Occupy Christmas

International Day of Action – December 25

Archive for the ‘Corporate Greed’ Category

Banker Bonuses Down 30%

Posted by troublemaker on January 10, 2012

The average Wall Street bonus is predicted to be down by 30% this year. (1) Bankers threaten to sue or walk. When union employees are asked to take a pay cut to keep their employer afloat in these hard financial times, the unions have made concessions. Although loosing wages and benefits is not something a person looks forward to, sometimes it is necessary to keep a business running and jobs available. Although blue collar (and no collar) workers (99%) have been willing to make concessions, when it comes time for the white collars (1%) to do their part, they threaten to either sue or take their toys and leave. I think we can all agree the theme song here is Hit the Road Jack.

“Jeffries Group have threatened to walk away from the firm if bonuses aren’t on par with the Street.” – Business Insider (1)

While some might point to the financial down turn to explain the lower bonuses, many factors contributed to the decrease in what many feel are over the top bonuses. The New York Post believes one of those factors is the Occupy / 99% movement. Although they do not come out and identify the movement as a factor, they identify “public outrage” as one of three reasons bonuses are expected to be lower. Who has expressed more public outrage than the Occupy / 99% movement?

“The huge problem this year, however, is that the overall bonus pie is forecast to be about 30 percent smaller, shrunk by declining revenue, public outrage over outsize annual payouts and the demands of deferred bonuses promised during the financial crisis that are now coming due.” – New York Post (2)

Congratulations Occupy Wall Street, while they nay Sayers continue to claim the message is unclear it seems big banks are getting that message loud and clear.

  1. Business Insider – Now US Bankers Are Planning To Sue Or Walk If Bonuses Are Too Low
  2. New York Post – Bonus battles: Disgruntled bankers threaten to sue or walk

Posted in Corporate Greed | Leave a Comment »

Maintaining the Plutonomy

Posted by troublemaker on December 27, 2011

Chances are you have heard or read that the Occupy and 99% movement believes there is an international inequity in wealth. What most people do not seem to understand is that the core principle of the Occupy / 99% movement does not consider the inequality in wealth itself to be wrong. The inequality that is wrong is the political power. Instead of being firmly seated with the people (the 99%), it is wielded mostly by the wealthy (the 1%). The main grievance the Occupy / 99% movement is not about wealth, it is about power. While inequity in wealth might seem to be the core complaint of the movement, the protest is really about returning democracy to what has become a plutocracy.

“Plutocracy is rule by the wealthy or power provided by wealth.” (1)

The easiest and most general way to explain the demand of the Occupy / 99% movement is to say that we want a level playing field. This is why most decisions in the Occupy / 99% movement are made by direct democracy. Within the movement, a homeless person who lives under a bridge has one vote. Within the movement, a real estate broker who lives in a half million dollar home has one vote. Unfortunately, direct democracy is not very quick to make decisions. This is why many large democracies exist as representative democracies. Instead of requiring that all decision be made by a vote of the people, the people elect representatives who can more efficiently reach decisions.

What happens when those representatives begin listening to the wealthy 1% of the people more than they listen to the rest of the people (99%)? Although it can be argued that a pure plutonomy has not existed since antiquity, when representatives pay more attention to the wealthy 1% than the rest of the people (the 99%) we have the beginning of a plutonomy and the ending of a democracy. If you believe that notion is part of a strange conspiracy theory, consider the fact that the plan has been observed not only by the 99% but by the 1% as well.

In a Citigroup “Industry Note”, dated October 16, 2005; Citigroup advised its wealthiest clients that in the United States the top 1% of households account for more wealth than the bottom 99%. That and other observations in the memo might seem purely statistical if not for the tone of the memo. At the top of the memo, we see that what we are reading is an endorsement of the growing “Plutonomy”. In the October 16 document, Citigroup explains that the United States, United Kingdom and Canada are already “key Plutonomies”.

“The World is divided into two blocks – The plutonomy and the rest. The U.S., UK, and Canada are the key Plutonomies, economies powered by the wealthy.” – Citigroup Industry Note dated October 16, 2005 (2)

The very existence of Citigroup seems to indicate their observation that the wealthy run the United States is correct. It was not until Robert E. Rubin became the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury that businesses like Citigroup were legal in the United States. After leaving his position as the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Rubin became the Chairman at Citigroup. Shortly thereafter, he resigned from that position after being compensated an estimated $126 million dollars in cash and stock. Prior to his position as the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Rubin spent 26 years with Goldman Sax. See Robert E. Rubin for more information. Citigroup is right to use the word because what word other than “Plutonomies” would describe an economy where the rich take positions within the government so they can overturn laws which prevent them from making even more money?

On March 5, 2006 Citigroup issued a follow up Industry Note (3). That note assures the 1% that they are not only in good shape, but that the economic inequity continues to grow to fuel the lifestyles of the kings of plutonomy. Citigroup created the Industry Note of March 5, 2006 to further bang the drum of plutonomy.

“We thought this was a good time to bang the drum on plutonomy.” – From Citigroup Industry Note dated March 5, 2006

While one might think the beat of that drum would change when Citigroup had serious financial problems in 2008, they did what the wealthy do in a plutonomy. They simply demanded more of the 99%. In the case of Cigitgroup they demanded a bail out and received $45 billion dollars from U.S. tax payers via the U.S. government. Why? Because Citigroup is right, we live in a Plutocracy. We live in a culture where the rich rule.

“Citigroup stayed afloat with three bailouts totaling [SIC] $45 billion in federal funds.” – New York Times (4)

Although the press reported that Citigroup CEO Prandit was receiving a token salary of only $1.00 per year, in May of 2011, Citigroup CEO was rewarded with a $23.2 million dollar “retention package” (4).

As our elected officials are not willing to do it themselves, it is time for a direct democracy to overtake the plutonomy which pretends to be a representative democracy. To rob the power from Citigroup and other big banks, simply withhold your money. Move your savings, checking, and mortgages to smaller, local savings and loans. If you have money with which to invest, do so in your own community. Drive these money changers from the temple by not bringing your money to that temple.

Every time you spend a dollar you cast a vote. Vote these people OUT.


  1. Plutocracy as defined at Wikipedia
  2. Citigroup Industry Note dated October 16, 2005
  3. Citigroup Industry Note dated March 5, 2006
  4. New York Times: Citigroup Inc. 2011 Earnings Third Quarter

Posted in Corporate Greed | Leave a Comment »

What is Orange Juice?

Posted by troublemaker on December 18, 2011

From the beginning of the Occupy Christmas movement, the central theme has been economic. We have encouraged our readers to buy local and to avoid funding huge corporate control of our democracy. What better way to send a clear message to the huge retail stores than to spend our Christmas savings locally? If money is the only language they speak, we will give them a little silence. Today, we share an everyday example of why this message is valid well past the holiday season.

What is fresh 100% pure fresh orange juice?

Let’s first look at the word “fresh”. While some huge food companies are a bit more honest in using the term “fresh squeezed” rather than simply “fresh”, both terms reference a product which is pasteurized and stripped of its oxygen so it can be stored in million gallon tanks for up to a year. Due to the heat of parturition, stripping of oxygen to prolong storage, and likely the storage itself; the product is no longer either flavorful or colorful. To bring that flavor and color back to something consumers will believe is “fresh 100% pure orange juice” flavoring is added prior to being bottled. Because the product is mostly tasteless prior to the addition of flavoring, food companies can control the unique taste of their brand. Minute Made, as an example, has a distinctly sweet flavor as a result of the recipe they use for their flavor booster.

“Kristen Gunter, executive director of the Florida Citrus Processors Association, confirmed that juices are blended and stored and that flavor packs are added to pasteurized juice before shipping to stores.” (1)

The flavor package is derived from a combination of peel, pulp, and the “volatile compounds” which would otherwise escape during the heat pasteurization process. Essentially, the heating of orange juice drives the essence of orange into the air; it is captured and then used in the flavoring combination. We imagine the peel, pulp and volatile compounds of this year’s batch are added to last year’s flavorless liquids prior to bottling such that year after year the process could continue.

Although the process does not mean the major brands are serving up something created by blending artificial chemicals in a laboratory, the term “100% fresh orange juice” does not properly describe the product which is flavored year old juice.

Huge food corporations treat our food this way because it is the only way they can process, store, and ship such a large volume. They deceive the consumer with terms like “fresh squeezed” because it is the only way they can compete. If they were honest and called it “fresh squeezed up to a year ago”, how many people would purchase their mass produced food product?

Although we do not all have orange groves in our areas, we can look at the example of orange juice to see a reason to purchase as much local produce as possible. It should also serve to illustrate the reasons for eating in season, a concept I will touch on later.

