Erhm - That "list" you mention was a single person's list not the movement as a whole's.
And regardless some of the bit sticky points that people take against it (i.e. the $20/hr) are actually almost completely appropriate once you factor in inflation, which minimum wage is SUPPOSED to grow with: pre-1965 it did so automatically every 4 years - and even in the bill that removed the guaranteed growth it was still written that it should be used as a guideline of how it should be raised. In the past 10 years inflation has outpaced minimum wage growth by nearly 10 times.
What else is there to go by then? it was a list supposedly by the OWS.
no 20 buck an hour for a baggery grocer is not appropriate.
yea minimum wage was designed to be a bottom dollar amount for the lowest skilled job.
if you want to make more then you need a bit more skill in the work force.
I am not going to pay 20 bucks for a guy to take groceries and stick them in a bag.
it is not feasable. there is a thing called reality that dicates how things work regardless of our whims, wishes or wants.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
What else is there to go by then? it was a list supposedly by the OWS.
no 20 buck an hour for a baggery grocer is not appropriate.
yea minimum wage was designed to be a bottom dollar amount for the lowest skilled job.
if you want to make more then you need a bit more skill in the work force.
I am not going to pay 20 bucks for a guy to take groceries and stick them in a bag.
it is not feasable. there is a thing called reality that dicates how things work regardless of our whims, wishes or wants.
If companies can make billions and pay politcians millions the average hard working American doing a mid level factory/construction/ect job should be able to make enough money to be able to have a 401k, health insurance, and the money to take a vacation every few years.
Your example of grocery bagger is bad. The average American doesn't bag groceries. The average American works in construction, or manufacturing, or accounting.
We need a double scale system with a certain number for entry level jobs(convenience stores, Fast food, food service workers, grocery store baggers/stockers, ect)
Then we need a secondary scale for construction(including building, pipeline, and road) and other mid-level jobs.
We need more mid level jobs that don't require a degree because more and more Americans can't afford to go to college and several that do can't find a job when they get out so they default on student loans.
I hate working my ass off for $8.00 an here and 60 hours a week. Hard work should pay more. I mean I can barely support my wife and two kids. I can't afford to go to the movies or each at fancy restaurants(if I could even find the time)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
In life all we can do is try to make things better. Sitting lost in old ways and fearing change only makes us outdated and ignorant.
Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding.
Albert Einstein
Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
If companies can make billions and pay politcians millions the average hard working American doing a mid level factory/construction/ect job should be able to make enough money to be able to have a 401k, health insurance, and the money to take a vacation every few years.
most americans do. that still doesn't dispute the fact that not everyone should make 20 dollars an hour.
Your example of grocery bagger is bad.
No it isn't. they said everyone should make 20 bucks an hour. that would include the grocery bagger. it is a perfectly legit example of how illogical that idea is.
why it is not feasable.
We need a double scale system with a certain number for entry level jobs
they are entry level for a reason. it means you are not suppose to stay there till you die. you are suppose to learn better skills then take those skills and advance them to the next level.
kids make the mistake of going into fields that are now requiring people have internships of some kind. they think waiting tables is going to get them a 60K a year job in after they graduate.
We need more mid level jobs that don't require a degree
never going to happen. unless you have a butt load of experience to back it up with you are not going to see anything, but basic entry jobs.
I hate working my ass off for $8.00 an here and 60 hours a week. Hard work should pay more. I mean I can barely support my wife and two kids. I can't afford to go to the movies or each at fancy restaurants(if I could even find the time)
Your preaching to the choir.
you are not in any place that i haven't already been in. it is hard, it sucks, but you can get out of it. i did. required me going back to school.
i was making 11 as a contractor (1099 status). i was going to school full time working full time and was married and had a kid on the way before i graduated.
had just enough to get by and pay the bills, but we did. my wife only had insurance i didn't have it at the time.
lost my job because the owner ran his company into the ground. i had to find other work because i wasn't getting paid.
found a job doing stucco as a labour person. guy paid good 11 bucks an hour where most of those guys made 9.
it was hard work very hard work. 50 pound bags of stucco turned into 80 pound wheel barrows. 40 pound wooden scaffold that had to be moved around the house on a consistant basis. among other work.
sucks more so if you are not use to such work, but it put food on the table.
then i found the job i had. i cannot mention pay or anything but it was about average for florida entry level work maybe a bit higher. 6 years i work that position promoted 1 time. now i just got a nice promotion. there are some sacrifices (ie have to travel), but benefit is i can work from home.
point is nothing in life comes easy. you have to work for it. you have to make sacrifices to get where you want to go. my first trip after i start this new position is for 3 weeks. i will be out of town.
benefit i get home before christmas and get to spend all that week and new years with my family.
point is i have already gone through those things. i have had 4 major jobs in my life and except for this one none of them worked out. been working since i was 18 making 5.15 an hour.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Get over yourself, you were either a) deserving of social benefits, or b) arguing against them being passed. Instead of wishing your hardships upon everyone else, why not look for ways to make life easier for everyone.
"I didn't have universal healthcare when I was your age, get over it".
"I didn't have universal healthcare when I was your age, get over it". Smooth.
I agree with you 100%, life should get easier for everyone as time goes on. Yes, it is easier in the US than some other countries, but I don't really see it being that much easier than 30 years ago. Yeah, we as a nation are more productive, but life really isn't that much easier.
Because i was raised with a work ethic. that i am not owed something from society. that what i get out of something is what i put into it.
that because someone else does well for themselves doesn't mean i have a right to it.
that in order to succeed and be successful that it comes with both work and sacrifice.
i could have not incurred student loan debt, but then again i wouldn't have gotten this job. it also means that i wouldn't have gotten the promotion that i got.
the cost of that was taking on student loan debt. it was taking an entry level position even though my skills were more than what was required.
I am a middle income earner. nothing more nothing less, but i am proud that i got where i am.
PS i don't need to get over myself, However all these people with entitlement issue do.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Sometimes I'm annoyed by the older generations, why? Because when my generation grew up, we were force fed the idea that if we didn't want to be 'flippin burgers are McDonalds' then we better go to college. Now that we've gone to college, have degrees, can't find jobs, the same people call us entitled jerks because we refuse to flip burgers.
What else is there to go by then? it was a list supposedly by the OWS.
no 20 buck an hour for a baggery grocer is not appropriate.
yea minimum wage was designed to be a bottom dollar amount for the lowest skilled job.
if you want to make more then you need a bit more skill in the work force.
I am not going to pay 20 bucks for a guy to take groceries and stick them in a bag.
it is not feasable. there is a thing called reality that dicates how things work regardless of our whims, wishes or wants.
Funny that you use that as an example - my company, which was extremely profitable last time I checked (although being out for 5 years now, all I have to go on is the increase in locations as a litmus now - but they've added at least 1 location per year since I've been gone - same rate of growth as when we were doing well when I was there) - and our normal starting rate for a full time bagger was.... $12/hr - just shy of double minimum wage at the time.
Full-time bakery and cashiers were $18/hr starting - butchers and fishmongers were $22+/hr starting.
And note, none of those positions were "trained labor" - no education requirements for any of them. (Most education required fields started around the equivalent of $30/hr)
For part-time knock off about $2/hr for most positions.
And as stated, my company was growing then and continues to grow these days. Salary makes up such a small portion of a company's expenses in retail that it's a joke to claim that minimum wage can't be higher in retail.
Maybe in food service it might cause problems, not familiar with the expenses there - but for retail it wouldn't even cause a substantial blip.
Because i was raised with a work ethic. that i am not owed something from society. that what i get out of something is what i put into it.
that because someone else does well for themselves doesn't mean i have a right to it.
that in order to succeed and be successful that it comes with both work and sacrifice.
i could have not incurred student loan debt, but then again i wouldn't have gotten this job. it also means that i wouldn't have gotten the promotion that i got.
the cost of that was taking on student loan debt. it was taking an entry level position even though my skills were more than what was required.
I am a middle income earner. nothing more nothing less, but i am proud that i got where i am.
PS i don't need to get over myself, However all these people with entitlement issue do.
For the health of this discussion and every other discussion, you really should. This is not "mystery45 is always right". There are clear issues here, the protests are simply to garner attention. And before yyou go making ridiculous (made up) claims, 99% of the protests have been legal and peaceful (first amendment?).
How about you stop acting like you've seen it all, and stop dodging the actual problems I listed? Those "demands" are nonsense in the sense that no one can actually demand anything in a democracy. The sheer number of people in this country with legitimate concerns should not be dismissed though, especially since most of their problems directly effect everyone on this thread. I'll get to a computer and start posting links on everything that concerns you, if you still want to ignore them, can't say I didn't warn you.
But if you really think your struggle (minor by most standards honestly) has secured a safe place to live for your kid, you'd be wrong. Wishing your hardships on your kid, simply because you had to deal with them, is also pretty lame. Generations should pave a better road for the next, if you disagree with that, I'm sure you would also be against women's rights, civil rights, pro-vietnam, etc. But yeah, protesting inequality is wrong. I support capitalism, what we have now is a farce, where the entire country is considered to be "for sale", and only 1% (or less) of the country can actually afford to place bids. On laws, freedoms, etc. 4k+ arrested already, forbes has already stated that: OWS has more merit than the Tea Party, and that the police involvement has been completely over the top. Seeing how JPMorgan donated half a million dollars (more actually) to the NYPD following the Arab Spring (same type of peaceful protests, one that our government/country/president sympathized with), our country is quickly becoming: healthcare for people that support corporations, cuts for all within our government, corporate donations cover the difference, do something they don't like? Say goodbye to those "donations". They've already been using TARP money as leverage over smaller banks, when a local credit union didn't denounce ows like the big banks wanted, they lost access to their share of that "donation" money. Except that was actually taxpayer money meant to go back into the local community.
Links otw. I'm just surprised you take our freedoms for granted, and don't care that they are systematically being taken away if they don't serve a purpose to the .1% that are hand-in-hand with lawmakers. Even from a % standpoint, 99% of protestors have been legal and peaceful. Massive arrests on peaceful protestors (especially in a country that honors the constitution) is just stupid. But you're right, if you DO ignore all of the intelligent arguments/people/journalists/war vets/university professors/etc.... than yeah, it doesn't seem as educated a movement. Coming from someone who doesn't know how to properly spell/punctuate to save their life. I'm on a phone without spellcheck, and even then you manage to make your posts look like they were written by a 7 year old.
Sorry, I'm pro education, and that's another topic.
For the health of this discussion and every other discussion, you really should. This is not "mystery45 is always right".
pot meet kettle. this is pretty much meaningless. more so because i have never stated such a thing.
And before you go making ridiculous (made up) claims, 99% of the protests have been legal and peaceful (first amendment?).
odd because failing to comply with public officials makes it illegal not legal.
blocking ports of call, blocking streets and public access is illegal.
unless you have information that says that it is. first amendment doesn't apply in that case either.
How about you stop acting like you've seen it all, and stop dodging the actual problems I listed?
I haven't dodged anything. this is a the mtgsalvation cop-out excuse that fails. more so when someone can't defend the actions or position they take.
The sheer number of people in this country with legitimate concerns should not be dismissed though, especially since most of their problems directly effect everyone on this thread.
Sorry but the OWS doesn't represent me or the rest of America or the working class in any way shape or form.
Me and the rest of America have no need to wage war against people. we wage war at the voting booth. that is where we stand up and say enough is enough.
the majority of Americans do not protest capitalism we embrace it. We take highly the investments that we have made and the work that we do.
if you really think your struggle (minor by most standards honestly) has secured a safe place to live for your kid, you'd be wrong. Wishing your hardships on your kid, simply because you had to deal with them, is also pretty lame.
this tells me you have no clue about what i say or what i type. you blame me of ignoring you and your posts but you can't even give me the same consideration. then you have to go and make up logical fallacies as if they mean something.
yet you claim to be trying to improve the discussion. hardly.
I'm sure you would also be against women's rights, civil rights, pro-Vietnam, etc. But yeah, protesting inequality is wrong.
This tells me you have no clue and do not pay attention to what i say or post.
Forbes has already stated that: OWS has more merit than the Tea Party,
No they didn't say that. that is completely false.
here is the article right here. It says nothing about giving them more merit. that is clearly a lie.
So for the health of this discussion and for the health of the rest of the discussion is suggest that you do a bit of research before making claims.
Arab Spring (same type of peaceful protests, one that our government/country/president sympathized with),
where not peaceful and quite violent at times. more so among their own group. there were plenty of people killed.
I'm just surprised you take our freedoms for granted, and don't care that they are systematically being taken away
this tells me again you don't pay attention to what i say. if you want to like you claim have a decent discussion then i suggest reading comprehension.
why do you think i am always for more limited government and less intrusion?
that government should keep to the laws that were setup for it to follow instead of expanding those laws beyond what they were intended to.
Massive arrests on peaceful protesters (especially in a country that honors the constitution) is just stupid.
To bad they have not all been peaceful. they only reason they were arrested was because they refused to comply with city officials and police officers.
the people that did comply were neither arrested nor were they injured in any way shape or form. i find that totally amazing.
I'm on a phone without spell check, and even then you manage to make your posts look like they were written by a 7 year old.
typical deflection failure argument. PS i ran a spelling check on your post it had some pretty glaring mistakes. next time i suggest that if you want to critize someone that you make sure that you are perfect before doing so.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
pot meet kettle. this is pretty much meaningless. more so because i have never stated such a thing.
So the rest of us are supposed to take your sweeping statements like "OWS will fail" based on what? I've only seen growth as far as the movement goes, what are you looking at? I'll admit I've been pretty hostile, so I'll start over, apologize for being a dick, and clearly outline why I think this effects you more than you realize
odd because failing to comply with public officials makes it illegal not legal. blocking ports of call, blocking streets and public access is illegal.
unless you have information that says that it is. first amendment doesn't apply in that case either.
The port was largely a strike. As for blocking streets and "public access", the cops have done more than that than the protesters have. After arresting journalists )http://gothamist.com/2011/11/15/nypds_zuccotti_eviction_swift_shrew.php -alarms should be ringing somewhere), hearing that the DHS was involved makes it even worse. First Amendment clearly protects the right to protest, and though I personally deplore any violence (along with most of the protesters- it really was rule #1 for anyone informed), I repeat: a movement as broad as this can't be held responsible for the actions of any single individual. However, the police attitude of "Everyone is dangerous" has only resulted in massive arrests of otherwise law-abiding citizens. The protests- once again- are only to gain public attention on a much broader problem. A lot of people don't have the luxury of understanding (fully) what's going on at the higher levels, but they know what things like the bailouts have resulted in (here and overseas).
I haven't dodged anything. this is a the mtgsalvation cop-out excuse that fails. more so when someone can't defend the actions or position they take.
Basically, some clarity from you on these points would be nice, outside of a dismissal on why it doesn't apply to you (stop acting like you represent the working class too, it's too broad a demographic for anyone to claim to represent) or why we should care beyond denouncing the people protesting them.
1. The revolving door between our corporations and branches of our government: http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/f-c-c-commissioner-to-join-comcast/
There is an obvious conflict of interest for America if our laws are protecting "people" like corporations and large banks, since those entities do not have the working class (or most of the population in general) in mind.
2. You agree the bailout was wrong, but why? Because of how they've used the money, or the bailout in the first place? Capitalism (which I support) disagrees with the latter.
3. You think Greece is entirely separate from this problem, but it's very much our problem. Their bailout(s) are working the same way ours are, and seeing how they are happening on a larger scale, you can't help but worry when:
a. Both bailouts have resulted in increased unemployment and homelessness.
b. Both bailouts were criticized on a massive level.
c. The companies (in trouble) don't miss a paycheck, and in fact many got bonuses directly following the bailout.
Not so much an attack on him personally, but his brand of business.
Sorry but the OWS doesn't represent me or the rest of America or the working class in any way shape or form.
Hardly a claim anyone can make outside of yourself. A large majority of the working class is not as lucky as you.
Me and the rest of America have no need to wage war against people. we wage war at the voting booth. that is where we stand up and say enough is enough.
You have two options come 2012, and I'm sure both of them will suck. The voting booths are a joke. Especially considering that after you elect anyone, the money that revolves around the lobbyists and other politicians involved dictate that a particular politician "play ball", or lose any and all significant support. Like my 50+ year old conservative/libertarian friend said, "We've known politicians were crooks for years, some homeless people protesting doesn't make a difference". Except, with the level of information the internet provides (unfortunately, in the eyes of special interests), we are able to keep better tabs on our government and how they operate.
the majority of Americans do not protest capitalism we embrace it. We take highly the investments that we have made and the work that we do.
We agree here, but regulations that directly support our financial structure (which should always include the working class) are being pushed aside, ignored, or averted in favor of whatever makes the most money. Undisciplined capitalism resembles bribery and robbery, not a competitive economy. Do we really want to play the same economic game China is? Our country isn't totalitarian enough yet to really support that kind of bubble building.
this tells me you have no clue about what i say or what i type. you blame me of ignoring you and your posts but you can't even give me the same consideration. then you have to go and make up logical fallacies as if they mean something.
What logical fallacies? I'm saying the kind of change required would have to come at a presidential level, or rioting. Congress is bought almost entirely. With that in mind, things like Citizens United obviously undermine our freedoms, since it just creates a never ending cycle of "Law that only benefits corporations" vs "How well informed is the populace regarding this being passed?". Protect IP act got singled out immediately as a way for special interests to control the internet at a level second only to China.
yet you claim to be trying to improve the discussion. hardly.
Hopefully I've fixed that with this post...?
This tells me you have no clue and do not pay attention to what i say or post.
I do, it's just that your personal opinion matters very little in a debate thread, or something that concerns the world/country, and you need to back up your arguments with your than "this is my experience". We have a massive amount of information available, we can see things in a bigger picture nowadays.
No they didn't say that. that is completely false.
here is the article right here. It says nothing about giving them more merit. that is clearly a lie.
Inferred. Forbes caters primarily to the Fortune 500, so why would they support OWS? On any level? The fact that they devoted an entire article to dismissing OWS should be sign enough. the hypocrisy/bias within the article is pretty blatant too: They clearly concede the point that the movement is not just hippies, but then make the (false) point that everyone there is impoverished/homeless/jobless. Like I've said repeatedly, more than 50% of protesters have jobs, pay bills, have mortgages, etc. Taking into account how many students are probably involved, the people that are truly unemployed is closer to 15% of protesters. (initial surveys stated 1/3 unemployed, but they didn't take students into account).
So for the health of this discussion and for the health of the rest of the discussion is suggest that you do a bit of research before making claims.
Trying to nurse this discussion back to health.
where not peaceful and quite violent at times. more so among their own group. there were plenty of people killed.
Due to the government responding to those protests. Surely you can't agree with that...? Anyone who actually knows the facts regarding those protests knows the protesters were completely in the right, and when the president announced his resignation, it was a victory for the free world.
Worth reading in detail. Like I said, our country (and other European nations) condemned most of those powers, and praised the protesters. Except when it happens here, then the protesters are either ignored or dismissed? Reason being...? The money in politics is derailing our country, it's pretty simple. Zero regulations lead to bloated corporations and banks, while they drain this country of any profits in the meantime (you agree with outsourcing? credit-default swaps? companies like verizon making record profits and still recieving tax refunds in the millions?). http://www.businessnewsdaily.com/corporation-buffett-tax-small-business-1965/
this tells me again you don't pay attention to what i say. if you want to like you claim have a decent discussion then i suggest reading comprehension.
why do you think i am always for more limited government and less intrusion?
that government should keep to the laws that were setup for it to follow instead of expanding those laws beyond what they were intended to.
Because I imagine you are for less taxes, which is hypocritical to anything but a more limited government. I am fine with social programs, and more regulated capitalism, but I expect that the taxes are going to be a bit higher. In this day and age though, lowering taxes will only equal more cuts across the board, since we are already too far in debt to repair anything with the amount of taxes you and I pay.
"Austerity measures" will start applying to us.
To bad they have not all been peaceful. they only reason they were arrested was because they refused to comply with city officials and police officers.
the people that did comply were neither arrested nor were they injured in any way shape or form. i find that totally amazing.
The issue here was that the city officials and police officers were condemning peaceful protests that in no way, shape, or form were illegal. So if you see someone following the law get arrested, an alarm should go off. Bloomberg clearly stated that journalists wouldn't be allowed to report the eviction of Zucotti park. People were clearly confused (what does press pass mean anymore?), but figured it was just discouraging it. After multiple arrests of journalists "just doing their job", one should be a little worried? Maybe?
typical deflection failure argument. PS i ran a spelling check on your post it had some pretty glaring mistakes. next time i suggest that if you want to critize someone that you make sure that you are perfect before doing so.
rofl, I'm not perfect, but honestly trying to help you out. Which one of these would you take more seriously at first glance?:
"hi my name is mystery45 and this is how i type"
"Hi, my name is Masamune, and this is how I type."
Like I said, I apologize for being a dick earlier, but people get a sense that you don't take any of this seriously when it looks like your shift button is broken.
Basically: Would you be for more separation of our congress from corporations? If so, why? If not, why? Currently, there is nothing healthy (as far as we are concerned) with this situation, and even after 2008 when the problems were made extremely public, they were successful in getting away with it. They didn't even miss a paycheck.
If you had power over how business is done, with this information in mind, what would you change? Are you against regulation? Obviously you are much less inclined to support social programs, but if those programs directly benefit our workforce, I don't see how that's bad for business. With unemployment at ~9% fairly consistently, unemployment ending next year is a serious concern for our economy (whether you partake in it or not). Safety nets do not equal socialism, and do not directly embody capitalism. Waging war at the voting booth is no longer possible, seeing how most of the candidates aren't selected by us (at this point).
So the rest of us are supposed to take your sweeping statements like "OWS will fail" based on what? I've only seen growth as far as the movement goes, what are you looking at? I'll admit I've been pretty hostile, so I'll start over, apologize for being a dick, and clearly outline why I think this effects you more than you realize
Thank you now we can skip the EMO ranting BS and have a discussion on the matter.
I will be more than happy to address whatever concerns that you have.
The port was largely a strike.
No it wasn't over 5000 OWS blocked the gates to the port. the port authority closed the port that day because they didn't want to endanger their people. this action by the OWS created massive losses to companies and workers.
so it did the exact opposite of what they intended.
As for blocking streets and "public access", the cops have done more than that than the protesters have. After arresting journalists )http://gothamist.com/2011/11/15/nypd...wift_shrew.php -alarms should be ringing somewhere), hearing that the DHS was involved makes it even worse.
The cops have the right to try to contain the area. that hasn't stopped the OWS from occuping public places for extended periods of time. it hadn't stopped them from blocking roads and side walks which is illegal.
the journalist was arrested in the sweep. it happens he was let go once they found out. it's called being in the wrong place at the wrong time. it happens.
again federal agencies are not unknown to help out on these types of things more so if they are asked by the local governments.
