Occupy Wall Street 39 replies

Please wait...

Demonseed VIP Member

Gettin' real tired of you ducking me, man...

50 XP

29th December 2004

0 Uploads

464 Posts

0 Threads

#31 7 years ago

Commissar MercZ;5569927...

What? Have you even looked at what are they doing or just what the lookity box is spewing out to you.

People don't just get out onto the streets to because 'everyone' is doing it. There are conditions people are angry about

Sure, there are some genuine folks out there who have genuine complaints. In a case like this, there are no absolutes. However, I know people who live up there. They've been down to the protests, and I believe their reports over what the TV shows. There are people down there with their kids who don't know why they are there. Homeless people and drug addicts making themselves right at home among the protesters.

Most importantly, they can't articulate any goals. The list of demands we're discussing is silly. The statement they released to the press (which said these demands were unofficial anyway) contained a bunch of class warfare nonsense.

The minimum wage is unworkable currently. These people aren't asking to live in luxury, but the way wages work currently

In other countries, at least 'developed' ones, minimum wage is actually something that you can live on if you work. Here, it is doubtful, considering all the other fees that you might run into. Taxes, utilities, rent/mortgages, servicing loans for cars and education,

Like I said, I worked for minimum wage and paid all of those things. Taxes are not a factor, other than sales tax. Minimum wage workers pay pretty much no income tax, and many of them receive refunds far above the amount they paid in. Refundable tax credits at work.

Come down to Texas and see what happened when you abide by the 'free market' ideals. It's hardly as black and white as you are seeing it as 'government'.

Rick Perry Health Care | Texas healthcare system withering under Gov. Rick Perry - Los Angeles Times

This same logic drives Texas's healthcare system, which has turned it into a nightmare. It's fine if you are rich and well off though.

The request is reasonable since, you know, much of the developed world has it, and yet the country that is supposedly a superpower and the most industrialized can't even get around it.

Yet there is, apparently, no problem bailing out banks or continue working with them all the while.

All that is required to fix the health care issue in this country is to lift the interstate sales restriction on health insurance and cap frivolous malpractice suits. Sure, there are people out there that are overcharging for health care. Everyone knows that. But the answer isn't "Let the government take care of it."

The government already denies more claims through Medicare than any private insurer in the country. Not sure that's the plan for the whole country.

Also note, the paragon of single payer, Canada, is currently transitioning back to a private healthcare system because they cannot afford it. People go without care, wait on waiting lists for surgery, or just come to the US where they can pay for their healthcare. If we go single payer, where will they go?

That's not the way they are looking at it- but rather, we can't have such a stratification between say a teacher or desk worker and a trust-fund CEO.

Second, the GMI isn't simply a handout, but a determined system over how the markets are operating and employment situations. It doesn't mean simply 'sit on your ass and do nothing' as you seem to envision it.

We've had the concept proposed most strongly by President Nixon- hardly the type that would like 'hand-outs' considering his position against hippies and the like.

If you are ranting about 'hand-outs' as it seems, then this would make sense. Why bother working if all you are making is less than what unemployment even gives?

This is a bit far-fetched of all of them on account of few nations having been able to employ this, but again, it's from the perspective that the government has been willing to stick its self out for its corporate backers, and yet, for the rest- nothing.

There are a TON of people who are doing exactly as you suggest - not working so they can draw unemployment. The 99 weeks extension of benefits is a major driving force behind unemployment staying high. Business owners I know personally have jobs they cannot fill because people are turning down jobs so they don't jeopardize their unemployment benefits.

Again, this is a societal issue. People think they are 'owed' something. It's a fundamental problem with the mindset, and not one you can talk most folks out of. No one owes you anything, and if you don't get out there and earn it, you'll find yourself living in a cardboard box on the street.

You don't understand the principle of GMI as the last point showed.

However, the college education provision isn't unreasonable, at least from public universities standpoint. The rate we are going universities are going to get more pricey and unreachable for most people.

Yes, a college education is pricey. Yes, it can be a financial hardship. No, it shouldn't be free. You see, if you earn that college degree, over your lifetime, you'll earn something like $1 million more than you would without it. That's a demonstrated value that you are paying to have. Someone has to pay for all the teachers and facilities that are providing you that education. I paid for mine; you can pay for yours. Again, this is a part of life.

It's not sustainable though. Those sources will run out too, and in the end the only people that benefit are the corporations that have been pushing that from the start.

No one has said they won't. However, are we better off accessing our own reserves, creating jobs, and keeping all that oil money in our economy, or sending it overseas to Saudi Arabia? Of course we should keep it here.

No one is saying we shouldn't be working on alternative energy. Clean coal, oil from shale, and natural gas can help supplement the oil we use, and decrease our dependence on foreign oil. Meanwhile, keep the alternative energy research going. Eventually, we'll find something viable. We tried wind, and it's not feasible. Solar isn't getting it done. But something is out there, just waiting to be discovered.

The same place they apparently found it for TARP and the so-called "Second Bailout". Why is it available then, but not now? As far as I know, the country was in debt then as it is now? Or are the services only available to the elite in this country?

So because a horrible idea like TARP was funded, we should throw more money down the same hole? Look, your kid's kid's lifetime income tax payments have already been spent. We've added more to the deficit since 2008 than was added by every single President from Washington to Bush 2. At some point, the spending has to stop.

And yet that same money was somehow available for TARP and the second bailout?

As for private ownership of land, it rarely works like that. Some may decide to preserve it, but ultimately the point of owning something is to make a profit off it at some point. And for most that means exploitation and exploitation of what resources are there.

In India this has led to many people's livelihoods squashed out as they are shoved off their lands in favor of multi-nationals to develop and push through their agenda in the government. Or ranchers and loggers in the Amazon.

