See other Editorial Articles
Title: OWS has transformed public opinion For the first time since the Great Depression, the majority of Americans favor wealth redistribution
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.salon.com/2011/10/31/how ... rmed_public_opinion/singleton/
Published: Nov 2, 2011
Author: Bob
Post Date: 2011-11-02 09:47:55 by tom007
Keywords: None
Views: 842
Comments: 70
OWS has transformed public opinion For the first time since the Great Depression, the majority of Americans favor wealth redistribution By Robert Reich ows protest Topics:Occupy Wall Street, Great Recession This originally appeared on Robert Reich's blog. A combination of police crackdowns and bad weather are testing the young Occupy movement. But rumors of its demise are premature, to say the least. Although numbers are hard to come by, anecdotal evidence suggests the movement is growing. As importantly, the movement has already changed the public debate in America. Consider, for example, last week’s Congressional Budget Office report on widening disparities of income in America. It was hardly news – it’s already well known that the top 1 percent now gets 20 percent of the nation’s income, up from 9 percent in the late 1970s. But it’s the first time such news made the front page of the nation’s major newspapers. Why? Because for the first time in more than half a century, a broad cross-section of the American public is talking about the concentration of income, wealth and political power at the top. Score a big one for the Occupiers. Even more startling is the change in public opinion. Not since the 1930s has a majority of Americans called for redistribution of income or wealth. But according to a recent New York Times/CBS News poll, an astounding 66 percent of Americans said the nation’s wealth should be more evenly distributed. A similar majority believes the rich should pay more in taxes. According to a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, even a majority of people who describe themselves as Republicans believe taxes should be increased on the rich. I remember the days when even raising the subject of inequality made you a “class warrior.” Now, it seems, most Americans have become class warriors. And they blame Republicans for stacking the deck in favor of the rich. On that New York Times/CBS News poll, 69 percent of respondents said Republican policies favor the rich (28 percent said the same of Obama’s policies). The old view was anyone could make it in America with enough guts and gumption. We believed in the self-made man (or, more recently, woman) who rose from rags to riches – inventors and entrepreneurs born into poverty, like Benjamin Franklin; generations of young men from humble beginnings who grew up to became president, like Abe Lincoln. We loved the novellas of Horatio Alger, and their more modern equivalents – stories that proved the American dream was open to anyone who worked hard. In that old view, being rich was proof of hard work, and lack of money proof of indolence or worse. As Herman Cain still says “if you don’t have a job and you’re not rich, blame yourself.” But Cain’s line isn’t hitting a responsive chord. In fact, he’s backtracked from it (along with much of the rest of what he’s said). A profound change has come over America. Guts, gumption, and hard work don’t seem to pay off as they once did – or at least as they did in our national morality play. Instead, the game seems rigged in favor of people who are already rich and powerful – as well as their children. Instead of lionizing the rich, we’re beginning to suspect they gained their wealth by ripping us off. Mitt Romney is defensive about his vast wealth (reputed to total a quarter of a billion). He’s reverted to scolding his audiences on the campaign trail for “attacking people based on heir success.” The old view was also that great wealth trickled downward – that the rich made investments in jobs and growth that benefitted all of us. So even if we doubted we’d be wealthy, we still gained from the fortunes made by a few. But that view, too, has lost its sheen. Nothing has trickled down. The rich have become far richer over the last three decades but the rest of us haven’t. In fact, median incomes are dropping. Wall Street moguls are doing better than ever – after having been bailed out by the rest of us. But the rest of us are doing worse. CEOs are hauling in more than 300 times the pay of average workers (up from 40 times the pay only three decades ago), as average workers lose jobs, wages, and benefits. Instead of investing in jobs and growth, the super rich are putting their money into gold or Treasury bills, or investing it in Brazil or South Asia or anywhere else it can reap the highest return. Meanwhile, it’s dawning on Americans that in the real economy (as opposed to the financial one) our spending is vital. And without enough jobs or wages, that spending is drying up. The economy is in trouble because so much income and wealth have been going to the top that the rest us no longer have the purchasing power to buy the goods and services we would produce at or near full employment. The jobs depression shows no sign of ending. Personal disposable income, adjusted for inflation, was down 1.7 percent in the third quarter of this year – the biggest drop since the third quarter of 2009. Housing prices have stalled, home sales are down. The only reason consumer spending rose in September is because we drew from our meager savings – mostly in order to pay medical bills, health insurance, and utilities. That’s the third month of savings declines, according to the Commerce Department’s report last Friday. This can’t and won’t continue. Savings are now down to 3.6 percent of personal disposable income, their lowest level since the recession began. Americans know a rigged game when they see one. They understand how much money is flowing into politics from the super rich, big corporations, and Wall Street — in order to keep their taxes low and entrench their privileged position. The Occupy movement is gaining ground because it’s hitting a responsive chord. What happens from here on depends on whether other Americans begin to march to the music — and organize. Robert Reich, a professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley, was secretary of labor during the Clinton administration. He is also a blogger and the author of "Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future."More Robert Reich
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-30) not displayed.
