Page 3 of 4

Re: Crackpot's Guide to Political Outrage

Posted: 2011-10-18 01:29pm
by Simon_Jester
Count Chocula wrote:No no no, Coop, you are 100% wrong. The Tea Party's philosophical underpinnings lead directly to concrete solutions, i.e. elect people who will lower taxes and borrowing and eliminate direct Federal supervision of private companies.

The OWS message of (your words) "the system is rigged in favour of the wealthy" is neither cogent or specific with regard to remedy, if such is needed. In other words, the OWS message is vague bullshit.
Can you demonstrate that there was a clearly recognizable "Tea Party" with a specific, concrete platform one month after the first protestor showed up?

Had the term "Tea Party" even been coined then?

Hell, can you even attach a date to the first Tea Party protests, as I can attach Sept. 17 to the first protests in New York?

Did you even know the Tea Party existed one month after the first event that, in hindsight, we can call the "Tea Party movement?" [Well, OK, maybe you did, but that's only because you're probably more in touch with the Tea Party's membership than the average American.]

At this point, to borrow a phrase from the First Amendment, the OWS movement is built around exercising "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I do not need a policy plan to be petitioning for a redress of grievances. That plan may come, it may come from many places after long conversations and heated internal disagreements- and even the Tea Party contains plenty of diversity and people who disagree about what is to be done. But it does not need to be there for the movement to have a right to exist. Certainly not at this time.

To expect a detailed policy agenda agreed on by the entire set of all people who think that crony capitalism needs to stop, one month after protests against crony capitalism start forming a "movement," is absurd.

Re: Crackpot's Guide to Political Outrage

Posted: 2011-10-18 01:49pm
by Oni Koneko Damien
Hell, re-watching the video, Count Chucklefuck's views are, almost word-for-word, exactly what's mocked.

- The protestors have no coherent message.

"America cannot expect a bunch of disenfranchised park-dwellers to come up with a solution to its economic woes -- they have a political ruling class to do that."

- The protestors are breaking laws, unlike the Tea Party.

"These are all misdemeanors. The Tea Party was a felony ... The movement is based on the single most celebrated act of theft and vandalism in the nation's history, and you can't stomach a little park-camping?"

My goodness, it's almost as if Chucklefuck's and Crackpot's views are cut-and-pasted from right-wing media reports. :wink:

Re: Crackpot's Guide to Political Outrage

Posted: 2011-10-18 01:51pm
by Coop D'etat
Count Chocula wrote:No no no, Coop, you are 100% wrong. The Tea Party's philosophical underpinnings lead directly to concrete solutions, i.e. elect people who will lower taxes and borrowing and eliminate direct Federal supervision of private companies.

The OWS message of (your words) "the system is rigged in favour of the wealthy" is neither cogent or specific with regard to remedy, if such is needed. In other words, the OWS message is vague bullshit.
Your judging by different standards here. We're a couple of years into the tea party movement, they've gone from semi-spontaneous anger into something with a degree of organization and a platform. Judge them according to what the TEA party was at this point in their life-cycle, a couple weeks into the TEA party movement they were just some pissed-off older, middle class people who wore funny costumes, some of whom made a point of conspicuous gun carrying.

Taxes are too high is very vague platform in of itself. Which taxes should be cut and who should benefit? Which government spending should be cut to compensate or should more debt financing be used? How many answers to these questions did the TEA party have a couple weeks into their movement?

Re: Crackpot's Guide to Political Outrage

Posted: 2011-10-18 01:52pm
by Count Chocula
Actually, no Simon, I can't. As I've noted, the OWS crowd has no coherent platform. The first few months of the Tea Party protests can be characterised the same way, but without the littering, disorder and arrests of the OWS crowd in their initial stages. That's why I'm repeatedly asking what the OWS folks' goals are, in concrete form.

Oh BTW, fuck off OKD. Try posting something with a little substance instead of inference. You DO know the meanings of the words "substance" and "inference," right?

Re: Crackpot's Guide to Political Outrage

Posted: 2011-10-18 02:02pm
by Oni Koneko Damien
Okay, okay, so if I'm getting this right:

Taking the time to address and refute your points, then bringing up another source which addresses and refutes your points is posting with no substance? You basically just flat out admitted that either you're simply not reading anything that disagrees with you, or you're willing to flat out lie about things posted in this very thread, on this very page.

You. Are. An. Idiot.

