jacee

It give me great pleasure to say this ... SUCKS TO BE A 1%'r, eh? :lol:

Read further ... a national tax would address that. Auditing those whose income suspiciously drops would help too!

That would be foolish!

Does the REAL truth scare you Shady? Did you even have the courage to LOOK at the graph? I speak for no one but myself, and I let the data speak for itself.

We know that the gap between the 1% and the rest of us is slightly smaller in Canada, BUT GROWING FASTER. We also know that 'aftertax' income in Canada means ALL HEALTH CARE COSTS ARE ALREADY PAID. IE, `AFTERTAX' means different things in the US and Canada. Some Canadian info ... The rise of Canada's richest 1% This generation of rich canadians is staking claim to a larger share of economic growth than any generation that has preceded it in recorded history. An examination of income trends over the past 90 years reveals that incomes are as concentrated in the hands of the richest 1% today as they were in the Roaring Twenties. And even then, the Canada’s elite didn’t experience as rapid a growth in their income share as has occurred in the past 20 years. Canada’s richest 1% — the 246,000 privileged few whose average income is $405,000 — took almost a third (32%) of all growth in incomes in the fastest growing decade in this generation, 1997 to 2007. As for your "50%" comment, I think there's some confusion between Mean/average income, and Median/middle income. Median is more reliable for income because of the inordinate effect of very high incomes. Stats Canada tends to focus on Median for that reason, but I've noticed that US data tends to report Average income. I suspect they're not so different.

Don't care. Not paying court costs because of them. Pissed them off big time. Got what I wanted. Please address the REAL point: Subprime were a bank scam, set up to fail.

Absolutely false. Israel refuses to accept Palestine (West Bank and Gaza) as an independent state. It is the people of Palestine who have labelled their situation 'Israeli Apartheid' and conduct demonstrations.

Canadian data ... in progress

I had my own insurance. They refused to accept it. THAT is illegal. When I found that out FROM THEIR OWN WEBSITE I refused to pay my mortgage until they returned my ILLEGAL insurance premiums. They foreclosed. If you don't know the law, don't argue this topic. Thank you.

See above. My point is that I believe banks were prevented from renegotiating subprime mortgages as they were planned for foreclosure so investors in the associated 'hedge' funds would make megabucks on them, and the banks would also get the houses to make money on. They didn't count on (or need) the bank bailouts too so they used them for their own bonuses! It was a scam.

It's illegal for them to refuse you a mortgage unless you buy THEIR mortgage insurance, if you already have your own.

96-99%'rs take note: NOBODY's winning in this 'game' EXCEPT the 1% Check the graph ... 5. Normalized to 1979, the top 1% have seen their share of America’s income more than double. The bottom 90% have seen their portion shrink. if-you-arent-in-the-top-1-of-americas-earners-youre-pretty-much-screwed With thanks to cybercoma, who originally posted the link to this report wheres-the-moral-outrage-regarding-financial-situation-in-america that contains many very informative graphics.

When others are doing the same thing? YES! If it still bothers her, she should dump it out, give it BACK to those who own it. Write a press release, without naming names if she chooses, and only answer reporters queries by email as she chooses. It's important (for healing) to GIVE IT BACK TO THEM.

How 'bout this ...? On one occasion during the Pickton investigation, she says that a supervisor told her: "I have a fantasy about Willy Pickton escaping from jail and tracking you down and ripping your clothes off and stringing you from a meat hook and gutting you like a pig.'" "My supervisors were laughing," she said. People in management positions do not have union help.

True. The people with subprime mortgages just wanted to negotiate terms they could manage. Instead, all subprime mortgages were foreclosed because the 1%'rs had figured out an easier, faster way to make megabucks on them with 'hedge' funds that made it more lucrative for the mortgages to fail.My personal experience with a subprime mortgage was a) the bank illegally insisted on mortgage insurance and b') when I later complained about that and demanded that those illegally collected insurance fees be applied to my mortgage, they foreclosed. I personally believe that foreclosure was the purpose of subprime mortgages, to maximize profits to the 1%'rs

I'm not so sure that's accurate. Social libertarianism exists. The political compass here http://www.politicalcompass.org/index has a 'libertarian vs authoritarian' axis, that I think is more accurate. There is a strong 'individualist' element of OCCUPY. They act on the democratic consensus of individuals, not by electing hierarchical authority. IE, they don't give their vote to anyone else, but also have a commitment to consensual action.

Never too late to tell the story to the media!

Which is why OCCUPY does not use violence.Rick is wrong on this. Engaging with the violence of the state would be a mistake, and is not a strategy of OCCUPY.

Super conservative, major centre of Neo-Nazi activity, London ON police stole protesters tents and belongings. The protest has NOT been didpersed, and will not be. One strategy being proposed is "flash" occupations that will allow protesters to stay ahead of injunctions, police, etc.

NO they did not touch protesters. Just stole their tents and belongings and threw them in garbage trucks, a provocation that will figure in lawsuits for damages, to be sure.

Mistake, I agree.But nobody's threatening any personal violence. It's specifically NOT a strategy endorsed by OCCUPY, and wouldn't be welcome. Black Bloc tactics, for example, are not about personal violence. In Vancouver, when police and firefighters came in to the camp, the Black Bloc strategy was to link arms around the fire (in a barrel) and prevent them from extinguishing the fire. They were not the ones fighting with police. They know police are not the real targets. Others may have beefs with police, but engaging physically with police, politicians, etc. Is NOT an OCCUPY strategy. And while smashing windows of banks, corporations and bad employers, BB avoid personal violence and looting. Black Bloc actions are symbolic, not personal. Here's an interesting comment from the CEO of Wells Fargo bank in the US: In addressing the lack of job growth, Stumpf said bank vaults are "overflowing with deposits." But he said small businesses, a key engine for job creation, don't have the confidence to invest. http://www.startribune.com/business/133504023.html Gee ... maybe the banks and corporations and governments DO need 'the little guy' for economic recovery!

The mayor of oakland didn't know they'd shoot at people's heads with tear gas canisters. The bad apples among police have to be considered. They went nuts en masse at Toronto G20. I agree the go slow route that's evolving is the only way. I really don't think any canadian city is going to drag people out.

How many times have they gone in aggressively before? Why not? Because they knew they would escalate it to violence. And now you all know. They won't leave voluntarily. The police will have to use violence. Now the politicians will be able to consider more carefully whether it's worth the damages to Vancouver's reputation, business - tourism etc- A drunken hockey riot is an accident. Violent removal of hundreds of protesters in a worldwide movement? That's an accident in planning.

Whether it was safe to go in is the police chief's call. It wasn't safe. He called it wrong, for peacekeeping purposes. And he keeps talking about "the masks" as if that was part of his decision, not the fire. No, he's escalating it to provoke violence on purpose, WITHOUT AN INJUNCTION. Now he knows. Most will hold their ground peacefully. A few will fight. Now the politicians know ... It won't look pretty for them. Maybe that's his purpose. I hope so. I sure don't want to see this escalate any further. The politicians are naive. They think police can 'remove' people without violence. hahaha

A fire IN A BARREL does not warrant risking violence. Safety is a police call. They called it wrong. Seems to be a bad habit of VPD.