• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Are OCDO members of the "one percent?"

  • Thread starter Herr Heckler Koch
  • Start date
H

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest
Are we members of the "one percent?"

A survey, cited, concluded among the survey findings
Northwestern University said:
  • Members of the one percent are far more likely to initiate contact with a federal official than is the general public.
  • Members of the one percent tend to emphasize relying on free markets or private philanthropy to produce good outcomes.
  • 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.
  • Members of the one percent volunteer much more of their time, effort and money to charitable causes than do members of the general public.
  • 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/publications/papers/2011/IPR-WP-11-07.pdf
Reviewed http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-rare-survey-percent.html
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 

beebobby

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2008
Messages
847
Location
, ,
I'm in the 99% because I want big money out of politics and I don't think corporations are people.
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
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...
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 

Ruger

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
545
Location
Occupied Greensboro, North Carolina, United States
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
 

Jack House

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,611
Location
I80, USA
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.
 

okboomer

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
1,164
Location
Oklahoma, USA
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?
 

Jack House

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,611
Location
I80, USA
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.
 
Top