First Amendment clearly protects the right to protest, and though I personally deplore any violence
I agree i support the right to protest as well, but when that protest start violating the rights of other people such as the OWS have done then it is no longer protected and loses whatever message that they are trying to convey.
a movement as broad as this can't be held responsible for the actions of any single individual.
Yet people had no problem trying to paint the tea party as racist even though it was furthest from the truth based on the actions of a few.
the fact remains that these protestors are refusing to comply with the law. that puts them in the wrong. you cannot squatt on public land. you cannot block streets and side walks preventing other people from using them.
that is what a lot of these people tried to do.
1. The revolving door between our corporations and branches of our government
if you think that this hasn't gone on before then well. what do you think 501c3's are? they are a way for coporations to funnel money to politicians. even before the supreme court ruled that they could.
it didn't matter they were able to get around the law anyway. corporate money and union money has always been an influence in politics.
the only way to stop it is to ban any private or donation and have all politicians run on public funding. problem with that is getting it past congress which will never happen.
2. You agree the bailout was wrong, but why? Because of how they've used the money, or the bailout in the first place? Capitalism (which I support) disagrees with the latter.
I was against the bail out's period. i don't believe in to big to fail. i think is what caused the problem to begin with. a healthy capitalistic economy allows for failure. just like it is needed to go clear the bad tree's so the new ones can grow. the economy needs to weed out bad business for others to grow.
the government bail out prevented this from happening. now we just have a consolidated problem with the same people in charge instead of new companies to take over.
3. You think Greece is entirely separate from this problem, but it's very much our problem.
I think we have a better chance than greece, but it is going to require major cuts to government spending. we are close but not at the breaking point that greece is at. we will be if we do not get out spending under control and start living within our means.
this means drastic changes to social programs and other things. it means massive changes to the tax code. all things that no one wants to do but has to be done.
Hardly a claim anyone can make outside of yourself. A large majority of the working class is not as lucky as you.
I am not "lucky" i worked very hard to get where i am at. i started working when i was 18. I have 2 college degree's. I started working in my field at 18 as well. I have expanded my skill base to make me more marketable.
until recently my average pay was about 12 bucks an hour. i have hardly been lucky. it has taken me 6 years working with my current employeer to catch a break. i hardly call that lucky. all this while raising a family.
You have two options come 2012, and I'm sure both of them will suck. The voting booths are a joke.
only because people refuse to get rid of certain politicians. that is why i am a firm believer in term limits in congress. 6 terms for a house member, and 3 terms for a senator.
if as a house member you can't accomplish what you want in 12 years then you don't need to be there. as a senator if you can't accomplish what you want in 18 years then you don't need to be there.
this would also cut down on the corruption. i do not believe that you were suppose to remain in office till you die.
With that in mind, things like Citizens United obviously undermine our freedoms, since it just creates a never ending cycle of "Law that only benefits corporations" vs "How well informed is the populace regarding this being passed?".
even without it companies were funneling money through 501c3's. the only difference with citizens united was make it public instead of shady behind the scene work.
it was already going on before citizen united was passed.
Hopefully I've fixed that with this post...?
Thank you. like i said now we can have a reasonable discussion.
I do, it's just that your personal opinion matters very little in a debate thread, or something that concerns the world/country, and you need to back up your arguments with your than "this is my experience". We have a massive amount of information available, we can see things in a bigger picture nowadays.
then your personal opinion matters about as much as mine does very little. It isn't just my experience. it is the experience of the majority of americans.
the OWS people are a very small segment of the population which seem to be disgruntled. also as i have pointed out before a good deal of these people are acorn plants that are being paid to be out there.
like foxnews or not it is being backed up by other media outlets.
Forbes caters primarily to the Fortune 500, so why would they support OWS?
I didn't see any place in there that they support it. in fact if you read the first paragraph you will see exactly what he thinks of it.
The fact that they devoted an entire article to dismissing OWS should be sign enough. the hypocrisy/bias within the article is pretty blatant too:
please remember that you were the one that stated "Forbes gives more merit to the OWS than the tea party." i simply found that article that you were refering to. now that it doesn't agree with you it is bias.
i realy hope that is not the case.
Due to the government responding to those protests. Surely you can't agree with that...?
actually a lot of the fighting was between pro mubarak groups and the protestors. military just kept them out of the capital.
president announced his resignation, it was a victory for the free world.
that is yet to be seen. getting a radical islamic faction in control of their government would be a bad thing. that would not be a victory for the free world.
Because I imagine you are for less taxes, which is hypocritical to anything but a more limited government. I am fine with social programs, and more regulated capitalism, but I expect that the taxes are going to be a bit higher. In this day and age though, lowering taxes will only equal more cuts across the board, since we are already too far in debt to repair anything with the amount of taxes you and I pay.
"Austerity measures" will start applying to us.
Unfortuantly i am not hypocritical since i believe in limited government. Social programs are a for emergancy thing not a lifestyle that we have turned it into.
things like SS and medicare needed to be overhauled so that they function correctly for future generations. right now our current system is driving us into the the drink.
we are not to far in debt. i showed that if we cut government spending by 80% and with 20% tax restructuring we can run surpluses. domestic spending has increased by 40% we can easily cut that out.
we can cut back on regulations that are impeding businesses and the economy from growing. lower taxes has historically brought in more money because of higher economic activity.
the only way to get out of debt is to cut the government spending back to before 2000 levels and to promote massive job growth.
The issue here was that the city officials and police officers were condemning peaceful protests that in no way, shape, or form were illegal.
yes they were. you cannot squatt on public area's. public area's are for everyone not just a select group of people. you cannot block side walks and streets and prevent people from going about their daily tasks.
those things are illegal. it isn't that hard to understand. that is why most protests require permits that are good for a few hours at a time.
rofl, I'm not perfect, but honestly trying to help you out.
i simply pointed out that you had better clean your own backyard before jumping on someone else's.
Like I said, I apologize for being a dick earlier, but people get a sense that you don't take any of this seriously when it looks like your shift button is broken.
for one it isn't broken, secondly when needing to type something formal i don't type this way. i find an internet message board to be an informal setting. thirdly i do a lot of work in aix and other such things so it is a habit.
i find that grammer arguements a simple deflection of the real issue. they are pretty poor in taste more so when the person making the arguement has glaring spelling and grammar mistakes himself. also it really doesn't add anything to the discussion as a whole.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
I'm saying, you disagree in the "manner" of protesting. Then say things that need to be changes will "never happen". This is the underlying problem. Many of those people are fed up, and are getting to the point where they are asking "why can't they change" if the entire country (apart from the people directly benefitting) are against them as well?
A cartoon was pretty apt in that most people see a dilemma morally in "I agree with the underlying message of OWS (the things you see never happening), but disagree with how the protests are done". I've protested twice, but "normally" (no camping, etc). Like I said, when it comes to the (intimate) relationship between business and politics, people on both sides of the aisle see their issues being ignored.
As for the Tea Party being "racist", that's just the average political response nowadays. Nobody truly believes an entire group of people are rallying behind a racist flag, just like everyone rallying behind OWS is hardly an unemployed homeless vagrant. It's a diversion tactic (uninformed liberals were given a sensationalist version based on an idiotic few, same goes for the conservative view on ows). Both have legitimate causes that are fairly broad and effect most of us. Like I mentioned earlier, my right wing/libertarian friend actually went to a tea party protest directly following the bailout, since she was pissed. OWS got started when people realized the Tea Party was: Ignored, turned into a political tool (on some levels), then ignored even more, since the "politicalization" of the party meant ~50% of the country was now on the other side of the aisle. In some respects, OWS is like the Tea Party 2.0, in that they've narrowed their aim on the people directly responsible for the bailout (which in turn is just an example of what's wrong), refused political affiliation (hence why there are people from all walks of life/views/right/left/military).
As for the illegal nature of the protests, I think it's a test of boundaries. They have made it known that at every step of the way, they were using the first amendment. How it evolved past that (city per city) was up to them. If a protest lasts months, how does that work? I think it's growing pains, and both parties (cops, protesters) are having problems. In some cities, the cops are making the situation worse, while in others the protesters are beyond peaceful protests. I don't blame either directly, but they certainly need to listen to each other more. It's also more or less a fact that many orders to the cops are coming directly from people in power that the protests are aimed at (sup Bloomberg), so it becomes hard for a lot of protesters to think the cops have their best interests in mind (all the time anyways).
As long as we agree that safety nets != socialism or handouts.
I think anything regarding taxes or anything else needs to happen post-cleanup in Congress. Right now we have businessmen cutting themselves fat checks that come directly out of our pockets. I think the attitude of "That's how it is" is what OWS is trying to change, but that mentality is only fought with more information to the masses, and like it or not, ALL corporate media is effectively spinning this entire situation however they can to distract people. Which means turning to "Hey, let's breed nothing but dissension and hate between the parties", which is why so many liberals hate Fox, and right wingers loathe the liberal equivelants. See the common enemy?
MY entire reason for posting here is to try and leave that propaganda out of it now, and discuss in more detail what OWS is or isn't doing, and how they can switch gears to be more productive after this whole campout phase has ended. A huge portion of the US knows what's up to some extent, time to start pushing those "never gonna happen" rules to the test imo. I don't have a kid, but I sure as hell don't want my kids raised in this current "brand" of business (pun intended).
It's funny that until those people started breaking the law, nobody knew about them. 700 arrests in NUC, and people didn't hear about it until a day later (if they were lucky). And like I said, I know a lot of people that were involved in that walk over the bridge, and even with a permit and a month of planning, thousands of people marchiing in Manhattan didn't get a single ounce of press? And like my friend said "How could we not block the bridge when they blocked the far side without telling anyone?". **** stinks.
safety nets are hand outs, now whether they are a necessary evil is another discussion. Most people feel that until people start abusing them the good outweighs the bad, the issue is where people draw the abuse line.
There is no difference between paying an unemployment check and bailing out GM to save hundreds of thousands of jobs in principle. Both reward failure.
You can argue that the guy could have been laid off due to a downsizing et, but then again if his job wasn't essential wasn't he leaching? Doesn't handing him money keep him from being productive? There are always two sides to the coin.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Out of the blackness and stench of the engulfing swamp emerged a shimmering figure. Only the splattered armor and ichor-stained sword hinted at the unfathomable evil the knight had just laid waste.
I'd say that treating a corporation/large investment bank as a person is where the issue lies, there is a big difference between billions of dollars to sustain a failed business and funding a single person on the pretext that they will reenter the workforce. The workforce in America is a necessary "evil" as far as unemployment is concerned. There is a big problem when a company can't go under because it has interests in our government (and vice versa). The US government now owns how much of AIG...?
I'm saying, you disagree in the "manner" of protesting. Then say things that need to be changes will "never happen". This is the underlying problem. Many of those people are fed up, and are getting to the point where they are asking "why can't they change" if the entire country (apart from the people directly benefitting) are against them as well?
People get behind protests they understand. If they can't understand the protest then you can't get them involved.
1. OWS are protesting in the wrong place. if you want change then it has to be in washington. protesting wallstreet to change outside of wall st is well not smart.
2. The OWS people went on to protest peoples homes. they did a protest at Murdock which has no connection to wall st. they did a protest at several other homes none of which had to do with wall street.
They skipped or never went to George Soro's. one of the most corrupt financers of our time. he has been book on insider trading along with a slew of other charges yet they didn't protest outside of his home when it was right down the street.
Why? probably has to do with the millions that he has given them.
So the people that are suppose to be protesting how crooked wall st is. take money from one of the biggest crooks there was.
irony.
They have made it known that at every step of the way, they were using the first amendment.
Doesn't matter. once you start stepping on other peoples rights you are no longer protected.
Your rights end where someone else's begin.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
What else is there to go by then? it was a list supposedly by the OWS.
no 20 buck an hour for a baggery grocer is not appropriate.
yea minimum wage was designed to be a bottom dollar amount for the lowest skilled job.
if you want to make more then you need a bit more skill in the work force.
I am not going to pay 20 bucks for a guy to take groceries and stick them in a bag.
it is not feasable. there is a thing called reality that dicates how things work regardless of our whims, wishes or wants.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
If companies can make billions and pay politcians millions the average hard working American doing a mid level factory/construction/ect job should be able to make enough money to be able to have a 401k, health insurance, and the money to take a vacation every few years.
Your example of grocery bagger is bad. The average American doesn't bag groceries. The average American works in construction, or manufacturing, or accounting.
We need a double scale system with a certain number for entry level jobs(convenience stores, Fast food, food service workers, grocery store baggers/stockers, ect)
Then we need a secondary scale for construction(including building, pipeline, and road) and other mid-level jobs.
We need more mid level jobs that don't require a degree because more and more Americans can't afford to go to college and several that do can't find a job when they get out so they default on student loans.
I hate working my ass off for $8.00 an here and 60 hours a week. Hard work should pay more. I mean I can barely support my wife and two kids. I can't afford to go to the movies or each at fancy restaurants(if I could even find the time)
Albert Einstein
Thomas Jefferson
most americans do. that still doesn't dispute the fact that not everyone should make 20 dollars an hour.
No it isn't. they said everyone should make 20 bucks an hour. that would include the grocery bagger. it is a perfectly legit example of how illogical that idea is.
why it is not feasable.
they are entry level for a reason. it means you are not suppose to stay there till you die. you are suppose to learn better skills then take those skills and advance them to the next level.
kids make the mistake of going into fields that are now requiring people have internships of some kind. they think waiting tables is going to get them a 60K a year job in after they graduate.
never going to happen. unless you have a butt load of experience to back it up with you are not going to see anything, but basic entry jobs.
Your preaching to the choir.
you are not in any place that i haven't already been in. it is hard, it sucks, but you can get out of it. i did. required me going back to school.
i was making 11 as a contractor (1099 status). i was going to school full time working full time and was married and had a kid on the way before i graduated.
had just enough to get by and pay the bills, but we did. my wife only had insurance i didn't have it at the time.
lost my job because the owner ran his company into the ground. i had to find other work because i wasn't getting paid.
found a job doing stucco as a labour person. guy paid good 11 bucks an hour where most of those guys made 9.
it was hard work very hard work. 50 pound bags of stucco turned into 80 pound wheel barrows. 40 pound wooden scaffold that had to be moved around the house on a consistant basis. among other work.
sucks more so if you are not use to such work, but it put food on the table.
then i found the job i had. i cannot mention pay or anything but it was about average for florida entry level work maybe a bit higher. 6 years i work that position promoted 1 time. now i just got a nice promotion. there are some sacrifices (ie have to travel), but benefit is i can work from home.
point is nothing in life comes easy. you have to work for it. you have to make sacrifices to get where you want to go. my first trip after i start this new position is for 3 weeks. i will be out of town.
benefit i get home before christmas and get to spend all that week and new years with my family.
point is i have already gone through those things. i have had 4 major jobs in my life and except for this one none of them worked out. been working since i was 18 making 5.15 an hour.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Get over yourself, you were either a) deserving of social benefits, or b) arguing against them being passed. Instead of wishing your hardships upon everyone else, why not look for ways to make life easier for everyone.
"I didn't have universal healthcare when I was your age, get over it".
Art Page
Alters for sale
I agree with you 100%, life should get easier for everyone as time goes on. Yes, it is easier in the US than some other countries, but I don't really see it being that much easier than 30 years ago. Yeah, we as a nation are more productive, but life really isn't that much easier.
Because i was raised with a work ethic. that i am not owed something from society. that what i get out of something is what i put into it.
that because someone else does well for themselves doesn't mean i have a right to it.
that in order to succeed and be successful that it comes with both work and sacrifice.
i could have not incurred student loan debt, but then again i wouldn't have gotten this job. it also means that i wouldn't have gotten the promotion that i got.
the cost of that was taking on student loan debt. it was taking an entry level position even though my skills were more than what was required.
I am a middle income earner. nothing more nothing less, but i am proud that i got where i am.
PS i don't need to get over myself, However all these people with entitlement issue do.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-ways-we-ruined-occupy-wall-street-generation/
Funny that you use that as an example - my company, which was extremely profitable last time I checked (although being out for 5 years now, all I have to go on is the increase in locations as a litmus now - but they've added at least 1 location per year since I've been gone - same rate of growth as when we were doing well when I was there) - and our normal starting rate for a full time bagger was.... $12/hr - just shy of double minimum wage at the time.
Full-time bakery and cashiers were $18/hr starting - butchers and fishmongers were $22+/hr starting.
And note, none of those positions were "trained labor" - no education requirements for any of them. (Most education required fields started around the equivalent of $30/hr)
For part-time knock off about $2/hr for most positions.
And as stated, my company was growing then and continues to grow these days. Salary makes up such a small portion of a company's expenses in retail that it's a joke to claim that minimum wage can't be higher in retail.
Maybe in food service it might cause problems, not familiar with the expenses there - but for retail it wouldn't even cause a substantial blip.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
For the health of this discussion and every other discussion, you really should. This is not "mystery45 is always right". There are clear issues here, the protests are simply to garner attention. And before yyou go making ridiculous (made up) claims, 99% of the protests have been legal and peaceful (first amendment?).
How about you stop acting like you've seen it all, and stop dodging the actual problems I listed? Those "demands" are nonsense in the sense that no one can actually demand anything in a democracy. The sheer number of people in this country with legitimate concerns should not be dismissed though, especially since most of their problems directly effect everyone on this thread. I'll get to a computer and start posting links on everything that concerns you, if you still want to ignore them, can't say I didn't warn you.
But if you really think your struggle (minor by most standards honestly) has secured a safe place to live for your kid, you'd be wrong. Wishing your hardships on your kid, simply because you had to deal with them, is also pretty lame. Generations should pave a better road for the next, if you disagree with that, I'm sure you would also be against women's rights, civil rights, pro-vietnam, etc. But yeah, protesting inequality is wrong. I support capitalism, what we have now is a farce, where the entire country is considered to be "for sale", and only 1% (or less) of the country can actually afford to place bids. On laws, freedoms, etc. 4k+ arrested already, forbes has already stated that: OWS has more merit than the Tea Party, and that the police involvement has been completely over the top. Seeing how JPMorgan donated half a million dollars (more actually) to the NYPD following the Arab Spring (same type of peaceful protests, one that our government/country/president sympathized with), our country is quickly becoming: healthcare for people that support corporations, cuts for all within our government, corporate donations cover the difference, do something they don't like? Say goodbye to those "donations". They've already been using TARP money as leverage over smaller banks, when a local credit union didn't denounce ows like the big banks wanted, they lost access to their share of that "donation" money. Except that was actually taxpayer money meant to go back into the local community.
Links otw. I'm just surprised you take our freedoms for granted, and don't care that they are systematically being taken away if they don't serve a purpose to the .1% that are hand-in-hand with lawmakers. Even from a % standpoint, 99% of protestors have been legal and peaceful. Massive arrests on peaceful protestors (especially in a country that honors the constitution) is just stupid. But you're right, if you DO ignore all of the intelligent arguments/people/journalists/war vets/university professors/etc.... than yeah, it doesn't seem as educated a movement. Coming from someone who doesn't know how to properly spell/punctuate to save their life. I'm on a phone without spellcheck, and even then you manage to make your posts look like they were written by a 7 year old.
Sorry, I'm pro education, and that's another topic.
Art Page
Alters for sale
pot meet kettle. this is pretty much meaningless. more so because i have never stated such a thing.
odd because failing to comply with public officials makes it illegal not legal.
blocking ports of call, blocking streets and public access is illegal.
unless you have information that says that it is. first amendment doesn't apply in that case either.
I haven't dodged anything. this is a the mtgsalvation cop-out excuse that fails. more so when someone can't defend the actions or position they take.
Sorry but the OWS doesn't represent me or the rest of America or the working class in any way shape or form.
Me and the rest of America have no need to wage war against people. we wage war at the voting booth. that is where we stand up and say enough is enough.
the majority of Americans do not protest capitalism we embrace it. We take highly the investments that we have made and the work that we do.
this tells me you have no clue about what i say or what i type. you blame me of ignoring you and your posts but you can't even give me the same consideration. then you have to go and make up logical fallacies as if they mean something.
yet you claim to be trying to improve the discussion. hardly.
This tells me you have no clue and do not pay attention to what i say or post.
No they didn't say that. that is completely false.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2011/11/18/occupy-wall-street-deserves-more-attention-than-the-tea-party/
here is the article right here. It says nothing about giving them more merit. that is clearly a lie.
So for the health of this discussion and for the health of the rest of the discussion is suggest that you do a bit of research before making claims.
where not peaceful and quite violent at times. more so among their own group. there were plenty of people killed.
this tells me again you don't pay attention to what i say. if you want to like you claim have a decent discussion then i suggest reading comprehension.
why do you think i am always for more limited government and less intrusion?
that government should keep to the laws that were setup for it to follow instead of expanding those laws beyond what they were intended to.
To bad they have not all been peaceful. they only reason they were arrested was because they refused to comply with city officials and police officers.
the people that did comply were neither arrested nor were they injured in any way shape or form. i find that totally amazing.
typical deflection failure argument. PS i ran a spelling check on your post it had some pretty glaring mistakes. next time i suggest that if you want to critize someone that you make sure that you are perfect before doing so.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
So the rest of us are supposed to take your sweeping statements like "OWS will fail" based on what? I've only seen growth as far as the movement goes, what are you looking at? I'll admit I've been pretty hostile, so I'll start over, apologize for being a dick, and clearly outline why I think this effects you more than you realize
The port was largely a strike. As for blocking streets and "public access", the cops have done more than that than the protesters have. After arresting journalists )http://gothamist.com/2011/11/15/nypds_zuccotti_eviction_swift_shrew.php -alarms should be ringing somewhere), hearing that the DHS was involved makes it even worse. First Amendment clearly protects the right to protest, and though I personally deplore any violence (along with most of the protesters- it really was rule #1 for anyone informed), I repeat: a movement as broad as this can't be held responsible for the actions of any single individual. However, the police attitude of "Everyone is dangerous" has only resulted in massive arrests of otherwise law-abiding citizens. The protests- once again- are only to gain public attention on a much broader problem. A lot of people don't have the luxury of understanding (fully) what's going on at the higher levels, but they know what things like the bailouts have resulted in (here and overseas).
Basically, some clarity from you on these points would be nice, outside of a dismissal on why it doesn't apply to you (stop acting like you represent the working class too, it's too broad a demographic for anyone to claim to represent) or why we should care beyond denouncing the people protesting them.
1. The revolving door between our corporations and branches of our government: http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/f-c-c-commissioner-to-join-comcast/
There is an obvious conflict of interest for America if our laws are protecting "people" like corporations and large banks, since those entities do not have the working class (or most of the population in general) in mind.
2. You agree the bailout was wrong, but why? Because of how they've used the money, or the bailout in the first place? Capitalism (which I support) disagrees with the latter.
3. You think Greece is entirely separate from this problem, but it's very much our problem. Their bailout(s) are working the same way ours are, and seeing how they are happening on a larger scale, you can't help but worry when:
a. Both bailouts have resulted in increased unemployment and homelessness.
b. Both bailouts were criticized on a massive level.
c. The companies (in trouble) don't miss a paycheck, and in fact many got bonuses directly following the bailout.
http://www.euronews.net/2011/11/15/government-sachs-europe-branch/
These apply to Greece as well, why do you think Greece was the problem of the entire G20? Globalization is one thing, but deliberately making decisions that put millions in debt to save failed companies (by the government) is all sorts of wrong, and even worse now that it's happening at a global level. Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_default_swap, then this: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-11-24/bofa-swaps-soar-to-record-as-u-s-company-credit-risk-increases.html
More of what's to come (btw, he's richer than ever, and look at that track record: goldman sachs>politician>mf global): http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-11-23/corzine-called-to-testify-at-house-hearing-on-mf-global-fall.html
4. Just like our politicians, countries and governments are more or less getting bullied by the financial powers within our government(s): http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-22/hungary-may-have-to-bow-to-imf-conditions-to-access-financial-assistance.html
Like I pointed out in the example with Coca-Cola, with so many cuts being continually made, corporate/megabank money are the only available options.
5. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/economy-watch/2009/02/geithners_rescue_plan_price.html Same guy who is currently our US Treasury Secretary, and the same guy who has been running back and forth to Europe to make god damned sure that bailout gets passed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Geithner
Not so much an attack on him personally, but his brand of business.
Hardly a claim anyone can make outside of yourself. A large majority of the working class is not as lucky as you.
You have two options come 2012, and I'm sure both of them will suck. The voting booths are a joke. Especially considering that after you elect anyone, the money that revolves around the lobbyists and other politicians involved dictate that a particular politician "play ball", or lose any and all significant support. Like my 50+ year old conservative/libertarian friend said, "We've known politicians were crooks for years, some homeless people protesting doesn't make a difference". Except, with the level of information the internet provides (unfortunately, in the eyes of special interests), we are able to keep better tabs on our government and how they operate.
We agree here, but regulations that directly support our financial structure (which should always include the working class) are being pushed aside, ignored, or averted in favor of whatever makes the most money. Undisciplined capitalism resembles bribery and robbery, not a competitive economy. Do we really want to play the same economic game China is? Our country isn't totalitarian enough yet to really support that kind of bubble building.
What logical fallacies? I'm saying the kind of change required would have to come at a presidential level, or rioting. Congress is bought almost entirely. With that in mind, things like Citizens United obviously undermine our freedoms, since it just creates a never ending cycle of "Law that only benefits corporations" vs "How well informed is the populace regarding this being passed?". Protect IP act got singled out immediately as a way for special interests to control the internet at a level second only to China.
Hopefully I've fixed that with this post...?
I do, it's just that your personal opinion matters very little in a debate thread, or something that concerns the world/country, and you need to back up your arguments with your than "this is my experience". We have a massive amount of information available, we can see things in a bigger picture nowadays.
Inferred. Forbes caters primarily to the Fortune 500, so why would they support OWS? On any level? The fact that they devoted an entire article to dismissing OWS should be sign enough. the hypocrisy/bias within the article is pretty blatant too: They clearly concede the point that the movement is not just hippies, but then make the (false) point that everyone there is impoverished/homeless/jobless. Like I've said repeatedly, more than 50% of protesters have jobs, pay bills, have mortgages, etc. Taking into account how many students are probably involved, the people that are truly unemployed is closer to 15% of protesters. (initial surveys stated 1/3 unemployed, but they didn't take students into account).
Trying to nurse this discussion back to health.
Due to the government responding to those protests. Surely you can't agree with that...? Anyone who actually knows the facts regarding those protests knows the protesters were completely in the right, and when the president announced his resignation, it was a victory for the free world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring
Worth reading in detail. Like I said, our country (and other European nations) condemned most of those powers, and praised the protesters. Except when it happens here, then the protesters are either ignored or dismissed? Reason being...? The money in politics is derailing our country, it's pretty simple. Zero regulations lead to bloated corporations and banks, while they drain this country of any profits in the meantime (you agree with outsourcing? credit-default swaps? companies like verizon making record profits and still recieving tax refunds in the millions?). http://www.businessnewsdaily.com/corporation-buffett-tax-small-business-1965/
Because I imagine you are for less taxes, which is hypocritical to anything but a more limited government. I am fine with social programs, and more regulated capitalism, but I expect that the taxes are going to be a bit higher. In this day and age though, lowering taxes will only equal more cuts across the board, since we are already too far in debt to repair anything with the amount of taxes you and I pay.
"Austerity measures" will start applying to us.
The issue here was that the city officials and police officers were condemning peaceful protests that in no way, shape, or form were illegal. So if you see someone following the law get arrested, an alarm should go off. Bloomberg clearly stated that journalists wouldn't be allowed to report the eviction of Zucotti park. People were clearly confused (what does press pass mean anymore?), but figured it was just discouraging it. After multiple arrests of journalists "just doing their job", one should be a little worried? Maybe?
rofl, I'm not perfect, but honestly trying to help you out. Which one of these would you take more seriously at first glance?:
"hi my name is mystery45 and this is how i type"
"Hi, my name is Masamune, and this is how I type."
Like I said, I apologize for being a dick earlier, but people get a sense that you don't take any of this seriously when it looks like your shift button is broken.
Basically: Would you be for more separation of our congress from corporations? If so, why? If not, why? Currently, there is nothing healthy (as far as we are concerned) with this situation, and even after 2008 when the problems were made extremely public, they were successful in getting away with it. They didn't even miss a paycheck.
If you had power over how business is done, with this information in mind, what would you change? Are you against regulation? Obviously you are much less inclined to support social programs, but if those programs directly benefit our workforce, I don't see how that's bad for business. With unemployment at ~9% fairly consistently, unemployment ending next year is a serious concern for our economy (whether you partake in it or not). Safety nets do not equal socialism, and do not directly embody capitalism. Waging war at the voting booth is no longer possible, seeing how most of the candidates aren't selected by us (at this point).
Art Page
Alters for sale
Thank you now we can skip the EMO ranting BS and have a discussion on the matter.
I will be more than happy to address whatever concerns that you have.
No it wasn't over 5000 OWS blocked the gates to the port. the port authority closed the port that day because they didn't want to endanger their people. this action by the OWS created massive losses to companies and workers.
so it did the exact opposite of what they intended.
The cops have the right to try to contain the area. that hasn't stopped the OWS from occuping public places for extended periods of time. it hadn't stopped them from blocking roads and side walks which is illegal.
the journalist was arrested in the sweep. it happens he was let go once they found out. it's called being in the wrong place at the wrong time. it happens.
again federal agencies are not unknown to help out on these types of things more so if they are asked by the local governments.
I agree i support the right to protest as well, but when that protest start violating the rights of other people such as the OWS have done then it is no longer protected and loses whatever message that they are trying to convey.
Yet people had no problem trying to paint the tea party as racist even though it was furthest from the truth based on the actions of a few.
the fact remains that these protestors are refusing to comply with the law. that puts them in the wrong. you cannot squatt on public land. you cannot block streets and side walks preventing other people from using them.
that is what a lot of these people tried to do.
if you think that this hasn't gone on before then well. what do you think 501c3's are? they are a way for coporations to funnel money to politicians. even before the supreme court ruled that they could.
it didn't matter they were able to get around the law anyway. corporate money and union money has always been an influence in politics.
the only way to stop it is to ban any private or donation and have all politicians run on public funding. problem with that is getting it past congress which will never happen.
I was against the bail out's period. i don't believe in to big to fail. i think is what caused the problem to begin with. a healthy capitalistic economy allows for failure. just like it is needed to go clear the bad tree's so the new ones can grow. the economy needs to weed out bad business for others to grow.
the government bail out prevented this from happening. now we just have a consolidated problem with the same people in charge instead of new companies to take over.
I think we have a better chance than greece, but it is going to require major cuts to government spending. we are close but not at the breaking point that greece is at. we will be if we do not get out spending under control and start living within our means.
this means drastic changes to social programs and other things. it means massive changes to the tax code. all things that no one wants to do but has to be done.
I am not "lucky" i worked very hard to get where i am at. i started working when i was 18. I have 2 college degree's. I started working in my field at 18 as well. I have expanded my skill base to make me more marketable.
until recently my average pay was about 12 bucks an hour. i have hardly been lucky. it has taken me 6 years working with my current employeer to catch a break. i hardly call that lucky. all this while raising a family.
only because people refuse to get rid of certain politicians. that is why i am a firm believer in term limits in congress. 6 terms for a house member, and 3 terms for a senator.
if as a house member you can't accomplish what you want in 12 years then you don't need to be there. as a senator if you can't accomplish what you want in 18 years then you don't need to be there.
this would also cut down on the corruption. i do not believe that you were suppose to remain in office till you die.
even without it companies were funneling money through 501c3's. the only difference with citizens united was make it public instead of shady behind the scene work.
it was already going on before citizen united was passed.
Thank you. like i said now we can have a reasonable discussion.
then your personal opinion matters about as much as mine does very little. It isn't just my experience. it is the experience of the majority of americans.
the OWS people are a very small segment of the population which seem to be disgruntled. also as i have pointed out before a good deal of these people are acorn plants that are being paid to be out there.
http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-spokane/ows-activist-says-acorn-paying-homeless-people-to-attend-protest
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/03/acorn-officials-scramble-firing-workers-and-shredding-documents-after-exposed/
like foxnews or not it is being backed up by other media outlets.
I didn't see any place in there that they support it. in fact if you read the first paragraph you will see exactly what he thinks of it.
please remember that you were the one that stated "Forbes gives more merit to the OWS than the tea party." i simply found that article that you were refering to. now that it doesn't agree with you it is bias.
i realy hope that is not the case.
actually a lot of the fighting was between pro mubarak groups and the protestors. military just kept them out of the capital.
that is yet to be seen. getting a radical islamic faction in control of their government would be a bad thing. that would not be a victory for the free world.
Unfortuantly i am not hypocritical since i believe in limited government. Social programs are a for emergancy thing not a lifestyle that we have turned it into.
things like SS and medicare needed to be overhauled so that they function correctly for future generations. right now our current system is driving us into the the drink.
we are not to far in debt. i showed that if we cut government spending by 80% and with 20% tax restructuring we can run surpluses. domestic spending has increased by 40% we can easily cut that out.
we can cut back on regulations that are impeding businesses and the economy from growing. lower taxes has historically brought in more money because of higher economic activity.
the only way to get out of debt is to cut the government spending back to before 2000 levels and to promote massive job growth.
yes they were. you cannot squatt on public area's. public area's are for everyone not just a select group of people. you cannot block side walks and streets and prevent people from going about their daily tasks.
those things are illegal. it isn't that hard to understand. that is why most protests require permits that are good for a few hours at a time.
i simply pointed out that you had better clean your own backyard before jumping on someone else's.
for one it isn't broken, secondly when needing to type something formal i don't type this way. i find an internet message board to be an informal setting. thirdly i do a lot of work in aix and other such things so it is a habit.
i find that grammer arguements a simple deflection of the real issue. they are pretty poor in taste more so when the person making the arguement has glaring spelling and grammar mistakes himself. also it really doesn't add anything to the discussion as a whole.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
A cartoon was pretty apt in that most people see a dilemma morally in "I agree with the underlying message of OWS (the things you see never happening), but disagree with how the protests are done". I've protested twice, but "normally" (no camping, etc). Like I said, when it comes to the (intimate) relationship between business and politics, people on both sides of the aisle see their issues being ignored.
As for the Tea Party being "racist", that's just the average political response nowadays. Nobody truly believes an entire group of people are rallying behind a racist flag, just like everyone rallying behind OWS is hardly an unemployed homeless vagrant. It's a diversion tactic (uninformed liberals were given a sensationalist version based on an idiotic few, same goes for the conservative view on ows). Both have legitimate causes that are fairly broad and effect most of us. Like I mentioned earlier, my right wing/libertarian friend actually went to a tea party protest directly following the bailout, since she was pissed. OWS got started when people realized the Tea Party was: Ignored, turned into a political tool (on some levels), then ignored even more, since the "politicalization" of the party meant ~50% of the country was now on the other side of the aisle. In some respects, OWS is like the Tea Party 2.0, in that they've narrowed their aim on the people directly responsible for the bailout (which in turn is just an example of what's wrong), refused political affiliation (hence why there are people from all walks of life/views/right/left/military).
As for the illegal nature of the protests, I think it's a test of boundaries. They have made it known that at every step of the way, they were using the first amendment. How it evolved past that (city per city) was up to them. If a protest lasts months, how does that work? I think it's growing pains, and both parties (cops, protesters) are having problems. In some cities, the cops are making the situation worse, while in others the protesters are beyond peaceful protests. I don't blame either directly, but they certainly need to listen to each other more. It's also more or less a fact that many orders to the cops are coming directly from people in power that the protests are aimed at (sup Bloomberg), so it becomes hard for a lot of protesters to think the cops have their best interests in mind (all the time anyways).
As long as we agree that safety nets != socialism or handouts.
I think anything regarding taxes or anything else needs to happen post-cleanup in Congress. Right now we have businessmen cutting themselves fat checks that come directly out of our pockets. I think the attitude of "That's how it is" is what OWS is trying to change, but that mentality is only fought with more information to the masses, and like it or not, ALL corporate media is effectively spinning this entire situation however they can to distract people. Which means turning to "Hey, let's breed nothing but dissension and hate between the parties", which is why so many liberals hate Fox, and right wingers loathe the liberal equivelants. See the common enemy?
MY entire reason for posting here is to try and leave that propaganda out of it now, and discuss in more detail what OWS is or isn't doing, and how they can switch gears to be more productive after this whole campout phase has ended. A huge portion of the US knows what's up to some extent, time to start pushing those "never gonna happen" rules to the test imo. I don't have a kid, but I sure as hell don't want my kids raised in this current "brand" of business (pun intended).
It's funny that until those people started breaking the law, nobody knew about them. 700 arrests in NUC, and people didn't hear about it until a day later (if they were lucky). And like I said, I know a lot of people that were involved in that walk over the bridge, and even with a permit and a month of planning, thousands of people marchiing in Manhattan didn't get a single ounce of press? And like my friend said "How could we not block the bridge when they blocked the far side without telling anyone?". **** stinks.
Art Page
Alters for sale
There is no difference between paying an unemployment check and bailing out GM to save hundreds of thousands of jobs in principle. Both reward failure.
You can argue that the guy could have been laid off due to a downsizing et, but then again if his job wasn't essential wasn't he leaching? Doesn't handing him money keep him from being productive? There are always two sides to the coin.
Art Page
Alters for sale
People get behind protests they understand. If they can't understand the protest then you can't get them involved.
1. OWS are protesting in the wrong place. if you want change then it has to be in washington. protesting wallstreet to change outside of wall st is well not smart.
2. The OWS people went on to protest peoples homes. they did a protest at Murdock which has no connection to wall st. they did a protest at several other homes none of which had to do with wall street.
They skipped or never went to George Soro's. one of the most corrupt financers of our time. he has been book on insider trading along with a slew of other charges yet they didn't protest outside of his home when it was right down the street.
Why? probably has to do with the millions that he has given them.
So the people that are suppose to be protesting how crooked wall st is. take money from one of the biggest crooks there was.
irony.
Doesn't matter. once you start stepping on other peoples rights you are no longer protected.
Your rights end where someone else's begin.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum