start with that.

I'm commodified.  Thank you, now I get it.

 

nimblecivet
nimblecivet's picture
One of the things that the

One of the things that the Occupy movement has been working with is the "consensus process." Occupy San Francisco is debating whether to move to something called, "modified consensus", the technique used by Occupy Oakland. The former requires 100% concensus, the latter would be in this situation 90%. Of course, the camps are not isolated systems of the same nature as the larger "system(s)" they exist within, and the consensus model is perhaps more appropriate for the purposes of people committing their bodies (at least temporarilly and with the understanding that it is believed that certain conditions pertain in the situation) to "direct action"- you can't ask a group of people to step outside the comfort zone without full consensus, full agreement from each individual that they as an individual are so committed. Libertarians can't complain that 51% is telling 49% what to do (a bogus argument anyway as the democratic process is not constructed for the purpose of giving specific orders). 

Was the claim on constitutional rights a ploy to create a platform for a program expressly committed to challenging "the law?" The city has no precise definition of what constitutes constitutionally guaranteed speech. Would it be an example of your "substantive logic" that the definition is determined by the group execrcising these rights?

nimblecivet
nimblecivet's picture
Perhaps this has already been

Perhaps this has already been touched on in this thread, and elsewhere:

https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/

"

BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

 

WE, THE NINETY-NINE PERCENT OF THE PEOPLE of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in order to form a more perfect Union, by, for and of the PEOPLE, shall elect and convene a NATIONAL GENERAL ASSEMBLY beginning on July 4, 2012 in the City Of Philadelphia.

...Delegates may convene, deliberate, consider, vote and ratify a PETITION OF GRIEVANCES to be presented to all 535 members of Congress, the 9 members of the Supreme Court, the President of the United States and each of the political candidates seeking to be elected to federal public office in November 2012.

{list of demands}

...BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that IF the PETITION OF GRIEVANCES approved by the 870 Delegates of the NATIONAL GENERAL ASSEMBLY in consultation with the PEOPLE, is not acted upon within a reasonable time and to the satisfaction of the Delegates of the NATIONAL GENERAL ASSEMBLY, said Delegates shall utilize the grassroots network established in the election of the NATIONAL GENERAL ASSEMBLY to organize a new INDEPENDENT POLITICAL PARTY to run candidates for every available Congressional seat in the mid-term election of 2014 and again in 2016 until all vestiges of the existing corrupt corporatocracy have been eradicated through the power of the ballot box."

.ren
.ren's picture
nimblecivet wrote: Occupy San

nimblecivet wrote:

Occupy San Francisco is debating whether to move to something called, "modified consensus", the technique used by Occupy Oakland. The former requires 100% concensus, the latter would be in this situation 90%.

I don't live in Oakland anymore but my brother still does and I've been keeping up on what's been going on through him.  He personally knows some of those more actively involved, you might say passionately committed occupiers, and he tells me there is a kind of split in agreement about what exactly to do.  Not surprising of course.  This is probably a natural process taking place in various Occupy locations.  Some want to stay passive and remain uncommitted to any form of violence, as well as any form of making demands process, and a much smaller group think some action and articulation of demands is called for.

I don't know much about this 90% modified consensus, but it appears likely that the modification of the concensus process in Oakland could be related to this disagreement rather than a somewhat more formal effort to achieve modified consensus.  In other words, it may have occurred because of a difference of opinion of a group of committed activists within the whole, some of whom actually broke off and did things the other "90%" would not agree to doing.

I stress this is only second hand information, I am not there to verify what my brother has observed.

nimblecivet
nimblecivet's picture
I think the worry of some is

I think the worry of some is that there are people who will show up just to block anything so that nothing at all can happen. There might be leaders of the movement, and there might be some there to peel off a few supporters for their "alternative" movement but the latter will not meet with much success from what I can tell. But the "raw" element still vies for attention in their own way. Who can say where the line between self-aware action and out-of-control behavior is?

I don't have the answers but I think we need to reject the idea that being alive automatically makes one "violent". The conceptual definition of violence is a tool of the sophists to characterize others as violent when they are not.

BTW, I apologize to my out-of-control behavior to you on anti's thread.

.ren
.ren's picture
By gones are by gones.  Let's

By gones are by gones.  Let's leave it in the past. This Occupy movement is far more interesting and I would say more important than the speculative discussion we were having there.  I hope Anti doesn't take offense.