.
.
.
#31. To: ambi (#18)
(Edited)
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one. None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one. None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one. None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. Why not some income redistribution? The rich have all the money and are grubbing for more. Actually I agree on some points with both of you. First not all of the top 1% got there by being crooks. Some got there by hard work and building a better mouse trap. I have no quarrel with them. As for the Bankster crooks who stole, cheated, defrauded, and murdered there way to wealth it should be nothing less than total confiscation of all of their ill gotten gains - and were it in my power they would spend the rest of their life at hard labor. deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one. None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. This is not technically true. We've had wealth redistribution going on for decades now, from the 90% to the 10%. The only thing that's changing is that people are beginning to think that maybe some of that ought to be reversed. I used the wrong link. - yukonIbluafartskyNotAgainYesAgain
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one. None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one. None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. Sounds like she needs a spin cycle. Ya think ? I am an entrepreneur and a surgical doctor. I am familiar with Bambi, not so sure what an Ambi is exactly?
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one. None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. A little socialism goes a LONG way. I guess it's not enough for me to get my SSI payments for having been sick for so long. "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
I think I figured out what ambi is, short for ambidextrous. Thus just may work out, she is probably. good with both hands .....lol ;)
redistribute THIS mother fuckers !
R, Any idea how the USG largely financed the debts of the Revolutionary War and paid for a majority of the expenses of the USG, including the War Of 1812, until about 1820? What do you think Sam Adams et al would say about their government and the monstrosity it has morphed into?? I'll tell you, they'd be asking "Where's the revolution, People!!??" deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one. None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one. None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. I aplad , appald, apuld, apppalud, clap at post. But that's like saying that there are honest people in the mob. While agreeing with many, if not all, of your caveats I look at it on the basis of "exchange". Has the person who has accumulated great wealth provided a good or service which was the basis of a sound exchange as opposed to a criminal exchange (something for nothing)? I would suggest that Steve Jobs provided an abundant exchange by producing products, and providing services, which basically transformed the world of Personal Computing. Whereas I would not say the same about Bill Gates - who had connections all the way and when Apple threatened to leave MicroSloth in the dust stole Job's innovations and produced Windows - getting away with it because of a corrupt court. Steven King has certainly earned his place as both one of the most popular and most prolific writers of his time. However, there is enough truth in what you say to provide strong support for your position. Certainly the Banksters, the Financial Services Industry, and the War Junkies have made their killing through Crony Capitalism - which is to a Free Market as Fascism is to a Free Society. I think you're too hard on ambi though. Yes, I agree that using government to take from one to give to another by force is wrong, but I think there is a real heart there, but the reasoning has not gone back to basic and asked the question and confronted the answer, "When is it just to take the labors of the productive to give to the unproductive, and how do such Robin Hood antics affect those at the bottom of the economic pyramid?" The problem with any sort of socialist regime is that it relies on the enforced exaction of the labors of one to provide for another who is capable of supporting themselves if they were forced to. However, I do not think the Bankster Criminals are not worthy of, nor have earned, their "pound of flesh". NEVER. Emma Hurd, Middle East correspondent Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is trying to rally support in his cabinet for an attack on Iran, according to government sources. The country's defence minister Ehud Barak and the foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman are said to be among those backing a pre-emptive strike to neutralise Iran's nuclear ambitions. But a narrow majority of ministers currently oppose the move, which could trigger a wave of regional retaliation. The debate over possible Israeli military action has reached fever pitch in recent days with newspaper leader columns discussing the benefits and dangers of hitting Iran. Mr Lieberman responded to the reports of a push to gain cabinet approval by saying that "Iran poses the most dangerous threat to world order." But he said Israel's military options should not be a matter for public discussion. The inside of reactor at the Russian-built Bushehr nuclear power plant in southern Iran, 1200 Kms south of Tehran, where Iran has began to unload fuel for the nuclear power plant The reactor at the Russian-built Bushehr nuclear power plant where Iran has began to unload fuel for the nuclear power plant The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is due to report on the state of Iran’s nuclear capabilities on November 8, and that assessment is likely to influence Israel’s decision. Western intelligence officials estimate that Iran is still at least two to three years away from obtaining a nuclear bomb. Israel has long made it clear that it will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear capability that