Re: Crackpot's Guide to Political Outrage

Posted: 2011-10-18 02:08pm
by Samuel
Oni Koneko Damien wrote:But how dare the OWS protesters point out that maybe, just maybe, wealth-inequality and corporate ownership of politics isn't a simple problem with a simple solution.
Higher taxes on the rich and removal of loopholes are simple soundbites.
Why the fuck do you expect them to come up with a solution that addresses your simplistic worldview, rather than the government officials which get paid, at the very least, a six-digit salary with full benefits to do that very fucking job? Christ you're an idiot.
That is generally what political movements do. They offer a set of solutions, programs and canidates to try to achieve change.
D.Turtle wrote:Their message is quite simple: The status quo is broken. The status quo is working for the 1% at the top and not the 99% below them. The system is rigged so that the top 1% are getting richer and richer, while the rest has to work harder and harder just to stay in place. The political system is rigged so that the interests of the 1% are being heard at the expense of the other 99%.
That isn't actually true.
Image

Only the bottom 20% is stagnant. Everyone else has seen income rise. The rich have seen it rise faster, but the top 50% has made out decently as well.
Edit: I'm refering to since 1970 when income inequality started to increase.
And they want to change that.

How is that not a message? Why does that have to be coupled to a list of demands, law proposals, etc?
Because there are a ton of ways to attempt to change that, some that are reasonable, others that are not. The Tea Party wanted to reduce pork and federal inefficiency which is a sane goal... and wanted a drastic reduction in taxes which is significantly less so.
How do they want to change that? This is how:
Direct democracy? It is important people are getting an experience in organization but that won't change America.

Re: Crackpot's Guide to Political Outrage

Posted: 2011-10-18 03:04pm
by D.Turtle
Samuel wrote:That isn't actually true.

Only the bottom 20% is stagnant. Everyone else has seen income rise. The rich have seen it rise faster, but the top 50% has made out decently as well.
Edit: I'm refering to since 1970 when income inequality started to increase.
I'm guessing that your chart measures household income. How many of those households are two-income households now and how many were in the past? Secondly, of course not only 1% saw the total income rise, but it is indisputable that the vast majority of income growth has gone to the top 1% (or 0.1%, or 0.01%) and that the disparity to the rest of the population has risen. Obviously the 1% (or 99%) is chosen because it is more catchy than 90%, or 95%, or whatever. Also, it emphasizes that the focus is on the extremes and not against everyone who is only somewhat better off.

It would be posible to get into a huge discussion as to exactly where the line should be drawn, but it is just a distraction from the real issues. However, this post does provide quite a lot of good graphs and information as to the problems of inequality.
Because there are a ton of ways to attempt to change that, some that are reasonable, others that are not. The Tea Party wanted to reduce pork and federal inefficiency which is a sane goal... and wanted a drastic reduction in taxes which is significantly less so.
And the goal of the Occupy movement is to try and get as many people as possible together and come to some kind of consensus as to what to do.
Direct democracy? It is important people are getting an experience in organization but that won't change America.
I'm skeptical at their chances of success as to achieving broad change in how government, the economy, etc works. However, I do think that they can be very successful at pointing out problems, getting people involved, forcing politicians to address their protests, etc. A lot of the problems in the US (and elsewhere) comes from the fact that the interests of most people are being ignored in favor of those of a select few. Anything that counteracts this is a good thing in y view. Even if they fall short of their goals, they will still have affected some movement in what is politically acceptable.

Look at the Tea Party protests for example. They did not - and most probably will not - succeed in pushing through any of their demands at the federal level (especially repealing "Obamacare"). However, they have moved the Overton window for Republicans far to the right.

If the Occupy movement can move the Overton window further away from corporatist/pro-uber-rich/pro-finance-industry positions, they will have been somewhat effective.

Re: Crackpot's Guide to Political Outrage

Posted: 2011-10-18 05:01pm
by Samuel
I'm guessing that your chart measures household income. How many of those households are two-income households now and how many were in the past?
Finding such a chart is difficult on Census Bureau.gov. They seem to only consider household income. Maybe my eyesight is bad- could you take a look at the titles because it doesn't look like they have anything under income inequality.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/d ... index.html

The closest I can get on this subject is this
http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/p23-196.pdf

Change 1969 to 1996
Married
percent population 41 to 25
percent change in women working 16 to 39

no children less than 40
5 to 4
42 to 59

40-64
15 to 14
30 to 45

65+
8 to 8
7 to 7

So it increased, but the increase was also countered by the decline in married couples. It comes out to only a 50% due to these factors for the married with children category.
It would be posible to get into a huge discussion as to exactly where the line should be drawn, but it is just a distraction from the real issues. However, this post does provide quite a lot of good graphs and information as to the problems of inequality.
I'm aware inequality increased. The graph I posted showed as much. I'm more curious about real income.
If the Occupy movement can move the Overton window further away from corporatist/pro-uber-rich/pro-finance-industry positions, they will have been somewhat effective.
True, but I'm skeptical about what policy measures can actually be implemented. You can increase taxes on the rich and reduce inequality, but that won't get people employed. None of the agenda's I have seen so far have concrete programs to improve conditions on the bottom.

Re: Crackpot's Guide to Political Outrage

Posted: 2011-10-18 05:49pm
by D.Turtle
Well, its surprisingly relatively difficult to put together a comprehensive picture of the kind of stuff I'm looking for.

The Business Insider link I posted had one graph showing hourly wages:
Image

Otherwise, you can also look at the "Historical Income Data -> Personal" site from the Current Population Survey of the US Census here.
Some tables worth looking at:
P-5 and P-6: Median/Mean income by sex. Look at the raw numbers of income - which have stagnated for men and risen for women since roughly 1970. Obviously this is because of more women entering the work force or going from part-time to full-time. You can see this by looking at the raw number of men/women who have income. Obviously it rose for both (population growth), but it grew a lot more for women in comparison to men.

Then look at table P-38: Median Earnings of full-time year-round workers by sex.
The earnings have stayed pretty much flat for men since 1970, while for women it has increased by about 40% in that time-frame to a level about three quarters of that of men. But then look at the raw numbers of people who fall under this category: It rose by about 60% for men (from 37 million to 63 million before the recession) but pretty much tripled for women (from 15 million to 45 million before the recession).

So it is quite safe to say that any household income growth pretty much has had to come from adding an additional wage earner (or switching from part-time to full-time work).

There are other tables to look at, but they all tell the same story: stagnation for men, increases and increasing numbers for women.

Re: Crackpot's Guide to Political Outrage

Posted: 2011-10-18 06:10pm
by Samuel
Well, its surprisingly relatively difficult to put together a comprehensive picture of the kind of stuff I'm looking for.
I know. It is really weird because you'd think this would be the main thing everyone is interested in.
There are other tables to look at, but they all tell the same story: stagnation for men, increases and increasing numbers for women.
It technically shows the median income stagnated. This means the bottom 50% stayed the same. It doesn't say anything about the top 50%. The mean income has increased (about 10,000) and since the median is static, that means the top 50% did very well.

Re: Crackpot's Guide to Political Outrage

Posted: 2011-10-18 07:07pm
by D.Turtle
Samuel wrote:It technically shows the median income stagnated. This means the bottom 50% stayed the same. It doesn't say anything about the top 50%. The mean income has increased (about 10,000) and since the median is static, that means the top 50% did very well.
Yes, but then you have to look at how the income growth was divided among that top 50%. And thats where there is a huge difference between the top 1%, 5%, 10%, 20%, 50%. Its not that the top 50% did very well, but that the top 1, 5, 10, 20% did extremely well.

Re: Crackpot's Guide to Political Outrage

Posted: 2011-10-18 07:15pm
by Samuel
I don't know. The chart I had has the 60th percentile "only" gained more than 10,000 since 1990. That sounds like the top 50% are all doing well.

Re: Crackpot's Guide to Political Outrage

Posted: 2011-10-18 08:03pm
by D.Turtle
Image
Yes, the second quintile saw a little growth. It is completely dwarfed by what the top 1% and so on has gained.
Another way of looking at it:
Image
Two thirds of all income growth went to the top 5%. Almost 40% went to the top 1%.
Or another way of looking at it:
Image
The top 0.01% saw their share of income grow from 1% to 5% of all income.

Lumping those top 0.01%, or 1%, or 5% together with the next 4X% is disingenuous.

Re: Crackpot's Guide to Political Outrage

Posted: 2011-10-18 09:41pm
by Drooling Iguana
D.Turtle wrote:Why is a clear list of demands, goals, or programs so important?
Because a list of demands is effectively a list of ways to shut a movement up. If a concrete list of demands is given, those in power can arrange a half-hearted, in-name-only capitulation to those demands and then brand everyone who continues to protest as hypocrites. And, if the demands are too steep for that to be possible, they can just brand the protesters as greedy and unreasonable.

It also serves as a means to divide the protesters, since it's highly doubtful that everyone at these protests has the same idea of how the inequalities they're protesting against should be best addressed.

As long as the protest remains based on basic principles rather than a particular laundry list that can be manipulated and re-interpreted the protest will continue until the protesters are actually satisfied, which is far from being in the best interests of the people being protested against.

Re: Crackpot's Guide to Political Outrage

Posted: 2011-10-18 09:57pm
by Col. Crackpot
Oni Koneko Damien wrote:
Col. Crackpot wrote:Well then here's to hope. Hope that people like those in the pictures grow in numbers and drown out the clowns in che guevera shirts.
You're an idiot.

No, i'm someone who doesn't want his children to inherit a world where the inmates are running the asylum. I sweat my fucking balls off for 8 years working in a plastics factory putting myself through school because nobody was handing me a free fucking education. I work 50+ hours a week in a a bank branch in the inner city. The people i work with are educated professionals who actualy give a shit about the people they serve every day. We are not evil oppressors drinking the tears of the poor out of champagne flutes. I will not be lectured to by a bunch of whiny goddamn malcontents Fuck you and the high horse your rode in on.

Re: Crackpot's Guide to Political Outrage

Posted: 2011-10-18 10:21pm
by Losonti Tokash
No goddamn wonder you're such an ass about it. You work for the fucking shitbirds that screwed everyone.

Re: Crackpot's Guide to Political Outrage

Posted: 2011-10-18 10:29pm
by Col. Crackpot
Losonti Tokash wrote:No goddamn wonder you're such an ass about it. You work for the fucking shitbirds that screwed everyone.
So that makes us all shit birds? That about right? Most of us actually give a damn you know. Most of us work for a living. Almost all of us have children and mortgages and responsibilities. Grown up shit. So pardon my fucking disdain when an angry mob wants to lump us all together with the handful of assclowns who broke the world. This is an assault on my livelyhood and that of the millions of others who work in this industry with integrity. Sorry is that contradicts the biggest hipster fad since wool caps came back in style.

Re: Crackpot's Guide to Political Outrage

Posted: 2011-10-18 10:36pm
by Bakustra
So what are you doing about it? At least the protesters, no matter their taste in pop-art or how ironic their drinking of coffee, are proposing changes to the system to make sure that this doesn't happen again. And guess what? You're part of the 99% too. These protests are on your behalf as well. The fact that you're pushing away people because you believe in the just-world and bootstraps fallacies is saddening, because these people are sympathetic to you as well.

Re: Crackpot's Guide to Political Outrage

Posted: 2011-10-18 10:41pm
by Col. Crackpot
Bakustra wrote:So what are you doing about it? At least the protesters, no matter their taste in pop-art or how ironic their drinking of coffee, are proposing changes to the system to make sure that this doesn't happen again. And guess what? You're part of the 99% too. These protests are on your behalf as well. The fact that you're pushing away people because you believe in the just-world and bootstraps fallacies is saddening, because these people are sympathetic to you as well.
I do what I can. Incremental change. Continuous improvement. I understand the situations of the clients I serve. Help where I can, be an advocate even when I can't. Yes i have to play the game and make money for my employer, but i can do it ethically and hopeful foster change from within. If people find that offensive... well i can live with that.

Re: Crackpot's Guide to Political Outrage

Posted: 2011-10-18 11:10pm
by Samuel
D.Turtle wrote:The top 0.01% saw their share of income grow from 1% to 5% of all income.

Lumping those top 0.01%, or 1%, or 5% together with the next 4X% is disingenuous.
Not really- these are people who have a vested interest in the system. The top 50% benefit and since most people are rish averse they while be against any radical change.
Drooling Iguana wrote:
D.Turtle wrote:Why is a clear list of demands, goals, or programs so important?
Because a list of demands is effectively a list of ways to shut a movement up. If a concrete list of demands is given, those in power can arrange a half-hearted, in-name-only capitulation to those demands and then brand everyone who continues to protest as hypocrites. And, if the demands are too steep for that to be possible, they can just brand the protesters as greedy and unreasonable.

It also serves as a means to divide the protesters, since it's highly doubtful that everyone at these protests has the same idea of how the inequalities they're protesting against should be best addressed.

As long as the protest remains based on basic principles rather than a particular laundry list that can be manipulated and re-interpreted the protest will continue until the protesters are actually satisfied, which is far from being in the best interests of the people being protested against.
The government can do that even if the protestors don't give a list. What stops the government from offering to launch investigations and raise takes and then attack the protestors who remain as greedy?

Re: Crackpot's Guide to Political Outrage

Posted: 2011-10-19 12:03am
by Losonti Tokash
Col. Crackpot wrote:
Losonti Tokash wrote:No goddamn wonder you're such an ass about it. You work for the fucking shitbirds that screwed everyone.
So that makes us all shit birds? That about right? Most of us actually give a damn you know. Most of us work for a living. Almost all of us have children and mortgages and responsibilities. Grown up shit. So pardon my fucking disdain when an angry mob wants to lump us all together with the handful of assclowns who broke the world. This is an assault on my livelyhood and that of the millions of others who work in this industry with integrity. Sorry is that contradicts the biggest hipster fad since wool caps came back in style.
If you gave a shit, maybe you'd actually be out doing something, instead of just mocking people who care enough to get off your ass. You complain that the OWS protesters are too vague with their demands and all you can offer up on your own behalf is "hurr I make incremental changes! I can totally make ethical reforms from within as middle management at a bank by doing fuck all."

Re: Crackpot's Guide to Political Outrage

Posted: 2011-10-19 01:00am
by Simon_Jester
Col. Crackpot wrote:No, i'm someone who doesn't want his children to inherit a world where the inmates are running the asylum. I sweat my fucking balls off for 8 years working in a plastics factory putting myself through school because nobody was handing me a free fucking education. I work 50+ hours a week in a a bank branch in the inner city. The people i work with are educated professionals who actualy give a shit about the people they serve every day. We are not evil oppressors drinking the tears of the poor out of champagne flutes. I will not be lectured to by a bunch of whiny goddamn malcontents Fuck you and the high horse your rode in on.
Half the problem that's motivating these protests is that people are sweating their balls off for, relatively speaking, less return than they used to get. A handful of people do really well. Some of those people work incredibly hard. Others work pretty darn hard, and have luck. Some don't work hard at all, and inherited the money, or made such a pile of money years ago that they can now more or less make it work for them.

Meanwhile, other people who also work hard and find themselves in the bottom 50%, 80%, or 90% of the population see their relative position getting worse- they have more trouble making ends meet, they work fifty hours where they used to work forty, they wrestle with skyrocketing costs of education for themselves and their children.

Hard work is not the monopoly of the guys at the top of the totem pole. If we want society to reward hard work, we have to stop the people at the top from creating a world where everyone is forced to work hard without getting the actual reward for it- which is a great idea from the point of view of enriching the rich, and not so great for everyone else.

People who are willing to work, happy to work, but cannot find work because there are more people than job openings in America... are they whiny malcontents? What about people who can't find a job because no one wants to hire anyone with less than five years' experience, when there are so many unemployed experienced people to choose from?

Exactly how bad off does a person have to be, before they can say "something is wrong with the system, it is not all a pile of trouble I brought down on my own head by being foolish."

Re: Crackpot's Guide to Political Outrage

Posted: 2011-10-19 01:44am
by Shroom Man 777
Since when have the protesters lumped working-class people in the same category as the bourgeoisie Wall Street assholes?

I don't see the protesters going against normal people like Crackpot. Unless Cracko here has a learjet and got a billion-dollar bonus from the government after causing the economical fuckup in the first place.

It seems like Cracko is identifying with the billionaires, and is interpreting the protests as something against him also, for some reason. When the only thing that's "against" him is people contradicting his ignorant characterizations of the OWS protesters.

I also find it disturbing that someone would categorized the masses of people who are justified in railing against the small elite who are disproportionately profiting from the common working class man's labors, that elite who are not accountable for the wrongs they've done, as the "inmates" of the asylum.

It's incredible how these unsympathetic assholes have not one ounce of outrage towards the cabal of unaccountable pricks who've caused this financial crisis in the first place. And yet they have the gall to disdain, deride and outright loathe common people from all walks of life, from so many nations and so many cities, who are just voicing their outrage and anger and unhappiness.

It's like those assholes who get angry at the woman who reports to the cops that the star quarterback jock douche tried to harass her or some shit. The star quarterback jockstrap is never accountable, but the woman reporting about it is seen with such hostility and anger by these asshole fucks because they care less about moral wrongs or accountability and care more about their precious little darlings, which explains their animosity towards those who would "bitch" about it.

It's a wonderful act of social programming on the part of the powerful, so that the very same people they're fucking over actually rush to their defense. God, I wish I was amongst them, I could do all sorts of shit that'd be against the common good of humanity, and people like Cracko here would rush to my defense and mock and deride anyone who'd call me out on my bullshit. Truly, these guys are magnificent. God's most beautiful creations.

Re: Crackpot's Guide to Political Outrage

Posted: 2011-10-19 02:14am
by Oni Koneko Damien
Col. Crackpot wrote:No, i'm someone who doesn't want his children to inherit a world where the inmates are running the asylum. I sweat my fucking balls off for 8 years working in a plastics factory putting myself through school because nobody was handing me a free fucking education. I work 50+ hours a week in a a bank branch in the inner city. The people i work with are educated professionals who actualy give a shit about the people they serve every day. We are not evil oppressors drinking the tears of the poor out of champagne flutes. I will not be lectured to by a bunch of whiny goddamn malcontents Fuck you and the high horse your rode in on.
You know what? The inmates already are running the asylum.

The only reason I'm not out protesting right now? I currently sweat my balls off working in a motor-parts factory 40+ hours a week. I used to say I was doing it to pay off school debt and thus be able to complete schooling, but since cost-of-living has risen quite unequally to wages, I'm now working my ass off just to make ends meet on a month-to-month basis. I'm throwing away hours, days, weeks, months of my life and health for shit wages and shittier benefits because I have a family I need to support and as fucked as this economic situation is, I don't have a goddamn choice in the matter. And I'm one of the lucky ones because I still have a fucking job.

I have to go in every goddamn day, put in my 8+ hours without complaint for a pissy little paycheck because making a big fuss is a surefire way to get shoved out the door and replaced with one of the other millions desperately looking for a job. I'm always one accident, or one case of sickness away from complete financial ruin, I have to choose between getting not-quite-shitty medical benefits, or having enough to pay for rent and groceries, and there isn't anything I can do about it without severely hurting myself and my family in the short-term.

I work for a system that treats me like shit and those in charge are actively working to make my life worse for their short-term profit. And if I want to survive and support my loved ones, I just have to keep my head down and continue taking it up the ass.

And that's what the people in the OWS movement are trying to change. Unlike you, I'm actually capable of realizing that and supporting what they fight for even if I can't directly join in thanks to my current situation. I can also understand that practically all of them are people just like me, except most aren't quite as lucky and got laid off or otherwise screwed by the system, thus they have no where else to go and nothing else to do but to try and draw attention to the fact that the system is fundamentally broken. And you're going to call them a bunch of malcontents and deride them for not having a solution for the system they didn't break?

Fuck you, I will gladly remain on my moral high horse because I goddamn earned it.

And if I seem to be taking it personally, I am, because I know a number of people in the movement. One of my best friends was one of the most vocal participants of the Madison protests earlier this year that actually kick-started the whole OWS movement. She's a mother of two, laid off and desperately seeking work for years because her fiance barely makes enough to support her and the kids, but according to you she's nothing but a pot-smoking, Che-wearing malcontent.

Fuck you.

My mother has muscular dystrophy and cancer. She was told by the doctors she was supposed to die twenty years ago, she has fought her way back from that and despite the fact that her muscles almost immediately start to atrophy whenever they're at rest and the fact that her back is slowly devouring itself from the inside out, she manages to take a mile-walk every day. Or she did before medical benefits were repeatedly cut, she and her boyfriend lost their jobs, and now she is in constant pain every day, barely able to make it up and down a flight of stairs, and only having a roof over her head because her landlord's been infinitely patient and understanding of her situation. Yet she's still fighting. Guess who's also a part of the OWS movement?

I reiterate: Fuck you.

Re: Crackpot's Guide to Political Outrage

Posted: 2011-10-19 05:21am
by D.Turtle
Col. Crackpot wrote:No, i'm someone who doesn't want his children to inherit a world where the inmates are running the asylum. I sweat my fucking balls off for 8 years working in a plastics factory putting myself through school because nobody was handing me a free fucking education. I work 50+ hours a week in a a bank branch in the inner city. The people i work with are educated professionals who actualy give a shit about the people they serve every day. We are not evil oppressors drinking the tears of the poor out of champagne flutes. I will not be lectured to by a bunch of whiny goddamn malcontents Fuck you and the high horse your rode in on.
You remind me of that whole ridiculous "We are the 53%" thing Eric Erickson started as a counter to the 99%.

In addition to what Oni Koneko Damien just wrote, I would also recommend you read the following, in order to get some perspective on what the whole Occupy thing is about, what they think of people like you, and what they want to achieve.

Its a diary on DailyKos that got quite a lot of criculation:
Open Letter to that 53% Guy
by Max Udargo

Hello,

I briefly visited the “We are the 53%” website, but I first saw your face on a liberal blog. Your picture is quite popular on liberal blogs. I think it’s because of the expression on your face. I don’t know if you meant to look pugnacious or if we’re just projecting that on you, but I think that’s what gets our attention.

In the picture, you’re holding up a sheet of paper that says:

I am a former Marine.
I work two jobs.
I don’t have health insurance.
I worked 60-70 hours a week for 8 years to pay my way through college.
I haven’t had 4 consecutive days off in over 4 years.
But I don’t blame Wall Street.
Suck it up you whiners.
I am the 53%.
God bless the USA!