.1) http://abcnews.go.com/Health/orange-juice-moms-secret-ingredient-worries/story?id=15154617#.Tu4kxPLjq9K

Posted in Corporate Greed, Food | 1 Comment »

Lowe’s Lack of Soul

Posted by troublemaker on December 15, 2011

Lowe’s Home Improvement has announced that it has pulled its advertisements which previously aired during the TV show All-American Muslim. (1) The latest installment of reality TV features American Muslin families in their day to day lives in Dearborn, Michigan. Although many Americans have added Lowe’s to a list of Islamaphobes, Lowe’s has a much different take on their actions. Lowe’s claims to have pulled their commercials because they did not want to participate in the “hotly contested debate.” (1).

Although Lowe’s has made it clear that they removed the commercials in an effort not to become involved in the “hotly contested debate” (1), some interpreted their actions have been as being intolerant of Islam. In US News, a recent article was titled “Boycott Lowe’s Over All-American Muslim Intolerance”. If it is true that Lowe’s pulled their advertising from the All-American Muslims reality TV show due to an intolerance of Islam, the obvious question is why they would suddenly become intolerant. After all, the controversy would not exist if not for Lowe’s commercials first being shown during the television show. The answer is that Lowe’s has not demonstrated intolerance for Islam. Instead, they have demonstrated intolerance for that “hotly contested debate” (1).

The Florida Family Association let Lowe’s know they feel the reality show hides “riskily hides the Islamic agenda’s clear and present danger to American liberties and traditional values.” (2). Why on earth would a reality TV show titled “All-American Muslims” feature Muslims which stand against the United States of America? Yes, radical Islam does exist. Yes, radical Islam is wildly opposes “American liberties and traditional values”, but that is not the focus of the TV show illustrating Muslims who support”American liberties and traditional values”. Radical Islam is a problem. So is Islam phobia due to radical Islam.

I agree with the call to boycott Lowe’s, but not due to Islam phobia. I agree with the call to boycott Lowe’s, and other huge incorporations, for not having a soul. I say if Corporations want our money, they had best let us know where they stand on issues so we can decide which ones we choose to empower and which we choose to boycott. Until such time as corporations make their views known, boycott them all.


  1. http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2518/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=8996
  2. US News: Boycott Lowe’s Over All-American Muslim Intolerance

Posted in Corporate Greed | Leave a Comment »

Robert E. Rubin

Posted by troublemaker on December 7, 2011

    When Occupy Wall Street began, it vowed “to end the monied corruption of our democracy”. Since that time, the movement has grown in many different directions but always kept at its core the central objection to government representing the 1% more than the 99%. We think the story of Robert E. Rubin explains what happens when big business and big government swap spit.

After 26 years with Goldman Sax, Robert E. Rubin was the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury during both of President Bill Clinton’s administrations. While working in the Whitehouse, Rubin helped to design the Commodity Futures Modernization Act and steer the repeal of the Banking Act of 1933. After leaving government service, he took positions at Citigroup where he was compensated with more than $126 million dollars in cash and stock. He resigned from Citigroup on January 9, 2009. (1)

Previous to Rubin’s position as U.S. Secretary, conduct by incorporations like Citigroup were illegal due to the Banking Act of 1933(2) (aka Glass-Steagall Act of 1933). Rubin was principally responsible for steering the repeal of that act which President Bill Clinton signed into law on November 12, 1999. As Secretary of the Treasury, Robert Rubin was the man Bill Clinton turned to for help on that decision. Detractors of this repeal claim it once again allows serious conflicts of interest between commercial banks and investment bank, allowing these two styles of business to be owned by one company. Years later, detractors seem to have been proven correct.

Recently, Citigroup was ordered to $285 million dollar fine to the SEC for “misleading investors” while Robert Rubin was the chairman of Citigroup. (3)

Designed by Robert Rubin before leaving the Whitehouse, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on December 21, 2000. This act allowed for unregulated trade in a class of banking product called ‘derivatives’. For the purpose of this discussion, the most important of these derivatives is the ‘Credit Default Swap’ (5). The Credit Default Swap is essentially an insurance policy against a loan default.

Think of a home owner’s insurance policy. If your house burns down, the insurance company pays to rebuild it. Now ask yourself, how many home owners’ policies can exist on one home? Can you insure your home 10 times and expect to be paid 10 times its worth should it burn to the ground? Of course not. That is where the Credit Default Swap differs from traditional insurance. A loan can be insured for many times more than its value and that loan can be insured by people who do not have an interest in the loan itself.