could threaten the Jewish State. Publicly it is pushing for a diplomatic offensive against Iran - including the imposition of sanctions - rather than a military strike. But prime minister Netanyahu has repeatedly warned that all options are on the table. Israel's former defence minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer told Haraatez newspaper that he feared a "horror scenario" if Israel attacked Iran. Washington is also strongly opposed to Israel taking unilateral action. Any strike on Iran could trigger retaliation from Iran and across the region. Syria, a close ally of Tehran, could also launch attacks, along with the Iranian-backed Hizbollah militia in Lebanon. "In a free society we're supposed to know the truth," ... "In a society where truth becomes treason, then we're in big trouble. And now, people who are revealing the truth are getting into trouble for it" -- Ron Paul, circa 2010-12-02
OWS has transformed public opinion For the first time since the Great Depression, the majority of Americans favor wealth redistribution By Robert Reich Seems to me wealth redistribution is precisely what OWS is protesting. But I guess that will remain a point of debate among both sides.
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one. None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one. None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. Seems to me wealth redistribution is precisely what OWS is protesting. But I guess that will remain a point of debate among both sides. Commissar Reich thinks everything favors wealth distribution. Much to his dismay, I'm sure, many of the people taking part in the expanding wave of demonstrations and protests are in the middle or libertarian end of the spectrum. I went by the local encampment today and there was more than one straight anarchist placard. I'm not an anarchist, but I consider them allies on many of the important issues of individual liberty. The gravy train's been fun for most people, but now it's over. The fundamental flaw in socialism is human nature. When you reward people for producing nothing that is what they will produce. Having said that though we do need a temporary net because the productive capability of the nation has been so sabotaged that if the safety net programs abruptly end today then you would see millions starve and it would create social turmoil. The dismantling of the socialist regime is going to have to be more gradual in order to rebuild the economy. deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one. None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one. None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one. None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. You get more of what you subsidize, lazy welfare corporations or individuals and both are unsustainable. The small business people should revolt as they have been getting the shaft to pay for both for decades now........ " If you cannot govern yourself, you will be governed by assholes. " Randge, Poet de Forum, 1/11/11 "Life's tough, and even tougher if you're stupid." --John Wayne
While I could cite counter examples I won't. I will say that I think you made the issue into a greater complexity than it need be. The principle is really quite simple: Or stripping it of my prior attempt to be mellifluous: I didn't invent the principle it is one of those things that just is. It has been observed in action and noted by any numbers of people. It is a recognized observation in economics - even though the Keynesians try to avoid it or ignore it. Take Wall Street for example. What has been getting rewarded on Wall Street is fraud and theft, and as long as it was rewarded, or continues to be rewarded, the result will be more fraud and theft. This is both a moral and economic issue in that it degrades the culture overall by providing an example of criminality rewarded and it degrades the economy by instituting unsound principles of operation which produce no useful product. It is little different from socialism in its effect on the society overall. It amounts to the government saying "these are the approved ways of stealing a lot of money". However, socialism is a little different in that purports to produce a public good - a safe and secure society. Now that is false and is provably so by the example of pointing out what has been observed in the real world in societies that have gone socialist. You wind up with a power elite running the socialist system and everyone else lives in an equality of misery as there is no reward for producing a valuable product beyond the spiritual reward of accomplishment, and in our current society, as you well know, barriers in law have been erected to make it difficult to succeed as a small entrepreneur. Socialist leaders do not like independent citizens - they get strange notions like that they ought to be free. Even worse they might agree with Thomas Jefferson, "We hold these truths to be self evident ...". Now these are separate from the issues of personal responsibility and morality which you raise. On many levels I am in agreement that people who are irresponsible should be left to suffer the consequences of their irresponsibility. However, that begs the moral question which is faced by each of us as individuals: "To what degree are we willing to let others suffer without offering some measure of succor?" Do we allow children to suffer the consequences of irresponsibility by the parents? Do we allow the elderly and infirm to starve in alleyways because we disapprove of their imprudent provision for the time beyond their prime working years? It is not as simple as saying "let them suffer the consequences" (or "let them eat cake") because most people are of kind disposition and are reluctant to watch others suffer when something can be done about it. That the solutions are sometimes onerous and unusual is an issue, but to some degree also beside the point, because the fundamental moral questions remain regardless. As you recognize the issues are tricky ones since they cut to the heart of who we and