I wanted to respond to you as a liberal. Because, although I think you’ve made yourself clear and I think I understand you, you don’t seem to understand me at all. I hope you will read this and understand me better, and maybe understand the Occupy Wall Street movement better.

First, let me say that I think it’s great that you have such a strong work ethic and I agree with you that you have much to be proud of. You seem like a good, hard-working, strong kid. I admire your dedication and determination. I worked my way through college too, mostly working graveyard shifts at hotels as a “night auditor.” For a time I worked at two hotels at once, but I don’t think I ever worked 60 hours in a week, and certainly not 70. I think I maxed out at 56. And that wasn’t something I could sustain for long, not while going to school. The problem was that I never got much sleep, and sleep deprivation would take its toll. I can’t imagine putting in 70 hours in a week while going to college at the same time. That’s impressive.

I have a nephew in the Marine Corps, so I have some idea of how tough that can be. He almost didn’t make it through basic training, but he stuck it out and insisted on staying even when questions were raised about his medical fitness. He eventually served in Iraq and Afghanistan and has decided to pursue a career in the Marines. We’re all very proud of him. Your picture reminds me of him.

So, if you think being a liberal means that I don’t value hard work or a strong work ethic, you’re wrong. I think everyone appreciates the industry and dedication a person like you displays. I’m sure you’re a great employee, and if you have entrepreneurial ambitions, I’m sure these qualities will serve you there too. I’ll wish you the best of luck, even though a guy like you will probably need luck less than most.

I understand your pride in what you’ve accomplished, but I want to ask you something.

Do you really want the bar set this high? Do you really want to live in a society where just getting by requires a person to hold down two jobs and work 60 to 70 hours a week? Is that your idea of the American Dream?

Do you really want to spend the rest of your life working two jobs and 60 to 70 hours a week? Do you think you can? Because, let me tell you, kid, that’s not going to be as easy when you’re 50 as it was when you were 20.

And what happens if you get sick? You say you don’t have health insurance, but since you’re a veteran I assume you have some government-provided health care through the VA system. I know my father, a Vietnam-era veteran of the Air Force, still gets most of his medical needs met through the VA, but I don’t know what your situation is. But even if you have access to health care, it doesn’t mean disease or injury might not interfere with your ability to put in those 60- to 70-hour work weeks.

Do you plan to get married, have kids? Do you think your wife is going to be happy with you working those long hours year after year without a vacation? Is it going to be fair to her? Is it going to be fair to your kids? Is it going to be fair to you?

Look, you’re a tough kid. And you have a right to be proud of that. But not everybody is as tough as you, or as strong, or as young. Does pride in what you’ve accomplish mean that you have contempt for anybody who can’t keep up with you? Does it mean that the single mother who can’t work on her feet longer than 50 hours a week doesn’t deserve a good life? Does it mean the older man who struggles with modern technology and can’t seem to keep up with the pace set by younger workers should just go throw himself off a cliff?

And, believe it or not, there are people out there even tougher than you. Why don’t we let them set the bar, instead of you? Are you ready to work 80 hours a week? 100 hours? Can you hold down four jobs? Can you do it when you’re 40? When you’re 50? When you’re 60? Can you do it with arthritis? Can you do it with one arm? Can you do it when you’re being treated for prostate cancer?

And is this really your idea of what life should be like in the greatest country on Earth?

Here’s how a liberal looks at it: a long time ago workers in this country realized that industrialization wasn’t making their lives better, but worse. The captains of industry were making a ton of money and living a merry life far away from the dirty, dangerous factories they owned, and far away from the even dirtier and more dangerous mines that fed raw materials to those factories.

The workers quickly decided that this arrangement didn’t work for them. If they were going to work as cogs in machines designed to build wealth for the Rockefellers, Vanderbilts and Carnegies, they wanted a cut. They wanted a share of the wealth that they were helping create. And that didn’t mean just more money; it meant a better quality of life. It meant reasonable hours and better working conditions.

Eventually, somebody came up with the slogan, “8 hours of work, 8 hours of leisure, 8 hours of sleep” to divide the 24-hour day into what was considered a fair allocation of a human’s time. It wasn’t a slogan that was immediately accepted. People had to fight to put this standard in place. People demonstrated, and fought with police, and were killed. They were called communists (in fairness, some of them were), and traitors, and many of them got a lot worse than pepper spray at the hands of police and private security.

But by the time we got through the Great Depression and WWII, we’d all learned some valuable lessons about working together and sharing the prosperity, and the 8-hour workday became the norm.

The 8-hour workday and the 40-hour workweek became a standard by which we judged our economic success, and a reality check against which we could verify the American Dream.

If a family could live a good life with one wage-earner working a 40-hour job, then the American Dream was realized. If the income from that job could pay the bills, buy a car, pay for the kids’ braces, allow the family to save enough money for a down payment on a house and still leave some money for retirement and maybe for a college fund for the kids, then we were living the American Dream. The workers were sharing in the prosperity they helped create, and they still had time to take their kids to a ball game, take their spouses to a movie, and play a little golf on the weekends.

Ah, the halcyon days of the 1950s! Yeah, ok, it wasn’t quite that perfect. The prosperity wasn’t spread as evenly and ubiquitously as we might want to pretend, but if you were a middle-class white man, things were probably pretty good from an economic perspective. The American middle class was reaching its zenith.

And the top marginal federal income tax rate was more than 90%. Throughout the whole of the 1950s and into the early 60s.

Just thought I’d throw that in there.

Anyway, do you understand what I’m trying to say? We can have a reasonable standard for what level of work qualifies you for the American Dream, and work to build a society that realizes that dream, or we can chew each other to the bone in a nightmare of merciless competition and mutual contempt.

I’m a liberal, so I probably dream bigger than you. For instance, I want everybody to have healthcare. I want lazy people to have healthcare. I want stupid people to have healthcare. I want drug addicts to have healthcare. I want bums who refuse to work even when given the opportunity to have healthcare. I’m willing to pay for that with my taxes, because I want to live in a society where it doesn’t matter how much of a loser you are, if you need medical care you can get it. And not just by crowding up an emergency room that should be dedicated exclusively to helping people in emergencies.

You probably don’t agree with that, and that’s fine. That’s an expansion of the American Dream, and would involve new commitments we haven’t made before. But the commitment we’ve made to the working class since the 1940s is something that we should both support and be willing to fight for, whether we are liberal or conservative. We should both be willing to fight for the American Dream. And we should agree that anybody trying to steal that dream from us is to be resisted, not defended.

And while we’re defending that dream, you know what else we’ll be defending, kid? We’ll be defending you and your awesome work ethic. Because when we defend the American Dream we’re not just defending the idea of modest prosperity for people who put in an honest day’s work, we’re also defending the idea that those who go the extra mile should be rewarded accordingly.

Look kid, I don’t want you to “get by” working two jobs and 60 to 70 hours a week. If you’re willing to put in that kind of effort, I want you to get rich. I want you to have a comprehensive healthcare plan. I want you vacationing in the Bahamas every couple of years, with your beautiful wife and healthy, happy kids. I want you rewarded for your hard work, and I want your exceptional effort to reap exceptional rewards. I want you to accumulate wealth and invest it in Wall Street. And I want you to make more money from those investments.

I understand that a prosperous America needs people with money to invest, and I’ve got no problem with that. All other things being equal, I want all the rich people to keep being rich. And clever financiers who find ways to get more money into the hands of promising entrepreneurs should be rewarded for their contributions as well.

I think Wall Street has an important job to do, I just don’t think they’ve been doing it. And I resent their sense of entitlement – their sense that they are special and deserve to be rewarded extravagantly even when they screw everything up.

Come on, it was only three years ago, kid. Remember? Those assholes almost destroyed our economy. Do you remember the feeling of panic? John McCain wanted to suspend the presidential campaign so that everybody could focus on the crisis. Hallowed financial institutions like Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch went belly up. The government started intervening with bailouts, not because anybody thought “private profits and socialized losses” was fair, but because we were afraid not to intervene - we were afraid our whole economy might come crashing down around us if we didn’t prop up companies that were “too big to fail.”

So, even though you and I had nothing to do with the bad decisions, blind greed and incompetence of those guys on Wall Street, we were sure as hell along for the ride, weren’t we? And we’ve all paid a price.

All the” 99%” wants is for you to remember the role that Wall Street played in creating this mess, and for you to join us in demanding that Wall Street share the pain. They don’t want to share the pain, and they’re spending a lot of money and twisting a lot of arms to foist their share of the pain on the rest of us instead. And they’ve been given unprecedented powers to spend and twist, and they’re not even trying to hide what they’re doing.

All we want is for everybody to remember what happened, and to see what is happening still. And we want you to see that the only way they can get away without paying their share is to undermine the American Dream for the rest of us.

And I want you and I to understand each other, and to stand together to prevent them from doing that. You seem like the kind of guy who would be a strong ally, and I’d be proud to stand with you.
In short: You aren't the enemy, the Occupy movement isn't against people like you, in fact its the opposite: They want people like you to get the reward they deserve, instead of having to run more and more just to stay in place.