The short of Citigroup’s conduct was to take sell bundled high risk mortgages to investors while betting against those same mortgages via Credit Default Swaps. Although they represented the quality of those mortgages to their clients and collected fees when they were sold,, at the same time Citigroup seems to have been secretly betting the mortgages would fail. Either way, they made money, a situation which the Banking Act of 1933 specifically forbad until Rubin helped its repeal in 1999 on a product which Rubin helped to become deregulated in 2000.

Of course Citigroup paid Robert Rubin $126 million dollars in cash and stock. He was worth every penny as he helped make Citigroup legal via the repeal of the Banking Act of 1933 and later helped deregulate the instrument Citigroup used to make millions more by misleading investors (Derivatives and the Credit Default Swap).

Now ask yourself, do you have a Citi card in your purse or wallet? If you use that card, are you not supporting this type of behavior? Make a difference. Occupy Christmas by transferring any balance to a local credit union or reputable bank. Refuse to use your Citi card. Refuse to bank with Citibank. Occupy Christmas and make a difference.




  1. Wikipedia on Robert Rubin
  2. Wikipedia on Banking Act of 1933
  3. Huffington Post: Too Big to Jail
  4. Wikipedia on Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000
  5. Wikipedia on the Credit Default Swap

Posted in Corporate Greed | 1 Comment »

what would happen if….

Posted by Press on December 6, 2011

I was asked not too long ago what would happen to the 99% if people stopped shopping at big retail chains, as we are asking. We have already shown facts and figures on what would happen to the community if people shopped locally, but lets look at the other side of things.
Yes, a large number of the 99% work in the same retail stores that we are boycotting. If people stopped shopping in those stores how would this effect those workers? As some of you have asked, aren’t we hurting the 99%, not helping them?
My question to those people is this, have you ever worked there?
In January 2011 Walmart showed a profit of just over 16 million.  Walmart has one of the highest profits yet has the highest number of employees on welfare. The Seattle times in 2006 recorded “It cost the state an estimated $12 million in 2004 to provide government-subsidized health care to Wal-Mart employees”(2) And in 2011 in Ohio “Ohio taxpayers spent more than $67 million “for the year” on food stamps and Medicaid for Walmart workers” (3)

What’s the point of working for a multi million dollar company when you still have to be on welfare? These companies keep their employees on low wages with zero job security.

Time after time these larger companies break the rules, or creep just along the edge, knowing that most people are not going to take them to court. Job satisfaction is low on their priority list because it’s cheaper to recycle employees than it is to have a five year veteran with two weeks paid vacation and full benefits. Sam Walton has even said “I pay low wages. I can take advantage of that. We’re going to be successful, but the basis is a very low-wage, low-benefit model of employment.” (4)

It’s this kind of mentality that drives many of these companies. Most people aren’t aware of their legal rights and allow these things to happen because they are afraid of losing their jobs or retaliation from their managers. Discrimination, creating a hostile work environment, breaking FMLA laws, the list goes on.

As much as I hate to say it, I doubt people will ever completely stop shopping with these companies, but I at least hope that even a fourth of the people will stop and start spending locally. As stated in a previous post, this could bring back hundreds of thousands of dollars to small towns, and into the millions with larger cities. This newfound money would hopefully create jobs for people allowing them to leave their minimum wage jobs for something better, allowing hem to come off of welfare and give back $67 million to Ohio and who knows how much to other states. It’s impossible to say what the future will bring, but by shopping with these companies you are telling them that it’s ok to treat their employees this way.

1) http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?annual&s=wmt
2) http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002791346_walmart07m.html
3) http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2011/01/rep_robert_hagan_slams_wal-mar.html
4) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/secrets/inside.html

Posted in Corporate Greed | Leave a Comment »

Illegal Foreclosures against US troops

Posted by troublemaker on December 5, 2011

We hear a lot about big bank bail outs. What we hear very little about is why those big banks deserve those bail outs. If the banks were on Santa’s lists, which list would they be on this Christmas? If they are on Santa’s naughty list, did they really deserve the present they got from we tax payers? With respect to JP Morgan-Chase, Bank of America, and CitiBank I think you will agree they have all made the naughty list. Each has not only stretched foreclosure laws, they have broken them. In some cases, the laws being broken can be punished with jail time. In other cases, even members of the US congress have been clear that they believe such foreclosures have led to the suicides of our fighting men and women (1).

“I would call it homicide…” – Congressman Bob Filner of California (1)

JP Morgan-Chase admitted to illegally overcharging thousands of service members and evicting some service members despite the legal protections provided in the Service Members Civil Relief Act. Congressman Bob Filner claims he can show at least one suicide which was directly related to the illegal actions of JP Morgan-Chase. Although the Congressman “would like to file a charge of wrongful death” (1) and although the law provides clear penalty for the actions of the bank executives, no charges have been filed.

“(1) MISDEMEANOR.—A person who knowingly makes or causes to be made a sale, foreclosure, or seizure of property that is prohibited by subsection (c), or who knowingly attempts to do so, shall be fined as provided in title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.” Penalties listed for SMCRA violation (2)

Despite the huge legal teams that banks maintain for the purpose of foreclosing on people’s homes, JP Morgan-Chase was not the only one to ignore the protections provided to US service members.

Bank of America was found in violation of this same law and ordered to make restitution by the Department of Justice (3).

CitiBank / CitiGroup / CitiMortgage – A suit filed against CitiMortgage claims that not only was a service member’s home taken and sold without court hearing, but that to accomplish this action CitiMortgage lied in sworn affidavit claiming that the service member was not in fact in the military. (4)

The basic concept of the Service Members Civil Relief Action (3) is simple. While service members are fighting for their country, they should be given a fighting chance in the court system. Because duty often prevents a service member from attending court hearings, matters are tabled until such time as the service member is capable of being present for hearings in matters like foreclosures. Additional provisions limit the interest rate that can be charged, but there is no provision to excuse debt. Its simply says that a bank must wait a bit to take action against a home when the owner is away serving his country. Is that really so much to ask?

Evidently it is too much to ask. While you might be thinking these banks have made restitution, consider the fact that no course of action was taken until they were caught. Now ask yourself, if you robbed a bank and got caught would you expect to be forgiven if you simply made restitution?

As these executives who made these illegal decisions are not being held accountable to the law, it is us to we consumers to cause their shareholders to hold them accountable. Send a clear message. If you own a credit card issued or associated with these or other unethical banks, cut it up. If your mortgage is with any of these or other unethical banks, refinance through a local credit union.

Each of these banks is expecting to cash in on the fees associated with Christmas time credit card spending. Deny them your hard earned money, send a clear message and Occupy Christmas!



  1. Military News (Military.com) on Troop Suicide due to Foreclosure
  2. Service Members Civil Relief Act
  3. Department of Justice on Bank of America
  4. The Consumerist

Posted in Corporate Greed | 1 Comment »

Taking Back the Christmas Tree

Posted by troublemaker on November 20, 2011

For years we have been told to save trees. Believing the hype, we have switched our Christmas tree choice from natural to plastic. It seemed like a logical decision at the time. After all, we don’t want to run out of trees do we? Guess what, they grow back. In fact, the great majority of Christmas trees sold were grown specifically for that purpose. During that life cycle, they take carbon out of the air, put oxygen into that air, and generally improve the atmosphere and soil. Once used, they can provide valuable mulch intentionally or they turn into mulch all on their own if discarded in the woods. If they are burnt, they release no more carbon into the atmosphere than they removed during their life cycle. Plastic, on the other hand, well I do not think I need to tell you what its toll on our ecosystem is. So why did the natural, living Christmas tree receive such a bad rap?

1 – Drying Pine needles present a distinct fire hazard.

2 – Cut pine trees tend to come with their own special mold spores which many people are allergic to.

Ah, but do you really think things like health and fire concerns could change an entire tradition? Ask yourself how many public service messages you have seen warning about allergies to pine mold or fire hazards. If you are like me, you remember a few about the fire hazard. Now ask yourself how many commercials and other advertisements you have seen for imitation Christmas trees. When the commercials are weighed against the commercial advertisements, it becomes easy to believe the natural Christmas tree was replaced because it is easier to box, ship, and sell something that comes in a box and fits on a shelf. So what’s the solution?

Why not use a live tree bundled in a root ball rather than either a cut or plastic tree? In the spring, plant your tree on your property or donate it to a park. Here is my Christmas challenge to towns, cities, and other municipalities. Start a collection service for cut Christmas trees, using the bulk as mulch for your parks and other projects. Offer another pick up service for live trees and use those to restore a sense of nature to your parks and cities.

In the grand scope of the revolution, something as simple as what you use for a Christmas tree might seem insignificant. The thing is, no one person is going to change the world. Neither is any one idea. Collectively, we can change the world. Collectively, every little step towards the right direction can restore the splendor of the holiday season. If we can secure that season for our children, maybe we can start working on the rest of the year.

Occupy Christmas this and future seasons by returning to the common sense practices of old.

Posted in Corporate Greed | 2 Comments »

Traders taunt protesters.

Posted by troublemaker on November 8, 2011

Occupy Chicago is a bit different than other Occupied cities in that there is no central encampment.  Instead, protesters are permitted to express themselves in a relatively narrow corridor.  Within that corridor is the Chicago Board of Trade building.  In response to the ongoing protest for economic fairness, traders within that building have made their opinion of the movement known with signs in the windows which read “We are the 1%”.  While that message does not instantly convey how they feel about the protesters and the 99%, the photocopies they have dropped on the movement have made a clear statement.

First fliers were dropped from the 8th floor which read: “We are the 1% paying for this” (1)

The second littering from the 8th floor consisted of Job Applications for McDonald’s (1)

Like royalty taunting peasants from behind the walls of their castle, the Eighth Floor Yahoos seem too dimwitted to understand their own peril.  The Huffington Post reports that McDonalds recently announced it would hire some 50,000 new employees.  In response, McDonald’s received over 1,000,000 applications.(2)  That is one job available per more than twenty applications.  Graduating students are reporting no jobs to be found and an inability to meet the requirements of student loan debt.  So after years in school, unless they are the lucky 1 in 20 there isn’t even work at McDonald’s.  What this means to the Eight Floor Yahoos is that the number of people with discretionary income with which to invest and trade is dwindling. 

Where the Eight Floor Yahoos think it is funny to essentially tell street level protesters to eat cake, I see pitchforks and torches being made ready for a time when those castle walls crumble.  As evidenced by the existence and tenacity of the 99 percenters, we peasants are getting grumpy.  As evidenced by the economy, the castle walls of corporate wealth are starting to crumble.  Soon, the Eight Floor Yahoos will likely be the street level homeless.

You see those traders on the eight floor are no less slaves than employees at McDonald’s.  The main difference between the protesters and the traders is that the protesters have recognized their servitude. 

 The slaves shall serve until the masters fall and the masters are falling.

Occupy Christmas.  Not one dime to greedy corporations.


Foot Notes:

1) Chicago’s “Chicagoist

2) Huffington Post

Posted in Corporate Greed | Leave a Comment »

Walmart cuts Health Care

Posted by troublemaker on October 31, 2011

Walmart claims it caters to the 99%.  With very short sight, maybe they do.  Their prices are lower than most stores, but one must wonder what the true cost of Walmart goods really are.  Excluding the government itself, Walmart is the single largest employer in the United States.  Recently that largest employer announced that it will be eliminating health care for new part time employees and cutting benefits for its full-time employees. 

One must ask, if Walmart’s employees are part of the 99% just who is it they cater to?

“We’re here today to let the people at Occupy Wall Street know that Walmart’s associates stand with them; we are the 99%” said Los Angeles-based Walmart worker Girshriela Green in a prepared statement. “For too long, Walmart has pushed its associates around and it’s time we got the dignity and respect we deserve.”

In response to the protest against Walmart by participants of Occupy Wall Street, a Walmart spokesperson reportedly stated: “[The protesters are] particularly misguided given the fact that Walmart is focused on serving the ‘99%.’”

From:  http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20111020/LABOR_UNIONS/111029993#ixzz1cKUGCfAk

It is true that Walmart serves the 99%.  There is a story in Judeo Christian scripture concerning Moses freeing the Jews from Egypt.  There was a point where the former slaves wanted to return to Egyptian slavery because it was easier to be kept.  Walmart serves the 99% as did Pharaoh serve the Jews.  The question is, do you want to be kept?  Do you want to be a slave?

 The true price of shopping at Walmart is a lower standard of living for that 99%.  While the savings might seem to provide instant satisfaction, like crack and other street  drugs that high fades quickly and becomes addicting.  The solution is to send a clear message to this huge category killer.  This Christmas, ignore their sales.  This Christmas, ignore Walmart.

Occupy Christmas, not Walmart

Posted in Corporate Greed | Leave a Comment »