what we are. What we as individuals are willing accept as regards the suffering of others. Personally my solution would be the re-institution of the Poorhouse. I would not condemn anyone to the streets but neither should they be rewarded with featherbedding. A clean bed, a safe environment, and enough simple but nutritious food so that they do not suffer, and work requirements for those who are able to work. Also solutions are situationally specific. It is well and good to posit an ideal scene, but how we get from the current scene to a closer approximation of that ideal is an important consideration both morally and tactically. In our current society the criminals have so snarled things that the greater population is increasingly unemployed for the simple fact that there are no jobs for them to go to, and for those that are available employers are in the catbird's seat and increasingly are demanding more and more stringent requirements to employ people for the few openings that exist. The older workers are NOT being hired and THAT is a FACT. One can bewail their indolence all one wishes but when there is no gainful employment available, and it is difficult for the impoverished to start a small business, made so by law, then that society is approaching collapse. I for one do not wish to see hundreds of thousands to millions dying of starvation and neither do I wish to reward sloth with means of living bought at the expense of stealing from those who are responsible to support the irresponsible. There are no longer easy answers. What I support in the short term as a necessity to prevent mass suffering and death does not mean I would support the same in more salubrious circumstances. And while I support free market principles for the general economy I am not a blind follower of laissez-faire. Capitalism is not an unadulterated and absolute good. Absolutes are unobtainable in the real world. Capitalism and a "free market" only works in a moral and ethical society and that we do not have. Where criminals are given free reign it may be nice and trite to say "caveat emptor", but for it to have meaning a just society must provide a means of redress when someone is wronged and a means to shut down the malefactors. Thus that moral climate needs to be reestablished as a first requirement. That will not be done over night. Certainly not in the moral and ethical climate that currently exists where criminals are in control of the levers of power. Much of the socialist-fascist structure could easily be removed without hardship and without great suffering, but the vested interests would cry like babies. So, we are currently at an impasse so long as the criminals are allowed to remain in charge. Yes in a truly free society it would be easier to independently make ones way but that requires also responsibility which as I am sure you have noted is in short supply. Social Security is really, to me, a side issue, but as I have pointed out in the past there is an implicit contract which has been accepted by most and that monies from the labors of others have been extracted forcibly to support it. People grow old and have come to expect, and have been given every reason to regard that as a reasonable and responsible expectation, that it would be there when they came of age for it. It is in effect a contract, a moral commitment, that cannot and should not be broken. And at arriving at a just and workable solution we must not allow the perfidy of some to impose sanctions on ALL. I realize you are disgusted by what you see in the District of Corruption, but that is not the entire society, and the desire to visit a just reward to all of the fleas, ticks, leeches, and ghouls should not be allowed to color what has to be a dispassionate but humane set of solutions. Now I have to get to work too. You get more of what you subsidize, lazy welfare corporations or individuals and both are unsustainable. The small business people should revolt as they have been getting the shaft to pay for both for decades now........ The problem of course is that we cannot cut off our nose to spite our face. "Galt's Gulch" lies only in the realm of fiction. While the situation is begging of a solution that solution will come only through a transformation of the society from irresponsible to resposible and criminal to law abiding. Of course the laws must also be ethical and responsible. As old Will commented: "The Bard of the law is offtimes an ass." As I pointed out to Eric above we are out of easy solutions. I think we may have perhaps tipped into the right direction but that will yet be a long road. As you rightly point out the current system is unsustainable, but unfortunately that is exactly what the people who have created it want - a total collapse where they foresee themselves emerging still at the top of the heap lording over all. Yes. From the many to the few. Socialize losses, privatize profits. Sell the interstates and water systems to Goldman Sachs. End electrical distribution regulations. The new capitalism. deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one. None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. Reich's a typical Jew ... nuff said !
"the man who puts all the guns and all the decision-making power into the hands of the central government and then says, “Limit yourself”; it is he who is truly the impractical utopian." Murray Rothbard
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one. None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. Well, hell: you just summarily dismissed that little kikenvermin and I can't comment any further. :p
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, 1749-1832
#32. To: Lysander_Spooner, All (#24)
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, 1749-1832
#33. To: ambi, All (#18)
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, 1749-1832
#34. To: ambi, Eric Stratton (#18)
Here you go again Eric. Not everybody is entrepreneurial material, just as everybody isn't a surgical doctor. If you are an entrepreneur, thank your lucky stars that you have that ability.
