turkishbolshevik:

“Freedom of the press” (under the capitalism) 

turkishbolshevik:

“Freedom of the press” (under the capitalism) 

(via fuckyeahmarxismleninism)

reagan-was-a-horrible-president:

It’s only considered “class warfare” when we fight back.

reagan-was-a-horrible-president:

It’s only considered “class warfare” when we fight back.

(Source: progressivefriends)

(Source: fuckyeahmarxismleninism)

reuters:

Reuters Campaign Finance Correspondent Alina Selyukh sent in this photo from CPAC where Occupy protesters and unions are demonstrating.
Crowds of people were chanting “We got sold out” and “We are the 99 percent” in a demonstration dubbed the “War on workers.”
Another protest is planned for later this evening, Selyukh reports. [REUTERS/Alina Selyukh]

reuters:

Reuters Campaign Finance Correspondent Alina Selyukh sent in this photo from CPAC where Occupy protesters and unions are demonstrating.

Crowds of people were chanting “We got sold out” and “We are the 99 percent” in a demonstration dubbed the “War on workers.”

Another protest is planned for later this evening, Selyukh reports. [REUTERS/Alina Selyukh]

(via fuckyeahmarxismleninism)

(Source: blurredsilence, via fsufeministalumna)

(Source: fuckyeahmarxismleninism)

(Source: fuckyeahmarxismleninism)

kateoplis:

Damn straight.

(via newsfrompoems)

letterstomycountry:

shortformblog:

pantslessprogressive:

A Message to the 53 Percent

Congratulations on successfully mastering a condescending tone. I have some news for you, though: you are part of the 99 percent. I am part of the 99 percent. My neighbor in his brand new Prius is part of the 99 percent. Our grievances are wide-reaching. Our stories and backgrounds are vastly different. [more]

A great take on this.

from PP’s post below the fold:

“The richest 5 percent of households obtained roughly 82 percent of all the nation’s gains in wealth between 1983 and 2009. The bottom 60 percent of households actually had less wealth in 2009 than in 1983, meaning they did not participate at all in the growth of wealth over this period.

This is the problem with the “53%” tagline: they don’t realize just how badly they are being fucked.  If the distribution of wealth in this country were more equitable, you wouldn’t have to work as hard.  How is it rational to simply be complacent when we know from historical data that it doesn’t have to be this way?

This is my main issue with Conservatives who seem to believe that greater effort in one’s affairs, much like tax cuts, will always solve your problems.  The answer always seems to be “work harder.”  Really?  What intolerable ignorance.  There is currently 1 job open for every 5 job-seeking individuals.  Everyone who is newly unemployed since 2008 had a job before the recession hit.  These individuals are not unemployed because they choose to be.  

And 100 hour work-weeks?    Great for you.  I’m sure every American would be proud to work 100 hours a week without complaining, right?  That’s entirely reasonable.  I mean that’s medically healthy, right?  I mean, this country didn’t literally have extended periods of labor-related violence over work conditions of that nature, right?  And when it comes to starting a small business, surely anyone can start a business when banks aren’t willing to loan you capital, right?  But of course, to start a small business, you should probably learn how, meaning going to school, and taking on student loan debt, which will count against you when you go to take out a business loan, making banks even LESS likely to loan you capital to start a small business, right? 

People living in hunterer-gatherer societies don’t even have to work this hard to survive.  If you have to work 100-hour work weeks to make ends meet, you’d literally be better off stripping naked and running into the woods to live among the wolves.  To be complacent in that sort of situation, and expect others to be as well, is self-defeating and absurd. 

None of these protesters are complaining about a 60-hour work week; I’m sure many of them would view such a commitment as onerous, but I haven’t seen a single sign that says this is one of their central issues.  I haven’t met anyone that supports these protests who feels you shouldn’t be willing to work more than 40 hours/week to be successful.  They’d probably be happy to just find a job that paid them enough to make ends meet.  And that’s why the sort of hyperbolic nonsense on display here completely misses the point.  These so-called “99%” aren’t complaining because they’re not willing to work hard.  They’re not complaining because they’re just “sitting on their ass.”  They’re complaining because they played by the rules, and now they can’t make ends meet.  They’re complaining because the same system under which they have tried to make a life for themselves seems to benefit some people much more than others.  If you’re working 60-100 hours a week at a middle-class salary, do you honestly feel that a Corporate Executive who makes $10’s of millions of dollars a year is working harder than you? The attitude which says “there’s nothing wrong with this, suck it up,” is not only patronizing to people who want to work hard but can’t find work; it’s outright irrational and self-destructive.

(Source: pantslessprogressive)

pantslessprogressive:

A Message to the 53 Percent

Congratulations on successfully mastering a condescending tone. I have some news for you, though: you are part of the 99 percent. I am part of the 99 percent. My neighbor in his brand new Prius is part of the 99 percent. Our grievances are wide-reaching. Our stories and backgrounds are vastly different.

Don’t believe me? Here’s some anecdotal evidence for your taking: according to my income, I am the 60 percent. I am young like many of the Occupy Wall Street protesters. I have a full-time job and will soon be a salaried employee. I make enough money to live in DC with roommates, pay my bills, pay my student loans and still have a little money left over each month. I have worked damn hard but I am also incredibly lucky. Hard work is not universally successful. Just because my hard work and your hard work eventually paid off doesn’t mean hard work pays off for everyone.

So I guess you and I are the same, no? I’m just outside your “53 percent” range, but I also have a job and also “actually pay taxes“… as though someone working a minimum wage job barely surviving on their paycheck doesn’t pay taxes.

The purpose of “I am the 53 percent” seems to exist solely to say, “I didn’t have an easy life either, but I worked hard and now my life isn’t so bad, so stop complaining.” Despite the inherently condescending nature of your grievances, your stories are important, too. Yes, even you, Erick Erickson (pictured above). We don’t all agree. Erickson might try to throw salt on me and brandish a cross any time my progressive being crosses his path, but I don’t wish for the complete destruction of capitalism. Being part of the 99 percent means our ideas for solutions to our nation’s problems will not be the same. And you’re rolling your eyes because we’re outraged at Wall Street? Actually, no, I’m not sure you’re rolling your eyes; you’re merely keeping your eyes shut:

"I Am The 53%" AKA "I am privileged and lucky in such a way that my life has worked out well; while I do not enjoy the benefits of the upper classes, I strive to become a member of that group, and see the proper manner of doing that is hard work - even though the majority of the upper classes come from monied stock, with only a limited number being the "self-made man/woman" of legend. I have been told that the members of Occupy Wall Street are young, lazy, and I do not feel that this image applies to me; the news reports covering the events emphasise how young the people are, and how trivial some of their reasons for protest seem."

AKA “Divide and Conquer” by big business.

(Source: pantslessprogressive, via stfueverything)

aljazeera:

Behind the scenes of #OccupyWallStreet | The protests on Wall Street are growing larger, despite police using pepper spray and making arrests.

aljazeera:

Behind the scenes of #OccupyWallStreet | The protests on Wall Street are growing larger, despite police using pepper spray and making arrests.

knitmeapony:

pantslessprogressive:

In 2003, Texas Governor and current GOP presidential hopeful Rick Perry was the driving force behind an insurance scheme to bet on the deaths of retired teachers while Wall Street turned a profit, according to information obtained by The Huffington Post.
According to Zach Carter and Jason Cherkis at HuffPo, Governor Perry and his office tried to convince retired teachers to accept a life insurance plan that would ultimately provide benefits to Wall Street and the state of Texas, rather than family members of the deceased.

According to the notes, which were authenticated by a meeting participant, the Perry administration wanted to help Wall Street investors gamble on how long retired Texas teachers would live. Perry was promising the state big money in exchange for helping Swiss banking giant UBS set up a business of teacher death speculation.
All they had to do was convince retirees to let UBS buy life insurance policies on them. When the retirees died, those policies would pay out benefits to Wall Street speculators, and the state, supposedly, would get paid for arranging the bets. The families of the deceased former teachers would get nothing.
The meeting notes offer the most direct evidence that the Perry administration was not only intimately involved with the insurance scheme, but a leading driver of the plan.
[…] The notes make clear that the governor’s proposal deliberately targeted the elderly. The state was only seeking to take out life insurance on people between the ages of 75 and 90. At a separate meeting five days later, the plan’s proponents discussed the “mental capacity” of these retirees to grant consent as one of three major technical obstacles to the plan, according to notes from that meeting.

At the first meeting, Morrissey said it could take 10 to 12 years for Texas to “earn” money from the scheme, but insisted the deal could be worth up to $700 million for the state if the retirement fund could sign up 40,000 retired teachers.

Perry and team even used a financial incentive to pitch this scheme, according to a meeting attendee:

The governor’s office was even prepared to put down a little cash up front. If retirees balked at the notion of the state profiting from their deaths, Perry’s budget men suggested they could be persuaded for the cost of a pair of shoes, according to the meeting notes. If a retiree signed a contract allowing the state’s teacher pension fund to buy life insurance on them, the governor was prepared to give them between $50 and $100.

The life insurance plan never happened and Perry’s office has since attempted to distance itself from the idea. However, as the article points out, the governor’s office “had not only endorsed the concept, but had already formulated a plan to implement it,” according to the meeting notes.
Read the full story at HuffPo.

SUPER CLASSY.

knitmeapony:

pantslessprogressive:

In 2003, Texas Governor and current GOP presidential hopeful Rick Perry was the driving force behind an insurance scheme to bet on the deaths of retired teachers while Wall Street turned a profit, according to information obtained by The Huffington Post.

According to Zach Carter and Jason Cherkis at HuffPo, Governor Perry and his office tried to convince retired teachers to accept a life insurance plan that would ultimately provide benefits to Wall Street and the state of Texas, rather than family members of the deceased.

According to the notes, which were authenticated by a meeting participant, the Perry administration wanted to help Wall Street investors gamble on how long retired Texas teachers would live. Perry was promising the state big money in exchange for helping Swiss banking giant UBS set up a business of teacher death speculation.

All they had to do was convince retirees to let UBS buy life insurance policies on them. When the retirees died, those policies would pay out benefits to Wall Street speculators, and the state, supposedly, would get paid for arranging the bets. The families of the deceased former teachers would get nothing.

The meeting notes offer the most direct evidence that the Perry administration was not only intimately involved with the insurance scheme, but a leading driver of the plan.

[…] The notes make clear that the governor’s proposal deliberately targeted the elderly. The state was only seeking to take out life insurance on people between the ages of 75 and 90. At a separate meeting five days later, the plan’s proponents discussed the “mental capacity” of these retirees to grant consent as one of three major technical obstacles to the plan, according to notes from that meeting.

At the first meeting, Morrissey said it could take 10 to 12 years for Texas to “earn” money from the scheme, but insisted the deal could be worth up to $700 million for the state if the retirement fund could sign up 40,000 retired teachers.

Perry and team even used a financial incentive to pitch this scheme, according to a meeting attendee:

The governor’s office was even prepared to put down a little cash up front. If retirees balked at the notion of the state profiting from their deaths, Perry’s budget men suggested they could be persuaded for the cost of a pair of shoes, according to the meeting notes. If a retiree signed a contract allowing the state’s teacher pension fund to buy life insurance on them, the governor was prepared to give them between $50 and $100.

The life insurance plan never happened and Perry’s office has since attempted to distance itself from the idea. However, as the article points out, the governor’s office “had not only endorsed the concept, but had already formulated a plan to implement it,” according to the meeting notes.

Read the full story at HuffPo.

SUPER CLASSY.

(via squeetothegee-deactivated201111)