Now if you want that same scenario replicated here, be my guest. But it's not good for 'national' concerns in the long run. At least as far as preservation and sustainability goes.

See above. TARP and stimulus were bad ideas that should never be repeated.

Taking resources from land doesn't mean you destroy it. Last weekend I played golf on a gorgeous piece of property covered in natural wildlife areas and wetlands. On top of a reclaimed strip mine.

What would be a better solution would be to push private ownership, and eliminate 'Eminent Domain' laws.

Racial equality? In some ways yes, in someways no. Gender quality is still a distant one though- this doesn't merely mean male and females, but sexual orientation as well. And the US is still a ways off from achieving that goal.

Like I said, we still have some work to do, but you cannot legislate morality, and this is a moral issue.

Mexican cartels are already pretty happy with the way things are. Little difference in whether it gets tighter or looser.

But their point is that these borders are already 'open' for trade as it is. Yet people are considered a lower status than commodities.

Every country in the world has an immigration policy. Do you think you can just grab your crap and go live in Canada? Sure, once you go through the naturalization process. That's all we want here. If you're in this country illegally, GO THROUGH THE CITIZENSHIP PROCESS. Earn the right to be here. I don't know anyone who's opposed to legal immigration. It's the illegals that make us angry.

It's like you are reading from a token book of the tea party. Not just government regulation but now fraud through fraudulent registrations.

This issue has been blown out of proportion by certain media outlets, and it's rather stupid to fixate on that particular aspect.

Our elections are problematic because as they currently stand, it only encourages a two party system and machine politics that makes it difficult for That is a pressing concern for anyone, regardless

I'm not saying that it's rampant or widespread. However, I don't see why people shouldn't have to show an ID to vote. We have to show ID to do tons of things that aren't anywhere near as important. What's the big deal?

The two party system isn't going anywhere anytime soon. I hear what you're saying, but that's just a fact.

Where was 'personal responsibility' when the banks crashed and asked for bailouts? TARP was passed rather quickly with out much debate really or media brainwashing around it.

See, you are always getting it into these nightmare scenarios. That they are going to get the house or car they can't afford- the

I totally agree. I decried the bailout at the time, in this very forum. People buying stuff they couldn't afford isn't a nightmare scenario - it's an objective reality for people all over the country right now.

Credit ratings have really been nothing more than hell on people trying to get what they want. And it's not just at the consumer level but all over the place. They have total control in that regard and it makes it very chaotic in instances. Even with rating sovereign debt their practices are questionable.

Like I said, I'm not a fan of the ratings agencies, but they are a necessary evil. The telling phrase is "people trying to get what they want." Not what they need, what they want.

Unions are a dead concept but it really hasn't done much good for the country. As things stand total flexibility goes with management and such

I'm not sure if it's as you see it either. Most Right-to-Work states that have pretty much eliminated unions as a force have created labor markets that are unfavorable to those considered among the ranks of 'working' Americans. That is people who aren't professionals.

Real Income has stagnated in the past decades, and that's really because as a force the people who 'work' have no real means to get their demands out. Divide and conquer is what's going on right now with regards to the labor market.

Can't argue with much of this, except to say that as times change, the market demand for certain skill sets rises and falls. Right now, 'professionals' are in high demand. That's the nature of the market, and the only way to change that is to institute a system that isn't capitalism, and that's a bad idea altogether.

People would work if there was jobs. If there was opportunity too. Many of those who are working are arguably underemployed and not receiving what they should get.

By your logic, this this country was 'great' because of hard work. Unfortunately as things are right now hard work is becoming increasingly an unrealistic way to even get ahead now. As power gets concentrated in to smaller and smaller hands, it's difficult for 'hard work' to even matter anymore.

The bit about the explosion of jobs is unrealistic though, I agree, but considering how things are right now with the one ended relationship of the state to the businesses, it's not an unrealistic demand to try and fight to bring things back to a more even footing.

Hard work continues to be the only way to get ahead. There is NO way to prosper and become rich in any country in the world except for making a product or providing a service that people want. Do so well enough, and people will compensate you for your efforts. If the government isn't overly punitive in taxes (ours currently IS), you'll expand, hire more people, create jobs, and increase tax revenues. It's how our economy works, although you'd be hard pressed to find anyone in Washington that knows that anymore.

Steve Jobs and the other 'self-made' clowns were only one of hundreds of thousands of Americans. There are plenty of Americans who work their ass of daily and rarely get- in my opinion- what they deserve.

Steve Jobs is hardly much of a saint anyways. Considering the way much of our products were made in China in hellish conditions- as the FoxConn suicides would attest to- or the conflict minerals in Africa- is hardly behavior to be applauded. Yes, Steve Jobs is among the greatest capitalists of all time, but that's solely because he saw profit over everything else. Nothing more.

And that's not really something that benefits a lot of people, especially if you were on the wrong end of it.

The funny thing about this is that you've been advocating much of what those folks at FoxConn consider their normal way of life. Government control of everything. Sure, it's a Communist government, but it's the same principles.

Every old far going back to the Greek philosophers complained about their youth. This really isn't anything new.

You took these points the wrong anyways. They don't expect this to be granted anyways but simply to present a challenge to the powers that be and get people thinking over what the government really operates as, and it's relationship to corporations and the financial sector.

They are doing something about it. And that's really credit to them. Plenty of people I think simply restrict their action to the realm of the internet and act passive on the outside.

The big danger to me really is the movement being co-opted and turned into something benign. Not because of the way they are acting, but that this is what happens every time an act of protest kicks off. Political and interest groups will move into action and find a way to do so. There's already been signs of that with certain politicians moving into action.

Of course they do. Youth represents change and potential. However, the values, ethics, and knowledge that were passed on from generation to generation seem to be diluting a bit as we go on. We've become a rude culture, one centered on a lot of the wrong things, and it shows in everything we do.

As to this mob on Wall St., what they're doing is disruptive, sure. It's annoying as well. However, what do they plan to accomplish? Even they don't know. The system we have in this country is the best that ever been introduced in the history of mankind. Sure, it's gone downhill some, but the core of it is still strong. Should you be working outside it to destroy it, or inside it to reform it? I believe the latter is by far the better choice.

Regardless, we'll likely have to agree to disagree on most of this. Still, I appreciate you taking the time respond to all of it.




Commissar MercZ

Notable Loser

300,005 XP

29th January 2005

0 Uploads

27,113 Posts

0 Threads

#32 7 years ago
Demonseed;5570419Sure, there are some genuine folks out there who have genuine complaints. In a case like this, there are no absolutes. However, I know people who live up there. They've been down to the protests, and I believe their reports over what the TV shows. There are people down there with their kids who don't know why they are there. Homeless people and drug addicts making themselves right at home among the protesters.

I don't know, I have a different experience with the ones in Dallas and I trust it's the same in other sites. Most of them are from various backgrounds, some are youth out of college and others are parents concerned about their kids or retirement.

But claiming they're just homeless and druggies? That's a stretch.

The "TV Shows" have put an unfavorable opinion on the movement until the past few days- again my point about the attempt to co-opt the movement once it got large- and it lines up with the same horror stories of crusties, hobos, druggies, college idiots, etc you want to push. Case and point the NYT's mostly negative and manipulative coverage of the movement at the outset, with the recent editorial board post coming out in support of the movement. Politically, they tend to be more on the 'left' in the American sense but there's been a good share of Ron Paul types in the one I went to.

However, it is much more complicated than that and I'm not sure what point you are trying to make about the drug addicts and the homeless. They're people too and can't simply be shut out of existence and participation.

Most importantly, they can't articulate any goals. The list of demands we're discussing is silly. The statement they released to the press (which said these demands were unofficial anyway) contained a bunch of class warfare nonsense.

"Class Warfare" is something the media will pull to describe anything that criticizes the 'rich' in some form. There's really nothing in there about what is usually associate with class warfare- proletariat/working class against the ruling class/bourgeoisie.

To be honest it's always pulled by politicians and the media to describe something unfavorably- but they themselves utilize it alot. If it's the whole bit about comparing the 'real american' to the ones who 'demand' things, or those who feel entitled to it, or the difference between the government elitist and the common joe, etc.

It's impossible to escape this circle, and I often find that those that are the loudest about condemning 'class warfare' engage in a form of it themselves.

The same argument has been pulled since the very beginning when people demanded some action towards working hours and wages back in the late 1800s. And each time I don't think we saw the end days and a violent communist revolution as the turn of century politicians said would happen if the government 'bent' to the mob.

Like I said, I worked for minimum wage and paid all of those things. Taxes are not a factor, other than sales tax. Minimum wage workers pay pretty much no income tax, and many of them receive refunds far above the amount they paid in. Refundable tax credits at work.

*shrug* I guess you've been able to do it, but most people down where I am- including myself up until a few months ago- have an incredible amount of trouble making ends meet working minimum wage in Texas. Add to that everything else that comes through the pipe works. Yes, there is nearly no minimum wage leveled, but there are still the utilities, rent, sales tax and everything else that comes through.

This coming from the same state that prides itself on having the 'least' taxation and least interference from government.

It's hardly an ideal situation to be living in. And not everyone can pull out of it even if they 'work hard'. Most that do just end up in the weird range of not quite 'poor' enough to have to worry about being in the grinder, but still not quite rich enough to be confident in their salary and long-term goals.

I'm hardly the most 'demanding' person nor are the rest of us. I drive an old Chevy Lumina and live in a rather mediocre apartment in a tear-down area. Arguably the biggest 'luxury' I got is video games and internet. I don't do drugs or alcohol either.

All that is required to fix the health care issue in this country is to lift the interstate sales restriction on health insurance and cap frivolous malpractice suits. Sure, there are people out there that are overcharging for health care. Everyone knows that. But the answer isn't "Let the government take care of it."

As I said before, much of this sans the interstate restrictions has been attempted in Texas and it hasn't really done much with pricing and making it more accessible.

Nations have arguments over this concept all the time over what to do, but few if any look to the United States as a solution or model, or take the musings of places like the Cato institute seriously. It's simply not going to achieve what is desired.

The government already denies more claims through Medicare than any private insurer in the country. Not sure that's the plan for the whole country.

My father worked as a physician assistant, and still does, and they rarely have this problem. Most of their old folk he work with are insured partially by medicare and when the claims are denied it's often due to a billing error- such as claiming the patient had senile dementia when they didn't.

At the same time though, I'm not sure what alot of these elderly folk would do with out the service.

Also note, the paragon of single payer, Canada, is currently transitioning back to a private healthcare system because they cannot afford it. People go without care, wait on waiting lists for surgery, or just come to the US where they can pay for their healthcare. If we go single payer, where will they go?

Again, I've heard these parroted so many times by the media, and while parts of it are true Canada's system isn't as dysfunctional as you make it out to be.

More over as I stated earlier to another point, no country looks to the United States as a workable model or something to be emulated. Much less the proposals to introduce even more market forces into the equation.

Politicians in Canada, UK, Taiwan, France, Germany, or elsewhere that have campaigned on platforms of totally privatizing their systems don't last long. People don't see that as a solution or something much desirable either.

Again though, with the economic power of the US, it can hardly even get its act together in this respect. But it can act quickly once the top tiers of the economy are endangered and the directors come to Washington demanding action.

Presumably, with the 'democratic', feel-good rhetoric our government often advances when spreading it to other countries, people here seem to run into the same problem with 'entrenched' elite that works with the government that they do here. I think in a way there can be some connections between the so-called Arab Spring here and what is going on here.

There are a TON of people who are doing exactly as you suggest - not working so they can draw unemployment. The 99 weeks extension of benefits is a major driving force behind unemployment staying high. Business owners I know personally have jobs they cannot fill because people are turning down jobs so they don't jeopardize their unemployment benefits.

I've had to be on unemployment for a while and it's hardly ideal. I don't see the same scenario that people often bring up with this nightmarish deal that people are simply sitting around and doing that.

It's not 'fun' to be unemployed or draw unemployment. It's not something I wish anyone in.

Again, this is a societal issue. People think they are 'owed' something. It's a fundamental problem with the mindset, and not one you can talk most folks out of. No one owes you anything, and if you don't get out there and earn it, you'll find yourself living in a cardboard box on the street.

See though, the way we are told is that you work hard and you get what you work for.

But I don't see that's the case, not any more at least. People can work two jobs to make ends meet and still not get what they need. This isn't a sense of being 'owed' anything but rather the fundamental issue of what work means.

Are you getting paid fairly for what you are working for? Arguably there are people who don't, not just at the bottom rungs of society but at the top too. There are plenty of 'hardworking' Americans who, in my opinion, are not getting a fair shake. The way the economy currently functions is much more favorable to those at top and continues to be so. The poor get poorer and the rich get richer in other words.

Ideally there should be a more equitable situation here but I don't think it can happen. However there is no excuse with the way things are right now with regards to disparity in this country. Nothing good comes out of large disparities in wealth, and as things stand little is happening to change that. Arguably it's just being accelerated and aided with current policy.

Yes, a college education is pricey. Yes, it can be a financial hardship. No, it shouldn't be free. You see, if you earn that college degree, over your lifetime, you'll earn something like $1 million more than you would without it. That's a demonstrated value that you are paying to have. Someone has to pay for all the teachers and facilities that are providing you that education. I paid for mine; you can pay for yours. Again, this is a part of life.

This has been repeated so many times that I don't understand the logic behind it.

I'm well aware that people have to pay for those services, that the staff and professors get their income from somewhere. But those costs are being increasingly passed on to the student with out much benefit from it anymore. Ideally a college degree should be a tool that along with work experience can get your foot through the door.

Tuition rates are being driven up each year with the economic situation the way it is, but so much so that in many institutions that there are promises to 'lock in' rates at what year you join in order to keep people coming in.

As things stand right now that's no longer the case and college education is becoming more inaccessible for many people. Even for those who stay instate and go to public universities, like I did. Many students dropped out in the past two years over issues of having to pay for university- who were working to support themselves too.

This country presents itself, like with the democratic facade, on social mobility. Yet it seems with college becoming more inaccessible, the very institution that underpins this idea, it becomes doubtful that people can look forward to the old 'hard work takes you places' message.

No one has said they won't. However, are we better off accessing our own reserves, creating jobs, and keeping all that oil money in our economy, or sending it overseas to Saudi Arabia? Of course we should keep it here.

How long could it last though with the way things are consumed here? All this is at best is a stop-gap, and the moment it goes low all those jobs and improvements will be lost to those who benefited from the job creation, and the long-term benefit remains with those who won the contracts to begin operations.

This is not the solution. Especially since as these OWS people are going against the whole corporate-government relationship in the first place, it's no surprise that they're against this solution in the first place.

No one is saying we shouldn't be working on alternative energy. Clean coal, oil from shale, and natural gas can help supplement the oil we use, and decrease our dependence on foreign oil. Meanwhile, keep the alternative energy research going. Eventually, we'll find something viable. We tried wind, and it's not feasible. Solar isn't getting it done. But something is out there, just waiting to be discovered.

The US is rather backwards on this compared to other nations who have put in substantial resources into finding a solution. Scientific research has been sold out in favor of more short-term solutions

Oklahoma, as odd as it may sound, was once home to a decently sized oil-industry. It brought many benefits when it came, but it all disappeared once the oil was finished off. Halliburton was one of those that came out of Oklahoma.

All that's left to attest to that era are the old rigs that were never tore down. But it says a lot when you look at the companies that got rich during that point still exist in different forms today and still high rollers- but the descendants of those workers that got those jobs and worked their lives on it are left in poverty in that state.

We can see a similar movement with the rust belt states and their economies too.

Down here T. Boone Pickens sold the same plan you are laying out and frankly it didn't win over much people where I was when we were listening to him. It makes sense and I see the use in having it as a hold over- at least with natural gas as Pickens was describing- while research for a practical alternate energy solution can be found.

But for those of us who have little faith in the current government's way of doing things and corporate activity, it just seems to be another way to justify their profit margins and perpetuating the political system that has reduced many people to the bottom while lifting those further and further to the top.

So because a horrible idea like TARP was funded, we should throw more money down the same hole? Look, your kid's kid's lifetime income tax payments have already been spent. We've added more to the deficit since 2008 than was added by every single President from Washington to Bush 2. At some point, the spending has to stop.

You're missing the point. The agitation is to bring attention to why the government was willing to do that in the first place.

Where was all the hullabaloo from these business and groups about 'responsible' spending when TARP was enacted, but suddenly throw up this noise about having to show fiscal restraint in other fields. Never mind the black hole of war spending in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere- which even with the ridiculous money being tossed into it programs like the GI Bill and Tricare are withering away, because they are going to defense contractors in the end.

The solution these guys posit is to cut spending. This makes sense in some form, but it would necessitate some massive cuts that will go beyond merely 'welfare' programs into things that people rely on in some form, even if they don't realize it.

The only people that don't lose at the end of the day are those that are well off enough to afford it regardless. In a few decades the progress of the post-WW II era will more than likely regress in favor of business productivity.

There is little talk about the way wealth has exploded at the top tiers of society while real income and purchasing power for everyone else has stagnated or decreased in some brackets. We're seeing a transfer of power to the top ranks of society which OWS and sister movements are reacting too, the government that helps it along with little care to those elsewhere.

If this rhetoric of 'hard work' is to be maintained as a ideal of the United States and elsewhere, then one should react against this and stand up to it. Not stand by idly or propose solutions that only accelerate this process.

Taking resources from land doesn't mean you destroy it. Last weekend I played golf on a gorgeous piece of property covered in natural wildlife areas and wetlands. On top of a reclaimed strip mine.

What would be a better solution would be to push private ownership, and eliminate 'Eminent Domain' laws.

That's not how it works for all cases. In more cases than not they wil lfind a means to exploit it, and if the example of land sales in India and Brazil are anything to go by, it's not that pretty when you see it. In the Middle-East it's magnified with oil field acquisitions and the way these companies maintain their workers and sites completely detached from the society around them.

This ultimately avoids the main point of the OWS movement- the relationship of corporate to government, and the rich getting richer, the poor getting poorer. Making it easier for corporations to do what they want isn't going to change that. I guess

Like I said, we still have some work to do, but you cannot legislate morality, and this is a moral issue.

And yet the same logic has been pushed to do drug checks on welfare recipients, teach abstinence in schools, mandate certain marriage standards and religious practices, with out the same concerns being brought up.

This is just dodging the issue. Just like when people brought it up in context of Jim Crow, it's doomed to fail.

No less, it's to highlight that while the US goes around telling other nations how they should be running and treating their people, it's still got issues at home to fix. OWS is to draw attention to this.

Every country in the world has an immigration policy. Do you think you can just grab your crap and go live in Canada? Sure, once you go through the naturalization process. That's all we want here. If you're in this country illegally, GO THROUGH THE CITIZENSHIP PROCESS. Earn the right to be here. I don't know anyone who's opposed to legal immigration. It's the illegals that make us angry.

Then make the citizenship policy more accessible. As things stand the US citizenship process is chaotic and makes it a wreck to even get in the first place.

This isn't meant to be taken seriously and I can't see it implemented as a real policy anywhere so long as the current systems remain. And the systems are not going to change.

The point is, again, the way the US is more than ok with 'opening borders' for commodities but assign that a higher priority than people. Products from Mexico have an easier time coming across the border, if not expedited, than an immigrant who is willing to go through the mess of the process.

Again, it just highlights the way people are being seen as nothing more than cogs and figures in the end of the day.

I'm not saying that it's rampant or widespread. However, I don't see why people shouldn't have to show an ID to vote. We have to show ID to do tons of things that aren't anywhere near as important. What's the big deal?

It's not, but it's not a solution or a real problem to begin with. It won't change anything about the political system's problems with regards to the corporate-government meld that OWS is targeting.

The real problem, as the OWS and figures from all over the political spectrum has pointed out, is an election system which has perpetuated and solidified a two-party system who only show 'bi-partisanship' when it comes to the question of the business and financial sectors.

If we want real political change, the first step would be to change the system which has given us the political mindset we have right now. A good step to that would be a common sense reform to break up the Democratic-Republican monopoly over politics and open it up to more independent opinions. This will at the very least get people an idea of their positions, rather than having to 'pick' between two parties that may not represent anything they believe in if they decide to vote in the first place.

Arguably a big reason for apathy in the first place is the way the political system is set up in the first place, benefiting the party bosses and their partners in the end. So far as that exists, then you won't get a 'fair' election.

The two party system isn't going anywhere anytime soon. I hear what you're saying, but that's just a fact.

Countries have transitioned from FPTP to other systems before. It won't change if people just accept it as a 'fact' and sit around and do nothing. If that was the reasoning we may have never had a revolution in this country in the first place to break away from the United Kingdom.

In fact I'd wager the same mindset would have left us in a backwards phase. Agitation or stagnation.

I totally agree. I decried the bailout at the time, in this very forum. People buying stuff they couldn't afford isn't a nightmare scenario - it's an objective reality for people all over the country right now.

It is. But there is little change after each economic crisis. Corporations get more powerful and government becomes more influenced by them, and people forget anything has happened once the economy normalizes.

The impact of such crises can at least be lessened in the future, but so long as this relationship between the top tiers of business and government is perpetuated and preserved, it will keep happening.

It's just not a matter of 'buying stuff' like a new car or TV, but essential needs for some people. Food, making payments for their residence and utilities, for their children if they have any, and so on.

The message we have been given, the 'tighten our belt' deal, has been applied more so on those considered to be 'middle-class' (what ever that means) or 'working class' than those rolling in the dough. It's hardly an even process.

I'd say that we see a more clear example of this with the Greek debt crisis and the government's response to it. The current government was largely elected by people thinking they would not implement the severe austerity that the previous government would have done, but they have done the same if not worse in the past years they've been in.

There's also a degree of anger that they are bearing the burden of recovery in the end, and that their government seems to be taking the ECB and EU politicians, especially those in Germany and France, more seriously than their own constituents- and then have the gall to tell them to deal with it.

So in this respect there is certainly reason to be angry.

Like I said, I'm not a fan of the ratings agencies, but they are a necessary evil.

The telling phrase is "people trying to get what they want." Not what they need, what they want.

Semantics. Not everyone is wanting a McMansion and a escalate, despite what your conceptions of those who are unemployed and angry about their situation is.

For a lot of people, even getting their 'needs' is becoming unfeasible. Only those who have been in certain professional fields and of course the rich have been able to avoid this situation.

Can't argue with much of this, except to say that as times change, the market demand for certain skill sets rises and falls. Right now, 'professionals' are in high demand. That's the nature of the market, and the only way to change that is to institute a system that isn't capitalism, and that's a bad idea altogether.

Because the current way of doing things has worked SO wonderfully for those who 'work'. Not everyone in this country is a professional, and we can not expect to tell a lot of them who pay their taxes and have difficulties making ends meet that this is the way to deal things.

By the way, they haven't even proposed a system, though there are those who may do so. They aren't really demanding one either but rather demanding some changes that 'capitalism' can exist perfectly fine with. No one is asking for a change to one's relationship to the means of production in the end.

Hard work continues to be the only way to get ahead. There is NO way to prosper and become rich in any country in the world except for making a product or providing a service that people want. Do so well enough, and people will compensate you for your efforts. If the government isn't overly punitive in taxes (ours currently IS), you'll expand, hire more people, create jobs, and increase tax revenues. It's how our economy works, although you'd be hard pressed to find anyone in Washington that knows that anymore.

Again, I don't really think it is that way any more. "Hard Work" is a dead concept now and only sees people trying to get multiple jobs trying to get what they need to survive. Social mobility is decreasing.

I don't know, I wouldn't say that our government is 'damaging' towards business. Maybe the cherished small-businesses, but it works for the rest. Opposite really. It's making it easier for them to do what they need, but on the prospect of profits.

People get hired, but this concept of 'trickle-down' has dominated our economy since the 80s and has its ups. But it's become untenable now.

Texas, especially Governor Perry, has made the same argument and presented our state as an example of why it works.

Indeed we have a lower unemployment rate, but you have to look behind simply 'jobs' and look at what people are getting paid and what they are getting in the long-term. Most jobs being 'created' are absorbing people in such a way to under-employ them, and seeing people who had formerly worked much higher end jobs end up in far lower than their 'hard work' had left them earlier.

It's been wonderful for business owners here, but for those of us that rely on working it's been a total nightmare.

The funny thing about this is that you've been advocating much of what those folks at FoxConn consider their normal way of life. Government control of everything. Sure, it's a Communist government, but it's the same principles.

What have I been advocating exactly? I've just been better articulating the OWS standpoints rather than simplifying and twisting it into lazy bums wanting handouts as you have essentially been describing them.

Furthermore, China runs on market principles now. That's the way it's been since the Deng Xaoping reforms of the 1980s. The government in order to keep its legitimacy intact is of course continuing to keep the old party name and re-branding itself as "Socialism with Chinese characteristics", a hackneyed concept of a so-called "Market Socialism".

However anyone with a knowledge of Chinese economy and politics knows that the Communist Party of China, as much as I hate to use this phrase, is Communist in name only. It's very much a pro-business platform now and even has millionaires in its ranks, and works very carefully with them to keep them in the country.

It has moved away from a movement rooted in farmers and workers to one among the business elite. It's worth noting that among the many things that China censors are Marxist texts- because anyone versed in Marxist theory knows that China departed from that long ago.

The nature of 'socialism' at its root, as a principle, is based on the "from each according to his ability to each according to his deeds [work/labour]"- in other words, the old 'hard work' canard, where Communism, as a higher phase, becomes "from each according to his ability to each according to his needs", as well as moving the ownership of a means of production from a small group of private ownership to public interest, is non existent in China beyond nationalized industries- which frankly isn't socialism but exists in 'capitalist' economies too.

China's current economic policy is job and economic growth above all else- and that drives people down into the gutter. Income disparity is ridiculous in China, and the government is a very friendly partner to the large businesses that move into China because labor and other policies are completely at the mercy of business.

In fact, if I'm not mistaken, China's economic reforms that started in the 80s and continued through the 1990s are often used as a reason to herald the success of a free-market over the old command-economy structure that the Soviets advanced when the Chinese liberalized their economy. With that in mind it's rather odd to claim then that China is still following that policy.

If they act up, that's where the government gets involved. We've seen this in Vietnam with the Doi Moi reforms (which the initiator, Nguyen Van Linh, later came out against after seeing what it did to Vietnam's workers), and Cuba is currently going through its own process of this.

I bring this up not to posit socialism as a viable method, but to dispel this conception that government intervention and taxes = socialism. It's not. That's crude thinking. All governments have taxes and their own degree of intervention in the economy. No degree of that results in socialism.

Of course they do. Youth represents change and potential. However, the values, ethics, and knowledge that were passed on from generation to generation seem to be diluting a bit as we go on. We've become a rude culture, one centered on a lot of the wrong things, and it shows in everything we do.

As to this mob on Wall St., what they're doing is disruptive, sure. It's annoying as well. However, what do they plan to accomplish? Even they don't know. The system we have in this country is the best that ever been introduced in the history of mankind. Sure, it's gone downhill some, but the core of it is still strong. Should you be working outside it to destroy it, or inside it to reform it? I believe the latter is by far the better choice.

That's the point of protest. It's a risk- one doesn't know what you'll get out of it in the end. When Dr. King and the rest got out into the streets, was their a guarantee they would win anything? Was there anything they could do to prevent water cannons and dogs turned on them?

Compared to some other protests, these have been relatively tame. Especially when we have some of the G20 and G8 summits as an example of some rather energetic, to put it lightly, protests that get violent.

OWS is pushing for what you think is a 'better choice'- reform. They want these changes enacted through normal means, not by a violent overthrow of the government as some few among their ranks may advocate.

In fact there's some rumblings from 'radical' elements that OWS is infact too tame and guilty of simply settling for 'reform'. If anything this has been a relatively peaceful movement putting their faith in 'reform'. Protest is inherently an act of democratic society and everyone should be able to exercise that.

I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with this generation though. To me every generation does this to their offspring and chastises them. But that's the way I think it always appears to have been when I read histories.

There's this Plato quote which doesn't sound much different from now,

"The children now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority, they show disrespect to their elders.... They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and are tyrants over their teachers."

I don't really think there is a degradation of values, just things changing accordingly as the socio-economic fabric changes.

Again to sum all this up though, their main points is this anger about the close-knit relationship between government and business that corrupts and harms everyone else.

My main concern isn't the way they're 'messing' things up or putting up 'unfeasible' acts, but rather if they can keep this going as an independent and grassroots movement. As I mentioned earlier there are groups now attempting to co-opt them. Media that once derided them are now trying to harness them. Politicians that told them to shut up now try to win them over.

In short they should avoid that happening and find themselves going door to door next year campaigning for Obama or someone.

Regardless, we'll likely have to agree to disagree on most of this. Still, I appreciate you taking the time respond to all of it.

I suppose so. But you've been much better about this than some other users in this forum with regards to conduct.




Red_Fist

GF is my bext friend *hugs GF*

50 XP

28th April 2010

0 Uploads

1,004 Posts

0 Threads

#33 7 years ago

What really pisses me off the most are these rich fucking movie stars, and or union leader figure heads.Until they hand over every dime they own, stay the hell out.

They should be in front of the whitehouse with a unified complaint to stop this silly China trade while our hands our tied from the same idiots who think they are protesting.

Hell put an oil well in my backyard, literally., global warming, all so stupid.I hope the liberals are banished for another 100 years.

Bail out the banks, hell no, handouts, NO ! I bet if some rich person said I will give everything I own, every person there would grab it like starving rabid dogs.(the same as the rich do)

and those stupid drums, whats up with the drums, they lost in Wisconsin, and Obama is out, and I am just as broke as them freaks.

aaaaaaarggrgrgrg




SeinfeldisKindaOk

5.56 smoke Haji every day

55 XP

18th July 2008

0 Uploads

8,397 Posts

0 Threads

#34 7 years ago

Operation Flockuppy Wall Street, the strategic dispersal of 1.2 billion bird seeds in the financial district, will commence imminently.




MoreGun89

55 XP

28th July 2004

0 Uploads

2,426 Posts

0 Threads

#35 7 years ago

/facepalm

These demands will be destructive in the long run and a majority of these people should be high-fived in the face with a chair to knock some sense into them. My message to the people involved in this movement:

You've been protesting for 24 days when you should have been looking for a job. The government was not designed to take care of you in regards to what you are demanding. The concept behind America is that you get off of your lazy butt and take care of yourself. Not to mention if you want higher wages and whatnot, you're protesting the wrong people, protest your employer. And to government employees, Obama will not fire you, I sincerely doubt he's enough of a hardass to do so.

And on top of that, Kanye West is speaking out for this event, King Douchebag himself! That, right there, should be a major hint that you're doing it wrong.

/endrant


Mother Banhammer



Commissar MercZ

Notable Loser

300,005 XP

29th January 2005

0 Uploads

27,113 Posts

0 Threads

#36 7 years ago

Red_Fist;5570531What really pisses me off the most are these rich fucking movie stars, and or union leader figure heads.Until they hand over every dime they own, stay the hell out.[/quote]

As I said, they are trying to co-opt the movement and divert it into a more palpable form.

However the threat comes more in the form of the politicians trying to latch on to this. The 'rich' people that are behind it don't do much beyond giving it

They should be in front of the whitehouse with a unified complaint to stop this silly China trade while our hands our tied from the same idiots who think they are protesting.

They are in Washington. They've been in Washington.

But I suppose you don't know about that.

Hell put an oil well in my backyard, literally., global warming, all so stupid.I hope the liberals are banished for another 100 years.

Wouldn't be a dumb post without this cherry to top things off.

Bail out the banks, hell no, handouts, NO ! I bet if some rich person said I will give everything I own, every person there would grab it like starving rabid dogs.(the same as the rich do)

They aren't asking for "Handouts", but keep listening to Fox and company.

and those stupid drums, whats up with the drums, they lost in Wisconsin, and Obama is out, and I am just as broke as them freaks.

And yet you are defending the same people who are keeping you down there, and choosing instead to attack other citizens in a similar hole.

Divide and conquer since the beginning of mankind.

Isn't America wonderful?

aaaaaaarggrgrgrg[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=MoreGun89;5570676]/facepalm

These demands will be destructive in the long run and a majority of these people should be high-fived in the face with a chair to knock some sense into them.

Knock some sense into them for going through the democratic process? Protesting? Standing against something they don't think should be there?

Good to know we have such a respect for these principles in this day and age.

You've been protesting for 24 days when you should have been looking for a job.

Oh gee, here we go with the "look for a job" bum angle.

There's a recession going on. Not everyone can get a job, or one that they are really suited for. Much of the bottom rung jobs are pretty shitty and not many people can live off them correctly.

The decayed cities in the old industrial areas can attest to that quite well.

Yes, you can get a job. Then get thrown out a few months later. Worry about unable to pay your dues and other means. School loans too if you ended up getting straddled with that.

They want to change the way things are moving right now. That's the point. You can't do anything with the ideals of hard work no longer so long as the current way of doing things doesn't change.

The government was not designed to take care of you in regards to what you are demanding. The concept behind America is that you get off of your lazy butt and take care of yourself. Not to mention if you want higher wages and whatnot, you're protesting the wrong people, protest your employer. And to government employees, Obama will not fire you, I sincerely doubt he's enough of a hardass to do so.

And yet the same government is fine with taking care of the business and corporations, with very little hullabaloo from folks about 'working hard'.

They aren't asking for handouts. They're asking for the ability to be able to work and live decent lives. The moment you believe this media angle about handouts and 'hardwork' as a defining feature of the United States even as the rich are getting richer and the poor getting poorer, then you have already missed the point of all this to begin with.

They could protest their employers, yes, but what good would that do? Some of these employers might be in the same hole they are. The larger businesses have essentially crushed unions into either willing partners or kicked them out of the state with little ability for people to do much agitation in that regard.

They are going to the right place. They want to point out the way the government works right now, the power big business and the elite have in this country- that is growing with every passing year- while the rest of them get kicked down into the gutter.

And still the same people are told to 'tighten their belts' when there is very little of that going on in the opposite end of the ladder.

And on top of that, Kanye West is speaking out for this event, King Douchebag himself! That, right there, should be a major hint that you're doing it wrong.

Kanye went to only one of them- the Wall Street/ NYC one. There's a ton of other ones with different things going on.

Plus, no one told Kanye to go down there, and he isn't preaching holier than thou messages to them either like some of the media talking heads.

Anyways, with some relevant news to the Occupy fellows and not this stuff, the Occupy Boston people have reported the Police carried out a late night raid on one of their encampments and crushed their 'north camp'. The main camp still exists however.

Edit: and an interesting bit here from the NYC guys

xTWsO.jpg




Red_Fist

GF is my bext friend *hugs GF*

50 XP

28th April 2010

0 Uploads

1,004 Posts

0 Threads

#37 7 years ago

"""Wouldn't be a dumb post without this cherry to top things off."""

So condescending, nothing new here, but you know I could go to a protest, but gas 4 bucks a gallon I changed my mind.

See all those PLASTIC tarps they have on "WALL STREET" not Washington, they called it "occupy wall street" not occupy Washington DC"

The first thing i heard was blaming big business by putting in the added oil pipeline, "global warming".i think you better start watching Fox, your knowledge of the facts are slipping.




Commissar MercZ

Notable Loser

300,005 XP

29th January 2005

0 Uploads

27,113 Posts

0 Threads

#38 7 years ago

Red_Fist;5570908"""Wouldn't be a dumb post without this cherry to top things off."""

So condescending, nothing new here, but you know I could go to a protest, but gas 4 bucks a gallon I changed my mind.

You don't have to go all the way to NYC to do that. You can walk right down the street to show what you want.

I'm not begin condescending. I just don't understand why you have to insult people based on their political views like that.

See all those PLASTIC tarps they have on "WALL STREET" not Washington, they called it "occupy wall street" not occupy Washington DC"

And here I can tell you haven't paid or read attention to anything beyond what you see on the tube.

I said they have ALSO occupied Washington. I know that this particular movement is "Occupy Wall Street".

However, the OWS movement is tied to other ones, spin-offs All of them on the common theme. You have similar movements in cities like Chicago, Detroit, Kansas City Washington DC, Seattle, Atlanta, Boston, Oakland, Denver, Dallas, etc. It goes on depending on who ever can plan one in their town or city.

Occupy Together|Home

Occupy Washington, for example, is right here:

Occupy DC|DC Protests for American Revolution

It's all over the place. It only took me a few seconds to look that up.

The first thing i heard was blaming big business by putting in the added oil pipeline, "global warming".i think you better start watching Fox, your knowledge of the facts are slipping.

I don't understand what you are trying to get with at the first bit there. Blaming "Big business" means pointing out the relationship between those firms, banks, to the government and how the economy is essentially fashioned towards those at the top, and not so much to those considered to be the 'average' American.

It's not tied into this conspiracy of yours about global warming, if that's what you are getting.

And get facts by watching Fox? Are you kidding?

That's the first problem with anything. Cable TV news- CNN, Fox, ABC, NBC, what ever isn't a good place to start if you want real news.

If you want sensationalist news and political grandstanding, complete with talking heads, that's the place to go though. Not if you want anything resembling 'facts' though. That's not what they're in the business for.

My criticisms of the OWS - and their spin offs- would frankly be that they are too idealistic in some regards and don't have much of a cohesion to begin with. They are a wide array of people and beliefs, you can get anything from the token liberal to the radical to the Ron Paul supporters and even some 9/11 truthers running around here and there.

The ultimate issue is whether they can stick with these issues- or get co-opted by the Democrats in the end. As I said earlier, there's a chance some of these guys might go door to door for Obama or someone else, and that defeats the purpose of why they were in their protests to begin with. There is definitely disillusionment with Demos in this group and they've been for the most part angry with attempts to paint them as the liberal and democrat party version of the Tea Party. But election pressure brings its own set of hysteria to bear.

Then of course, the bane of any one protesting and putting forward demands- disillusionment.

However they are doing is a democratic process. Protest is that. Telling people to simply 'shut up' and go home (or the ever popular 'get a job), on the other hand, is unbecoming of this country.




Red_Fist

GF is my bext friend *hugs GF*

50 XP

28th April 2010

0 Uploads

1,004 Posts

0 Threads

#39 7 years ago

Because the last thing was they where mad at Obama for letting that pipeline to be built. Well one of the people, some guy, on the news once this OWS started, the first thing was, ya they want to build that pipeline, , big corporation yadda yada yadda global warming.

It's all tied together anyway, one big sewer protest about everything, then have the gull to compare to Egypt protests, not even close.




Commissar MercZ

Notable Loser

300,005 XP

29th January 2005

0 Uploads

27,113 Posts

0 Threads

#40 7 years ago

Red_Fist;5570965Because the last thing was they where mad at Obama for letting that pipeline to be built. Well one of the people, some guy, on the news once this OWS started, the first thing was, ya they want to build that pipeline, , big corporation yadda yada yadda global warming.

It's all tied together anyway, one big sewer protest about everything, then have the gull to compare to Egypt protests, not even close.

I'm not sure what you are going on about.

Yes, there are environmentalists in there. There are also people concerned about 'working class' jobs. There's some that are more middle-class and worried about their college education. Some claiming to be vets. Others going on about Ron Paul. Some nutty truthers too.

There was a banner I remember one person having, saying something along the lines of "The Media won't talk to me because I'm normal". And that's really the way the media decides to go about with this.

The common thread between all these groups though is they acknowledge the collusion of corporate and government in maintaining an economy that benefits the rich. That isn't anything new- the same thing has always been accused since the days of the gilded age.