#35. To: ambi, All (#18)
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, 1749-1832
#36. To: tom007 (#0)
OWS has transformed public opinion For the first time since the Great Depression, the majority of Americans favor wealth redistribution
#37. To: Original_Intent (#34)
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, 1749-1832
#38. To: JRiggs (#36)
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, 1749-1832
#39. To: Eric Stratton, ambi (#32)
Give her a whirl!
#40. To: Lysander_Spooner (#39)
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, 1749-1832
#41. To: tom007 (#0)
the majority of Americans favor wealth redistribution
#42. To: Eric Stratton (#40)
#43. To: tom007 (#0)
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams 
#44. To: Rotara (#43)
redistribute THIS mother fuckers !
"Satan / Cheney in "08" 
#45. To: Rotara (#43)
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
-Schweizerische Schuetzenzeitung (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
#46. To: Lysander_Spooner (#42)
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, 1749-1832
#47. To: Rotara (#43)
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, 1749-1832
#48. To: X-15 (#45)
and the monstrosity it has morphed into
"Satan / Cheney in "08"
#49. To: Eric Stratton, ambi (#37)
Otherwise, as to your statement, on the surface I would agree with you.
#50. To: Jethro Tull (#17)
When will Hebrews like Robt. Reich STFU, and either sit down, or be put down?
Israel Considers Pre-Emptive Attack On Iran
#51. To: tom007 (#0)
#52. To: Original_Intent (#49)
(Edited)
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, 1749-1832
#53. To: Pinguinite (#51)
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, 1749-1832
#54. To: Pinguinite (#51)
OWS has transformed public opinion For the first time since the Great Depression, the majority of Americans favor wealth redistribution By Robert Reich
#55. To: Eric Stratton, Pinguinite, ambi (#53)
The bottom line is that there is no money.
#56. To: Original_Intent (#55)
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, 1749-1832
#57. To: Original_Intent, All (#55)
(Edited)
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, 1749-1832
#58. To: Original_Intent (#55)
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, 1749-1832
#59. To: Original_Intent (#55)
When you reward people for producing nothing that is what they will produce.
#60. To: Eric Stratton, ambi (#57)
What you reward you get more of.
When you reward non-production you get non-production.
#61. To: abraxas, Eric Stratton (#59)
When you reward people for producing nothing that is what they will produce.
#62. To: Pinguinite (#51)
Seems to me wealth redistribution is precisely what OWS is protesting.
"Satan / Cheney in "08"
#63. To: abraxas (#59)
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, 1749-1832
#64. To: tom007 (#0)
#65. To: Pinguinite (#51)
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, 1749-1832
#66. To: noone222 (#64)
-Alex Kurtagic
#67. To: tom007 (#44)
yeah, and 1% then was as UNConstitutional/anti-American as it is now. your turn, tom
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
#68. To: X-15 (#45)
they pity US, Amigo.
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
#69. To: tom007 (#62)
From the many to the few. Socialize losses, privatize profits. Sell the interstates and water systems to Goldman Sachs. End electrical distribution regulations. The new capitalism. and what a tangled web you commie-crapitalists have woven.....lest we forget whom each is. Yes.
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
#70. To: Pinguinite (#51) (Edited)
I don't think you understand this t'all, Neal. Wealth redistribution is when Richie Rich has to pay taxes. Infrastructure improvement is the goobermunt building a billion dollar airport next to the Dairy Queen in West Grizzly Piss, Alaska so Warnie Buffet can land his 747 when he wants a Peanut Buster Parfait. National security is spending 5 trillion dollars per year on 10+ jewWars because the eeevil Muslims "Are going to wipe Israel off the map." Civic Duty is having the people who are struggling to keep a roof over their head and food in their bellies pay for it. Therefore, what these people are protesting, is having to do their civic duty, because they're all, stinky, pinko, hippy, commie, anti-semitic, drug addicts who just want a free handout from our glorious shepherds, like Lloyd Blankfein, who are "Doing G-d's Work." Seems to me wealth redistribution is precisely what OWS is protesting.
Mike Flaherty: Yeah, it's been there a long time. I wish I knew which corner.
My Man Godfrey (
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest