OWS represents anger Barack Hussein Obama has caused

Byrnzie

usamamasan1 wrote:

Back on topic, occupy wall street is mad at the wrong people. They should probably not be throwing blame at successful people.

Successful people? You mean the criminals who have bled America dry and shipped the U.S manufacturing base overseas where labour is cheap and health and safety standards can be bypassed?
Yeah, these successful people you love so much really have the interests of the American people at heart.

Meanwhile:



Land of the free, home of the hungry

Nowhere is the chasm between America's political class and its working poor more vast than in the demand to cut food stamps

Gary Younge
guardian.co.uk, Friday 9 December 2011


On Monday afternoon this week, Rachelle Grimmer went into a Department of Health and Human Services in Texas with her two children, Timothy, aged 10, and Ramie, aged 12, and asked for a new case worker who could assist her application for food stamps. She had first applied in July but had been told she hadn't provided enough information and, by most accounts, had been struggling to get by and get help since she moved from Ohio.

She was taken to a small room, where she pulled a gun, sparking a seven-hour standoff with police. Shortly before midnight, three shots were heard. Rachelle had shot both herself and her kids. Police rushed in to find the mother dead and Ramie and Timothy in critical condition. Earlier that morning, Ramie had posted a Facebook message, saying: "may die 2day". She actually hung on until Wednesday. Timothy's condition remains critical.

The tragic unravelling of this particular episode is hardly typical. But the desperation that underpins it is. For, in this period between Thanksgiving and Christmas (when many Americans are worrying about what overindulging will do to their waistline), a significant number is wracked with an entirely different concern: not having enough to eat.

This is no marginal group, no handful of unfortunates and ne'er-do-wells in a time of crisis. Indeed, in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, food insecurity is a common, growing and enduring problem. According to Gallup polling, one in five Americans reported not having enough money to buy food in the past 12 months – the highest level since the month Barack Obama was elected. Around the country, food banks are feeling the pinch of market forces: as poverty climbs, demand is rising and supply is falling as people who would have donated have less left to spare.

An analysis by the New York Times revealed a 17% increase in the number of school students receiving free and reduced lunches across the country between 2006/07 and now. In Rockdale County, east of Atlanta, 63% of students now have subsidised food – up from 46% four years ago.

Between 2008 and 2011, the number of those living on food stamps, assistance to those who lack sufficient money to feed themselves and their families, soared by 50%, putting one American in seven in the programme. Catholic Charities recently revealed that requests for the working poor were up 80% over the second quarter, and up 59% for the middle class.

Similarly, Operation Homefront, a national organisation that feeds the families of military personnel, has seen demand for help double over the last two years. The Washington Post reported that in Fort Hood, Texas, military families stayed up after midnight to register for a free turkey online for Thanksgiving. The 450 birds were gone within an hour. Even as soldiers fight for empire abroad, their families struggle for food at home.

You would think this would be a national disgrace. The land of the free – and the home of the hungry. The sheer scale and intensity of the problem refutes any suggestions of the undeserving poor.

But want has become a term of political abuse, with Newt Gingrich launching his campaign earlier this year by branding Obama "the food stamp president" and continues to berate him as such. Indeed, behind the partisan posturing over deficit reduction, it is rarely noted that rather than impose taxes on millionaires, Republicans are eager to balance the budget on the stomachs of the hungry.

As editor of the Left Business Observer, Doug Henwood, points out in a recent blog posting, these benefits are not particularly generous. "The average [food stamp] recipient gets $134 a month in assistance, which works out to $4.40 a day. That's 10% less than the US Department of Agriculture's "thrifty" meal budget, and about half its "moderate" budget. For your average well-fed American, living on a daily ration of less than $5 for food prepared at home would be hard to imagine. But without SNAP benefits, 46 million people would be in a state of anguish rather than just scraping by."

Yet, this is one area the Republicans are keen to target for cuts. They want to reduce spending on food stamps by around 20%, and in June, voted to slash a different health and nutrition scheme (WIC) for poor pregnant women and children by 10%, which would have denied assistance to around a quarter of a million people.

This will be the primary terrain on which the forthcoming elections will be fought: the needs and aspirations of the working poor. Not so much the destitute – America is always forgetting about them – but the working poor and those who fear descending among them. But for the Democrats to capitalise on these anxieties, they will have to shift the country's sense of what it takes to be poor and convince them that government has a role in alleviating that condition before desperation kicks in.

You'd think that would be straightforward. But illusions of meritocracy, equal opportunity, class fluidity and social mobility die hard. This a country where, according to a Pew survey in 2008, 91% believe they are either middle-class, upper middle-class or lower middle-class, and a Gallup poll in 2005 showed that while only 2% of Americans described themselves as "rich", 31% thought it very likely or somewhat likely they would "ever be rich". Sooner or later, though, reality tends to intrude.

As thousands of people gathered at New Orleans convention centre following Hurricane Katrina, Michael Brown, the hapless head of the disaster relief agency, Fema, was asked why he was not tending to them with shelter and water.

"We're seeing people that we didn't know exist," he said. This has been the official policy of America's political class for some time. "This is a special interest group that not many people talk about because they don't have the wealth to lift a candidate to be president of the United States," explained D Jermaine Husser, the former executive director of South Carolina's Low Country Food Bank.

But there is only so long you can pretend that such a large group of people doesn't exist, and as the poverty rates grow, more and more people who are likely to vote become ensnared in it. Gallup's Basic Access Index, which tracks access to basic needs like food, shelter and healthcare or medicines, is at the lowest it's been since its inception in January 2008. A new measurement of poverty by the Census Bureau, which takes regional cost of living, medical payments and other expenses that do not intrude on the official poverty count, found a third of Americans are either in poverty or desperately close to it.

"These numbers are higher than we anticipated," Trudi Renwick, the bureau's head poverty statistician, told the New York Times recently. "There are more people struggling than the official numbers show."

Poverty may be relative but hunger is absolute. The third world is alive and struggling in the heart of the first. No one can deny it exists. And those who claim they can't see it, either refuse to see it for what it is or simply do not want to look.

petejm043

Halifax2TheMax wrote:

Maybe if the "corporations" or "people" raised wages and benefits, the Obama administration wouldn't have to redistribute the wealth. The family that owns Walmart possesses more wealth than 35 million Americans combined. The wealth of the top 1% is up over 200% since 1975, while average wages have remained stagnent. "Corporate" or "people" profits have also increased significantly since 1975 while wages have remained relatively stagnent, even while the American worker has raised their productivity by close to 60% in that time. And the "corporations" or "people" also use public roads, bridges, police, fire and other TAXPAYER funded goods and services to become what they are. IMO, we all suck from the teet of government. The 1% don't exisit in a vacuum nor are they completely responsible for their success.

Its time to start spreading the wealth. The 1% could do it voluntarily as Warren Buffet recommends or the government can do it. We know what works and what doesn't and republicans just saying no to everything is not working.

Peace.

I totally agree with you. My poltical leanings use to be conservative until a few years ago. Until I opened my eyes and mind. My country, the one I served in the military and felt we as individuals could acheive anything we wanted, was being taken over by corporations. The event that ultimatley affected me was when my wife lost her job and a year later I took a 30 percent pay cut. My wife spent alomst three years without work and I have only being able to reciver 5 percent of the pay cut I received. All this while the company I work for has posted huge profits. I have two Masters and a certification in a highly technical field.

I have tried to look for other positions but I have not found anything. I worry about my childrens future. While I understand that corporations must exist, how much is enough? While CEO's make millions, the worker who helps produce the products get penny's. That to me is morally wrong. While I understand that not everyone is going to be rich, it is about providing fair compensation. Wall Street got bailed out and We pay for it, while we get nothing in return. This is NOT the America I grew up in and the world admired at one time. America use to be the place that if you worked hard, eventually you get to have a nice life. Nowdays it seems that it doesn't matter how hard you work because eventually your gonna get shafted. Sorry for rambling on.

Chip McFlennigan

Time out: Obama and the Democrats have played their part in ruining this country.


But, have some of you forgotten about the absolute SHITSHOW that was the GWB/Republican Regime in America for all those years?

Neither party is for the people.

markin ball

brianlux wrote:

usamamasan1 wrote:

Who's gonna pay for that "general care"?

Me 'n you my friend.

I give 10% of my income to social and environmental issues- that may not be very much in the big picture but if you join me in that, we'll change the world.

p.s That's on top of taxes and I my wife and I are self employed so we pay more than most in our income bracket. Yes, the 1% should pay more because I guarantee they don't work harder than we do. Guarantee it.

And look, I'm not trying to make points for myself here. Really, if you and I pitch in, help others maybe the 1% will begin to envy how good we feel and they'll want to top that. That would be one-upping us, that would be winning. Good!- let them win that one!

Word.

blueandwhite

petejm043 wrote:

I totally agree with you. My poltical leanings use to be conservative until a few years ago. Until I opened my eyes and mind. My country, the one I served in the military and felt we as individuals could acheive anything we wanted, was being taken over by corporations. The event that ultimatley affected me was when my wife lost her job and a year later I took a 30 percent pay cut. My wife spent alomst three years without work and I have only being able to reciver 5 percent of the pay cut I received. All this while the company I work for has posted huge profits. I have two Masters and a certification in a highly technical field.

I have tried to look for other positions but I have not found anything. I worry about my childrens future. While I understand that corporations must exist, how much is enough? While CEO's make millions, the worker who helps produce the products get penny's. That to me is morally wrong. While I understand that not everyone is going to be rich, it is about providing fair compensation. Wall Street got bailed out and We pay for it, while we get nothing in return. This is NOT the America I grew up in and the world admired at one time. America use to be the place that if you worked hard, eventually you get to have a nice life. Nowdays it seems that it doesn't matter how hard you work because eventually your gonna get shafted. Sorry for rambling on.

Situations like yours are all too common in today's America. Personally, I find that many of the so-called advocates for big business are simply defending their stake in capital they didn't earn. Fair compensation for the middle class is becoming a rarity while an executive class steal a bigger stake than ever before. The amazing thing is that American values have become so corrupted that the uber rich have actually been able to cry foul while pointing a finger at the unemployed, the homeless and the elderly.

I can only hope that your situation improves. It makes me sick when others accuse somebody such as yourself as being lazy or looking for a handout. In my experience, most people are just looking to work for a fair wage. It's a shame that you can't really expect that in today's economy.

petejm043

blueandwhite wrote:

petejm043 wrote:

I totally agree with you. My poltical leanings use to be conservative until a few years ago. Until I opened my eyes and mind. My country, the one I served in the military and felt we as individuals could acheive anything we wanted, was being taken over by corporations. The event that ultimatley affected me was when my wife lost her job and a year later I took a 30 percent pay cut. My wife spent alomst three years without work and I have only being able to reciver 5 percent of the pay cut I received. All this while the company I work for has posted huge profits. I have two Masters and a certification in a highly technical field.

I have tried to look for other positions but I have not found anything. I worry about my childrens future. While I understand that corporations must exist, how much is enough? While CEO's make millions, the worker who helps produce the products get penny's. That to me is morally wrong. While I understand that not everyone is going to be rich, it is about providing fair compensation. Wall Street got bailed out and We pay for it, while we get nothing in return. This is NOT the America I grew up in and the world admired at one time. America use to be the place that if you worked hard, eventually you get to have a nice life. Nowdays it seems that it doesn't matter how hard you work because eventually your gonna get shafted. Sorry for rambling on.

Situations like yours are all too common in today's America. Personally, I find that many of the so-called advocates for big business are simply defending their stake in capital they didn't earn. Fair compensation for the middle class is becoming a rarity while an executive class steal a bigger stake than ever before. The amazing thing is that American values have become so corrupted that the uber rich have actually been able to cry foul while pointing a finger at the unemployed, the homeless and the elderly.

I can only hope that your situation improves. It makes me sick when others accuse somebody such as yourself as being lazy or looking for a handout. In my experience, most people are just looking to work for a fair wage. It's a shame that you can't really expect that in today's economy.

Unfortunately, we can’t expect it. I have been thinking about this the past couple of days… This whole economic malaise started with the collapse of the housing market. In the late 1990’s the average price of a home was in the $185K range. At the height of the real estate boom, seven years later that average rose to $313K. The average household income was $60K. How did a family afford to buy a $300K home on $60K? At this point banks sold them on interest only loans which then were bundled up along with the subprime mortgages and sold. Some big wigs went as far as playing the market and made billions when the collapse occurred. They actually got richer when most of the country went downhill. While people struggle, fat cat millionaires and billionaires and make money on the suffering of others. This is not the America I want to leave for the next generation.

usamamasan1

In Oakland, officials urged protesters to consider the impact on workers. Port workers and truck drivers say the protests will hurt them.


"This is joke. What are they protesting?" said Christian Vega, 32, who sat in his truck carrying a load of recycled paper from Pittsburgh on Monday morning. He said the delay was costing him $600.

"It only hurts me and the other drivers. We have jobs and families to support and feed. Most of them don't," Vega said.


"Wall Street on the waterfront" :?

BinauralJam

Long Beach police arrested two people during the demonstration there, police Chief Jim McDonnell said. Port operations were not significantly impacted beyond some traffic delays, he said.

A spokesman for the port in Portland, Oregon, said the protests had partially shut down the port there. In Oakland, the port said in a statement that operations were continuing "with sporadic disruptions for truckers trying to enter and exit marine terminal gates."

About 80 protesters demonstrated outside the gate of San Diego's port, but caused no disruption because, port spokesman Ron Powell said.

"They were there at a time when we really didn't have a lot of truck traffic coming in and out," he said.

Four people who sat down in the road were arrested he said. San Diego police did not immediately return a telephone call seeking information on the arrests.

Protesters were planning a second occupation of the Oakland port Monday afternoon



:thumbup: Well Done!

Monster Rain

I'm sorry, but you have no way of knowing how hard other people work if you've never met them. I'm nowhere near being in the top 1% anytime soon but I know how hard the people above me work. I work for a bank and I've seen first-hand the long days the executives above me put in. My boss was working 13-hour days on good days before my job was created and he's still putting in about 10 hours each day in the office plus anything that comes up after hours since he's on call 24/7. His bosses put in the same hours, often longer because they're responsible for him, people in his job in other states, and other positions in several states. They may not be lifting heavy objects or getting dirty the way people do in other lower-paying jobs but that doesn't mean they don't work hard. That's just what people tell themselves to feel justified in thinking that the 35% tax rate isn't high enough.

brianlux wrote:

usamamasan1 wrote:

Who's gonna pay for that "general care"?

Me 'n you my friend.

I give 10% of my income to social and environmental issues- that may not be very much in the big picture but if you join me in that, we'll change the world.

p.s That's on top of taxes and I my wife and I are self employed so we pay more than most in our income bracket. Yes, the 1% should pay more because I guarantee they don't work harder than we do. Guarantee it.
And look, I'm not trying to make points for myself here. Really, if you and I pitch in, help others maybe the 1% will begin to envy how good we feel and they'll want to top that. That would be one-upping us, that would be winning. Good!- let them win that one!

Monster Rain

I assume by "we" you mean American citizens in general. Well, we did get something out of the bailouts. For starters, the obvious one is that many people in the 99% who work for those companies were able to keep their jobs--there may have been layoffs but that's not as bad as 100% of the workers losing their jobs because the company no longer exists. Second, the government actually made a profit on the bailouts and started seeing a profitable return on those bailouts as far back as 2009. I wonder how many protesters realize that the bailouts have been paid back and that the government made money from it. I'd guess the number is pretty low since I see and hear so many people mention the bailouts when explaining why this movement is focusing on Wall Street instead of the government.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/ ... 0220110330
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/busin ... payer.html

Shortly after the article in the 2nd link was published, Bank of America, Citibank, and Wells Fargo paid back their bailout money, too. The government turned a $12 billion profit off the Citi bailout alone.

http://www2.journalnow.com/business/201 ... ar-163559/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/1 ... 91962.html
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industrie ... lout_N.htm

petejm043 wrote:

I totally agree with you. My poltical leanings use to be conservative until a few years ago. Until I opened my eyes and mind. My country, the one I served in the military and felt we as individuals could acheive anything we wanted, was being taken over by corporations. The event that ultimatley affected me was when my wife lost her job and a year later I took a 30 percent pay cut. My wife spent alomst three years without work and I have only being able to reciver 5 percent of the pay cut I received. All this while the company I work for has posted huge profits. I have two Masters and a certification in a highly technical field.

I have tried to look for other positions but I have not found anything. I worry about my childrens future. While I understand that corporations must exist, how much is enough? While CEO's make millions, the worker who helps produce the products get penny's. That to me is morally wrong. While I understand that not everyone is going to be rich, it is about providing fair compensation. Wall Street got bailed out and We pay for it, while we get nothing in return. This is NOT the America I grew up in and the world admired at one time. America use to be the place that if you worked hard, eventually you get to have a nice life. Nowdays it seems that it doesn't matter how hard you work because eventually your gonna get shafted. Sorry for rambling on.

BinauralJam

Monster Rain wrote:

I assume by "we" you mean American citizens in general. Well, we did get something out of the bailouts. For starters, the obvious one is that many people in the 99% who work for those companies were able to keep their jobs--there may have been layoffs but that's not as bad as 100% of the workers losing their jobs because the company no longer exists. Second, the government actually made a profit on the bailouts and started seeing a profitable return on those bailouts as far back as 2009. I wonder how many protesters realize that the bailouts have been paid back and that the government made money from it. I'd guess the number is pretty low since I see and hear so many people mention the bailouts when explaining why this movement is focusing on Wall Street instead of the government.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/ ... 0220110330
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/busin ... payer.html

Shortly after the article in the 2nd link was published, Bank of America, Citibank, and Wells Fargo paid back their bailout money, too. The government turned a $12 billion profit off the Citi bailout alone.

http://www2.journalnow.com/business/201 ... ar-163559/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/1 ... 91962.html
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industrie ... lout_N.htm
quote]


What about Bear Sterns and Lehman brothers, etc. Ya know the ones the government choose not to bail out? if it was Such a lucrative investment, why were only certain companies helped? Something is rotten in Denmark.

usamamasan1

BinauralJam

usamamasan1 wrote:

Agree! they are Ratfucks, so is J P Morgan

Monster Rain

Bear Stearns was bailed out in a way. The government was going to give them a 28-day loan to help them out but realized that it wasn't going to help and wound up lending money to JP Morgan Chase, who then bought Bear Stearns.

Lehman Brothers was a different story. The government did not feel that the company had the collateral needed to give them a loan under those circumstances. TARP did not exist until after their collapse, so the government could not provide the same type of bailout loans that it later gave other banks. The government did try to help find a buyer for Lehman Brothers but Bank of America chose to buy Merril Lynch instead and Barclays was willing but unable to meet the requirements of the purchase due to a British law that required either shareholder approval of the terms of the deal or a waiver of that requirement from the British government and the British government would not grant the waiver so the deal fell through. The terms of the proposed deal were the same terms as the Bear Stearns deal, which was that Barclays had to guarantee Lehman's current and future business transactions until the deal closed.

But even if there was some darker reason behind the government's refusal to bail out Lehman Brothers, that would still point to the government as the problem. The government makes the laws and these companies just operate within them. But it's easier for a lot of people to blame faceless corporations for everything than it is to look at Obama because most of the OWS protesters supported him in 2008 and will again in 2012. The only way these companies are going to change the way they operate is if they are forced to by the government and the last time I checked the White House and Capitol Building aren't on Wall Street. So if the goal is really to make an actual difference, they should head to DC to protest and encourage every eligible voter who is unhappy with the government to vote because when an interesting Presidential election only gets 56% turnout (like it did in 2008) the government isn't going to pay attention to the average person's complaints about these sorts of things.

BinauralJam wrote:

What about Bear Sterns and Lehman brothers, etc. Ya know the ones the government choose not to bail out? if it was Such a lucrative investment, why were only certain companies helped? Something is rotten in Denmark.

BinauralJam

There's a movement on Facebook to Occupy Washington, i believe on January 17th, they're trying to get a million people, well see.

Newch91

BinauralJam wrote:

There's a movement on Facebook to Occupy Washington, i believe on January 17th, they're trying to get a million people, well see.

Is that MLK Day?

Monster Rain

One day after the observed holiday, 2 days after his actual birthday.

edit: "dirthday" is probably not a real word :crazy:

Newch91 wrote:

BinauralJam wrote:

There's a movement on Facebook to Occupy Washington, i believe on January 17th, they're trying to get a million people, well see.

Is that MLK Day?

Newch91

Monster Rain wrote:

One day after the observed holiday, 2 days after his actual dirthday.

Newch91 wrote:

BinauralJam wrote:

There's a movement on Facebook to Occupy Washington, i believe on January 17th, they're trying to get a million people, well see.

Is that MLK Day?

Oh ok. Thanks!

usamamasan1

Playtime is over, snowflakes! Great perspective. Listen to it, or don't.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/OAOrT0OcHh ... ch=0&showi

BinauralJam

usamamasan1 wrote:

Playtime is over, snowflakes! Great perspective. Listen to it, or don't.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/OAOrT0OcHh ... ch=0&showi