Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Are OCDO members of the "one percent?"

  1. #1
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest

    Are OCDO members of the "one percent?"

    Are we members of the "one percent?"

    A survey, cited, concluded among the survey findings
    Quote Originally Posted by Northwestern University
    1. Members of the one percent are far more likely to initiate contact with a federal official than is the general public.
    2. Members of the one percent tend to emphasize relying on free markets or private philanthropy to produce good outcomes.
    3. More members of the one percent point to the federal budget deficit as the country's most pressing problem than to any other problem facing the nation.
    4. Members of the one percent volunteer much more of their time, effort and money to charitable causes than do members of the general public.
    5. A typical (median) member of the one percent donates about four percent of his or her income to charitable causes.
    http://www.ipr.northwestern.edu/publ...R-WP-11-07.pdf
    Reviewed http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-...y-percent.html

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member thebigsd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Quarryville, PA
    Posts
    3,543
    I am not currently in the 1%, though I'd like to be.
    "When seconds count between living or dying, the police are only minutes away."

  3. #3
    Regular Member Ruger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Occupied Greensboro, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    548
    If that is the criteria, then yes, I am the 1%.

    According to Mike Vanderbough we are members of the 3%
    Last edited by Ruger; 12-06-2011 at 01:27 PM.
    Carry on!

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    The irony of the 1% claim is that almost every American is in the 1% of the world. So before the self-styled 99% in the US start making demands on the 1% in the US, maybe they should give the 99% of the world what they demand for themselves. If they try and fail (and they will surely fail if they bother to try), then they will learn the stupidity of their position.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,011
    I'm in the 99% because I want big money out of politics and I don't think corporations are people.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    1. Members of the one percent are far more likely to initiate contact with a federal official than is the general public.
    Because they have to, to grease their palms with bribes, campaign contributions and baksheesh...


    2. Members of the one percent tend to emphasize relying on free markets or private philanthropy to produce good outcomes.
    Because they have structured the "free market" to be free of competition, free of regulations for them (but MASSIVE regulations for everyone else) and are gaming the entire economy to enhance their own fiefdoms at the expense of the fortunes, dignity, and prosperity of everyone else...


    3. More members of the one percent point to the federal budget deficit as the country's most pressing problem than to any other problem facing the nation.
    Because by diverting the attention to Washington and blaming "entitlements" they keep people distracted so they can dig their sociopathic fangs even further into the jugular of the middle class and suck what little we have out through corporate croneyism, special treatment by regulating agencies, and special corporate entitlements and tax loopholes...


    4. Members of the one percent volunteer much more of their time, effort and money to charitable causes than do members of the general public.
    Because most of them have never worked an honest day in their lives, and make and maintain their fortunes on usury, bribery, corruption, war-mongering, and playing both sides against the middle...

    5. A typical (median) member of the one percent donates about four percent of his or her income to charitable causes.
    Charitable causes like Rhodes Scholarships (which are essentially a CIA/MI-6 front for vetting and training deeply-imbedded agent provocateurs in the media and academia), vaccinations in third world nations (that are admittedly part of a long-standing program of eugenics against "brown people") and "economic development" in the third world, which is designed to financially enslave the people in the Third World who don't get killed or severely disabled by their "vaccinations" and GMO poison crops...
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    The solutions to money in politics are quite simple:

    1. Contributions should be 100% (and nearly instantly) made public for all to see before the main balloting begins.

    2. No limitations on contributions. If we know who gave a politician the million-dollar donation, we know to whom he may be beholding, and can vote for him or not accordingly.

    3. Anyone (or anything) that exists within the US should be able to contribute to any candidate. Citizens, corporations, unions, PACs, partnerships, LLCs, or whatever, as long as they are constituted within the US and we know who owns/is running them.

    4. No contributions can be made with money, such as unions dues, that people are forced to contribute to an organization.

    5. Most importantly, we return to citizen legislators. Make whatever constitutional changes are necessary to limit legislators to one or two terms and make them part time so that they cannot live on legislator pay and need other employment.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Ruger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Occupied Greensboro, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    The solutions to money in politics are quite simple:

    1. Contributions should be 100% (and nearly instantly) made public for all to see before the main balloting begins.

    2. No limitations on contributions. If we know who gave a politician the million-dollar donation, we know to whom he may be beholding, and can vote for him or not accordingly.

    3. Anyone (or anything) that exists within the US should be able to contribute to any candidate. Citizens, corporations, unions, PACs, partnerships, LLCs, or whatever, as long as they are constituted within the US and we know who owns/is running them.

    4. No contributions can be made with money, such as unions dues, that people are forced to contribute to an organization.

    5. Most importantly, we return to citizen legislators. Make whatever constitutional changes are necessary to limit legislators to one or two terms and make them part time so that they cannot live on legislator pay and need other employment.
    Good ideas Eye

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk
    Carry on!

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member thebigsd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Quarryville, PA
    Posts
    3,543
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruger View Post
    Good ideas Eye

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk
    +1, I am especially in favor of term limits.
    "When seconds count between living or dying, the police are only minutes away."

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by thebigsd View Post
    +1, I am especially in favor of term limits.
    eye95's ideas are predicated on the false assumption that a majority of our voting population are conscientious enough to monitor campaign contributions.

    They're not that smart.
    Last edited by since9; 12-08-2011 at 05:44 PM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Freedom First's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Kennewick, Wa.
    Posts
    850
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    eye95's ideas are predicated on the false assumption that a majority of our voting population is conscientious enough to monitor campaign contributions.

    They're not that smart.
    Cynic...
    Freedom can never be lost, only given away by ignorance, by choice, or at the point of a gun. Here in America we can still choose.

    Freedom First 1775

    "I aim to misbehave..." Malcolm Reynolds

  12. #12
    Regular Member Freedom First's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Kennewick, Wa.
    Posts
    850
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruger View Post
    According to Mike Vanderbough we are members of the 3%
    And he's right. About some of us...
    Last edited by Freedom First; 12-07-2011 at 03:42 AM.
    Freedom can never be lost, only given away by ignorance, by choice, or at the point of a gun. Here in America we can still choose.

    Freedom First 1775

    "I aim to misbehave..." Malcolm Reynolds

  13. #13
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Private contributions, as in individual, as in out of my personal bank account, should be private and not open to scrutiny. I should be able to donate as much I see fit. Other than that no contributions should be permitted, not from PACs, unions, public or private corporations (as in company money, company account, the owner of the company can write a check from his personal bank account). Political parties should not be permitted to accept donations, only the candidate(s).

    Take the money out of political parties and money is effectively out of politics.
    This I can agree with. I'd also like to see party distinctions removed from ballots. People should be voting on the person, not the party. If a person wants badly enough to voted only for one specific party, then they need to remember what party that person associates with. If they can not recall who associates with what party, then they do not need to be voting as they clearly do not know what they are voting for or why. X belongs to why is not sufficient reason.

  14. #14
    Regular Member okboomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    1,164
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack House View Post
    This I can agree with. I'd also like to see party distinctions removed from ballots. People should be voting on the person, not the party. If a person wants badly enough to voted only for one specific party, then they need to remember what party that person associates with. If they can not recall who associates with what party, then they do not need to be voting as they clearly do not know what they are voting for or why. X belongs to why is not sufficient reason.
    So, the answer is to have people pass a comprehension test about what/who they are voting for before they cast a ballot?
    cheers - okboomer
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Lead, follow, or get out of the way

    Exercising my 2A Rights does NOT make me a CRIMINAL! Infringing on the exercise of those rights makes YOU one!

  15. #15
    Regular Member Brimstone Baritone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Leeds, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    786
    Quite the opposite. If you take the party off the ballot, isn't that less words to read?

    I'd settle for removing the All Democrat and All Republican boxes.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Quote Originally Posted by okboomer View Post
    So, the answer is to have people pass a comprehension test about what/who they are voting for before they cast a ballot?
    That's not what I said, nor I would not support such an endeavor. My statement was only that party distinctions should be removed from the ballots. If that causes people to choose not to vote because they do not know who represents what party, then so be it. They shouldn't be voting anyway.

    Again, I'm not saying that anyone should be disallowed to vote. There is a difference between removing party distinctions and disallowing people to vote. People can still vote and do so blindly without having to pass any test. They just wont have their hands held anymore while doing so.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •