Michael

Sometimes it is peaceful such as when Teddy Roosevelt broke up the large corporations. Other times it is the populous that gets feed up such as after the do nothing Hoover administration as the populous suffered by electing someone that tried to do something for the populous. Whether you believe those policies were right or wrong, they were inevitable.

When wealth becomes disproportionate, clashes are inevitable.

Michael

On CNBC and FBN, I have heard them saying that it is envy that is driving the Occupy Wall Street movement. In my opinion, it is not envy but fairness and the power exerted by the top 1%. With approximately $25 trillion in wealth for the top 1%, a paultry few billion dollars can usually get laws passed that favor the rich.

Charismatic

What? But the Gini curve doesn't apply in the U.S. .

That there is the work of socialist sympathising al-qadea communist extremists.

scrubbedexpat099

Karma given

Michael

Of course it applies to the US but the US has been on the downside of the curve for the past thirty years with the wealthy taking the vast majority of the growth. Even though the middle class only minimally shared in the growth, they had their jobs so were content. Now that they no longer have their jobs and are losing their homes, dissatisfaction with the status quo is rising.

The problems started in the 1980's when the rich decided it was better and easier to make money than to make things. That continued for the next 30 years as financial regulations were further relaxed allowing them to make more money and even less things. Since the middle class generally makes it's money by making things and the growth was in the area of making money, the rich became richer and the poor became poorer.

Both the tea party and occupy wall street movements have dissatisfaction with the current status quo. The middle class in the tea party believes that since they still have their job and worked hard for their little savings, they don't want to share it with the unemployed and downtrodden and the occupy wall street crowd feels they aren't getting a fair shake without jobs and little assistance from the government and/or businesses.

Charismatic

Well I was personally disappointed to see arrests, to quote John F. Kennedys prophetic words “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”

I think the protesters have a point in that the constitution explicitly outlines in preamble and the first section taxation and imposts is to be used for “…common defense and the general welfare…”. Much has been done to uphold the former but perhaps the latter has been neglected. I don’t think it a contemporary imposition to view this as an express commitment to provide for the populous through taxation. Indeed Alexander Hamilton fought Thomas Jefferson’s penchant for individualism and agricultural society later with his ‘Report on Manufacturers’ in which he defined the term as meaning a collective good.

Indeed the United States raised most of its revenues from tariffs on industry until World War 1. Funny enough that argument about the burden of taxation between individuals and industry persists even to this day .

Anian

Here is something I looked up using US gov figures:

Average wage 1970: $38k
Average wage 2006: $48k

Average top 100 CEO wage 1970: $1.5M
Average top 100 CEO wage 2006: $52.4M

kimilseung

With America voting against Palestine becoming a full member of UNESCO, and the resulting statement, not to pay up to the organization because of the successful vote, I am reminded how disappointed I have been on Obama and Israel.

cindyabs

Third party spoiler.......whatta ya think? Read an interesting article about that today, 2 one term POTUS have been "fired" after one term, (in recent history), Jimmy Carter and George Bush Snr and how a third party candidate in each case most likely had an effect on the outcome of their reelection campaigns.

Sally Redux

Yes. I agree.

Who even knew we had a 'law prohibiting the payment of funds to any UN body accepting the Palestinians as full members'?

Giantaxe

It was passed by a very pro-Israeli Congress in the '90's and Clinton - iirc - signed it knowing that there were enough votes to overcome any veto. It's a great example of why it's so difficult for the US to be a neutral party in this conflict and why the Palestinians are continually screwed by the needs of domestic US policy. Personally I say screw the US's money: there's no way trhe rest of the world should not do what is right just because the US will take their ball home to mummy.

scrubbedexpat099

I think many people would agree that the US is far too involved with the UK.

Time to back off.

HarryTheSpider

Another view might be that the 'people at the top' in the UK are OK with allowing the US to dictate what the UK position should be - either directly, or indirectly by undermining the main alternatives.

And I SWEAR this has nothing to do with the Obama administration appearing to side with Argentina over the Falkland Islands.

Honest.

Charismatic

My understanding was the reason wasn't to deliberately sabotage UNESCO but an existing law (since the 90’s) and needs congressional amendment to continue funding.

Not unhappy about the situation however. I’d back Israel over Palestine almost every time and I’m ashamed the spineless UK abstained. How they voted, the full list of shame .

Giantaxe

I'm ashamed the spineless UK abstained too. They should have voted for it. The treatment of Palestine is an absolute outrage.