And to follow up on your point, power needs violence, that's its default language.  The mayor of Oakland has had a quick lesson in democracy in that regard.  It remains to be seen if it will take.

 

Kerry
Kerry's picture
ren wrote: And how about this

ren wrote:

And how about this one, isn't it a prize?:

"This conclusion is rational, yet cannot be rationally defended. It makes a leap into the moral, which is beyond rational thought. It refuses to place a monetary value on human life." --C. Hedges

Yes, I think that is getting to the point of what 'substantive logic' in its political context means.   And, Kant's idea of “If justice perishes, human life on Earth has lost its meaning" also gets to such a rational context in politics (asserting that 'the meaning of justice' has a 'rational context' in politics--as 'substantively rational' context I believe).    In that light, there is an 'order' in society--but such an order is not mandated by decree as it is assumed by consensus--and, such a consensus has to assume that most people, if free to do so, would decide in manners conducive to civil society--not against it.  However, one dilemma that the Occupy movement seems to be having to face is what to do when authoritarian decrees oppress such a consensus?   In that case, I think the best thing to do as a movement is address the primary condition(s) that endorse(s) such oppression--and that, to me, is corporate personhood (because that is how corporations get 'rights' granted to them by government) and money as speech.   It's good to see that is on nimblecivet's list--but, if it really is to get down to how this government is oppressing this society at this time, I think it specifically is corporate personhood and money as speech and the other areas addressed can be managed approrpriately once those two issues are addressed and removed....

nimblecivet wrote:

Was the claim on constitutional rights a ploy to create a platform for a program expressly committed to challenging "the law?" The city has no precise definition of what constitutes constitutionally guaranteed speech. Would it be an example of your "substantive logic" that the definition is determined by the group execrcising these rights?

Well, it is constitutionally guaranteed for citizens to form assemblies to petition the government for a redress of grievances.   People like Capital (and our present Supreme Court) slyly imply that means associations like corporations.  And, such unification of intent to command by association (in exactly the same 'manner of authority' as if it were government, directly) as corporations will I believe need to be met with as much a consensual intent to remove its 'governmental authorization' by such assemblies as what the Occupy movement appears to mean--any form of violence to relate such a meaning will be tricky since violent revolts will justify authoritarian impositions against it in favor of authoritarian control.   However, if it's because their primary complaints (to me, against corporate personhood and money as speech) are not being addressed, it would appear that there would be no other recourse possible.....but, the resolve to do such will have to be carefully weighed against any unintended consequences to its purpose....I think that all this will need to be carefully considered....

 

 

.ren
.ren's picture
In terms of this rising

In terms of this rising consciousness of morality, not just about the morality of an economic system, but a whole social system, which maybe seems to be expressed these days as economics, but as others, like Jacques Ellul, have noted, it deconstructs to something more technical and rational, a something that has formed not just society but those of us of this society who have embraced these principles as the ideal for which we humans should be striving. An ideal which I would also suggest can be found embedded and expressed in a variety of ways in the notion of progress itself.  Which is why I tend to distance myself from the term "progressive" if I can't be explicit about how I'm using it.

I don't believe this rising consciusness is automatically a Luddite consciousness, that is, anti technology.  I think the issue is more about our humanity and our consciousness, and the problem of what order that comes in our consciousness.  One thing that an institution can do is place the order of concern on technique, that is the need to achieve the objectives of the institutionally defined purpose ahead of our humanity.  And then from that, the whole organization and all involved put that ahead of their humanity.  That's essentially how you can get a loving father or mother to put on a police uniform and dress up in riot gear, then shoot people in the head with tear gas cannisters who are peacefully demonstrating and occupying a public space.  The technique of an institution is to get people to follow the rules of that institution.  Which is another way of expressing what Kerry described in authoritarian terms, I believe.

So I am heartened that there may be an awakening to this with OWS.  And I am heartened when I read articles like the following, which first appeared in Spanish on LatinoCalifornia.com

In it, Ruben discusses the problem of creating an ideal of the impartial, objective journalist, and how that ideal has been turned to serve the technique of media institutions -- I must add owned by corporations -- so that the humanity involved with subjective human reasoning involved with substantive logic is excised from the message.  And in doing so, the message is wide open to the creation of modern day propaganda.

Just the following quoted sentence from the article alone I think applies to the problem of this issue of "fair and balanced" reducing to a simplistic "both sides" explanation; and we often get that from cons who come to this site and pretend the discussions here are only of one side (while they are not, they are often complex and nuanced about issues) and we poor one sided _______s (fill in the blank with a label) need to hear another "side", which they of course are so handily available to do.

Ruben Luengas wrote:

In fact, most stories are not antagonistic or symmetrically reduce to only two sides, and that optical geometric simplification is not applicable to the journalistic task to reflect diverse and complex facts of reality that have more sides than a dodecahedron.

Away With Objectivity by Ruben Luengas

 

 

Fred Wilder
Fred Wilder's picture
November 8, 2011 showed a

November 8, 2011 showed a fairly considerable success at consciousness raising for a nonresonating abstract message.  I think that the deniers are going to have to wake up to the reality that most people know they are being screwed and doesn't need some "leader" telling them that.  OWS in raising political consciousness about the MORALITY of an economic system that tramples the vast majority of humanity to benefit a select few, OWS doesn't need to list and vote on specific demands, those are rising all over the country, and will be dealt with as they arise.  What the Occupy movement does do is to keep knocking those crumbling blocks of a crony capitalist/bought politician system over one by one, just by merely pointing out how those blocks stand in the way of a less harsh life.  It keeps shining the light on inhumanity, brutality, economic exploitation, corruption and obscene greed.  That in and of itself is a significant contribution to mankind.

nimblecivet
nimblecivet's picture
There's very definite,

There's very definite, methodical conditioning involved with this for sure. I want to throw in some defence of "objectivity" though. Rhetorically, autocratic elements can alway argue that their opinion is "objective" of course.

.ren wrote:

In it, Ruben discusses the problem of creating an ideal of the impartial, objective journalist, and how that ideal has been turned to serve the technique of media institutions -- I must add owned by corporations -- so that the humanity involved with subjective human reasoning involved with substantive logic is excised from the message. And in doing so, the message is wide open to the creation of modern day propaganda.

Take FOX for example, the easiest example. It manages to simultaneously purvey itself as "objective" yet "fair and balanced" and yet again as quite obviously biased ideologically. But objective used to be the limitation of information conveyed to facts which were relevant to persons of different perspectives but were in themselves subject to interpretation by each member of the audience, ie "x" happened at place and time such-and-such. What was relevant was decided broadly, so that the news always had more than you could use and but most importantly more than your "faction" was going to tell you.

I think we are actually heading back to a situation more similar to what existed before this attempt at "objectivity" was made. That is, people have to sort through news from multiple sources and do their best to evaluate its reliability and to assess its relevance for themselves. So while RTV and Al-Jazeera for example (and there are plenty of others) are not unaware of the impossibility of pure "objectivity", they do see competition as meaning that a high degree of objectivity will win them the confidence of a wider audience.

Capital
Capital's picture
Wow..  Still going.

Wow..  Still going.

webbleslie
webbleslie's picture
They have made the 99%, the

They have made the 99%, the families jobless and their children Homeless, while they live in their million dollar homes with their million dollar salaries.

The financial institutions charge us for handling our money while they rack up interest and investments from our money.  They took our jobs so that the 99% were forced to use credit to survive, then charge higher and higher interest--if you just pay the minimal balance you will be paying for the rest of your life!

The few jobs that are left will judge you based on your credit score (LexisNexis Consumer Service Center) which could prevent you from getting employment to pay your morgage, student loans, car payment, credit card bills and more and more interest.  Then you are further penalized by the auto and health insurance companies because now you are high risk, therefore you pay higher rates.

By the way the credit reporting agencies do not keep up with previous credit scores so if you once had a great score but now due to the economic crisis you no longer have a good credit score you will now be judge only on the current score.

Then you are told that you mismanaged your money or were living well above your means, well that is like the pot calling the kettle black, and congress and the financial institutions managed our money better???? If you are the 99% and you are keeping a roof over your family's head, the utilities paid and food on the table then you are balancing the budget better than the 1% and congress.

These bailouts could have brought the jobs back to Americans, gone to the troops serving our country, provided increased Social Security and healthcare to our elderly, fed and educated our children, education/training to dislocated workers, provided grants to community programs, provided alternate sources of energy.

The lobbyist and politicians are profiting from insider trading information that they have knowledge of prior to the public.

They get tax breaks and free passes from prosecution for perpetuating inequality and discrimination and when reported it is the 99% that is terminated-punished for speaking out or they are coerced through intimidation to keep quite because you can be replaced.

Corrupt corporations are given tax breaks to the point that some pay no taxes at all! But individuals that risk everything to blow the whistle on these corporations are taxed on, if any, award they recieve.  Not only do these corporations get a free pass on paying taxes but they often get to keep the federal and/or state taxes paid by the employees. 

"They have poisoned the food supply through negligence, and undermined the farming system through monopolization," Now we cannot afford to feed our children and we are afraid to feed our children.  They even poisoned our pets.

"They have continuously sought to strip employees of the right to negotiate for better pay and safer working conditions." If we ask for better pay and safer work conditions they ship outsource our jobs to other countries; to the sweat shops working women and children in deplorable conditions and extremely low wages, then they ship the product back to the US and charge us excessively.

"They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers’ healthcare, pay" and benefits or they only hire part-time workers to side step healthcare, pay and benefits. 

When they took our jobs they encouraged us to return to school and send your children to school and train for new higher paying jobs.  But there were no jobs just tens of thousands of dollars of debt for an education that you cannot use.

The tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, then charge higher and higher interest until student loans have become like credit cards--if you just pay the minimal balance you will be paying for the rest of your life! And if you can't pay they garnish what little wages you are paid, take your tax returns and place liens on your property.

"They have spent millions of dollars on legal teams that look for ways to get them out" lawsuits for those they have harmed, out of the few times that they actually find themselves facing other legal difficulties and to find loop holes in the system. 

"They have sold our privacy as a commodity," then charge us for protection.

They own the military, police and press! but we pay their salaries.

They use the media to brainwash us!

"They have deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of profit." 99% of these products were outsourced to other countries for lower wages--I we get what they pay for--lower wages equals lower quality.

"They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce." Greed supercedes history and learning from past mistakes.

They have bought and paid for congress! I guess money can by anything!  Altrisum and pay it forward is not something they understand. 

"They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil."  What are they going to do with those millions when we our environment can no longer substain them? They get government funds provided by the 99% to support our depency on oil and then get more funds from us at the pumps.  The 99% are paying the 1% for the destruction of the environment and to poison us.

The pharmacuetical companies are profiting off of the phsycial and psychological damage that they are cause to the 99%, they are promoting drugs that are poisoning us (just read the warning lables), they are creating a drug addicted society so that we are incoherent to what they are doing and to subdubed to fight back. We are their research rats.

The military created meth and meth is killing Americans, taking parents from the children!

The gaming corporations are profiting off of violent games, being marketed to our children that were orignially designed to train our military. 

They ignore safety and place profits above the environment causing oil spills, that cost the 99% to clean up and yet they get tax breaks and government funding. 

They are inundating us with advertizment to brainwash us into supporting fracking more oil...raping our envirnoment and spilling more poison into our water systems and destroying our environment.

"They have accepted private contracts to murder prisoners even when presented with serious doubts about their guilt."  Innocent until proven guilty and a fair judicial system does not exist.  The legal systems are profiting off of the innocent and the guilty. 

"They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent" men, women, children and our elderly on US soil all for a profit.  One form of these can be seen in the privatized health care systems.  People are being warehoused for a profit that comes in the form of Government programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Champus. 

Privatized health care systems are stealing from private Insurance companies that are stealing from the 99%.  Now the 99% are going to be penalized for not purchasing healthcare insurance that they cannot afford and/or that is no longer made available to them by employers.  Next the 99% will will have to chose between feeding their children or purchasing healthcare so they are not penalized.

The war has really paid off for the war profitiers, but the 99% lost fathers, sons, brothers, mothers, dauthers, sisters, and limbs.  Now our soldiers come ome broken physically, emotionally and psychology and to no jobs and not enough people to provide them adequate treatment.  Now we are losing more soldiers to suicide than we lost in the war.

If the 99% were to commit any of these crimes they would be prosecuted and imprisioned, but rarely do you see the 1% consequenced for their crimes.

Congress works 3 days a week and their 6 digit salaries are paid by the 99%, but they want to cut social programs...why not cut their salaries to help balance the budget.  They are not standing in the unemployment lines.  If we brought back our jobs, equal and fair wages, so many would not be dependant on the some social programs that they have and continue to want to cut.

The corrupt corporations, financial institutions, politicians will continue business as normal if we all do not stand together in peaceful solidarity!  Occupy Wall Street is long over due.  The 99% will prevail...occupy, march, create and sign petitions, educate, spread the word, support freespeech.org to have your voices heard!

Sprinklerfitter
Sprinklerfitter's picture
That is one of the best

That is one of the best replys I've seen around here ..........period.

 

I'm going to make a copy of that.