[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I get this, but what good does it do to protest _____ Corp? What is it they are supposed to do that would satisfy the protests? If a CEO takes less pay for example, is this really friendlier toward the middle class? How? I think opposition to a trickle-down principle is odd. It's either trickling down from an entity that makes your laws and assesses a fee for its existence or an entity you buy stuff from... like you, me, and others.

The major difference between the two spectrums, and the biggest problem I have with the Wall Street folks is that it's not clear what they're for. I get what they're against. It seems little more than an outlet of angst for the otherwise idle. I maintain that if it lingers, even 3 more weeks, it will become violent. Though I certainly hope not.

It really boils down to the question of what's fair for the middle class IMO. It's as if people would rather money and provisions simply go to them rather than go to money and provisions, but it just doesn't work that way. I'm sorry if it's tired, but I can't say it enough. I appreciate the concern for the influence of corporations on government, but the government has to welcome them in against the public trust. It's bizarre that one would address the bad influence on their kid before their own kid. You're invested in the government whether you like it or not and the only way this can be the case with Big Corporation is if Big Government is behind it.

Removing the middle classes' ladders to greater prosperity with antagonism toward wealth, turning us against one another by virtue of our incomes is worse than counterintuitive, it's destructive IMO. I think movements founded on antagonism have no other outcome.

Maybe the protesters will be satisfied when some/all of the following is visible?

- the rich and powerful can not buy politicians and influence elections as much as they do (i.e. campaign finance reform)

- our national conversation steers away from how to cater to these so-called job creators, how to give them more tax breaks, etc. and the idea of raising the taxes of the very wealthy as most Americans seem to want to do gains some political capital so that it is at least a part of the conversation

- financial regulatory reform (whatever happened with this anyway? Was it shot down?) Put an end to all financial monkey business that involves hi-risk gambling

- close tax loopholes

- the non wealthy elite or those without a media platform having more political power and access to the media in a very general way (i.e. a general call to action for the working/middle class)



Whether the rallies will accomplish any of this is another story, but I think these sorts of things are the goals of the protesters. I don't know how they'll ascertain whether these goals have been met either, but more realistically, a protest like this is intended to simply push us in the right direction as a country. It may have already succeeded to some extent, or not.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Why didn't they do these protests during the bailouts? Where were they then? That was the time to get angry and stop them from getting a bunch of money. Oh wait they were all begging the government to DO something (aka bailout banks with their tax dollars) to prevent a total COLLAPSE of society because they said government was trustworthy and knows what its doing. This seems all too late... I agree, what are they protesting now anyway?

I think many people would have been more comfortable with the bank bailouts if they were followed up with regulatory reform, an end to the practices that created the mess, etc.

Instead, it seemed like it was pretty much just:

1) bail out
2) back to business as usual

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

They're protesting that some people are wealthier than others. Some of this could be fixed if they were out trying to make a living instead of standing around protesting.

It blows my mind that somebody could be comfortable blowing off these protests with such a simplistic justification.

[besson3c]

ebuddy, if you "get" the point of the protests and see their basic point as valid even if you don't agree with it, will you concede that your lack of empathy has made you a little biased in unfairly conflating the moronic actions and behavior of individual protesters with their overall message, and not doing the same for the tea party protests?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It blows my mind that somebody could be comfortable blowing off these protests with such a simplistic justification.

Hell, I don't blame them. For most people it's a lot more fun to stand around, screaming and waving signs, than go to work or come up with money-making ideas.

I mean, doesn't it look like a blast, yelling at "the suits", blaming them for your problems... Let's go! I'll grab the poster board, you get a bullhorn! Woohoo!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Hell, I don't blame them. For most people it's a lot more fun to stand around, screaming and waving signs, than go to work or come up with money-making ideas.

I mean, doesn't it look like a blast, yelling at "the suits", blaming them for your problems... Let's go! I'll grab the poster board, you get a bullhorn! Woohoo!

How did you feel about the tea party protesters?

[The Final Dakar]

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Hell, I don't blame them. For most people it's a lot more fun to stand around, screaming and waving signs, than go to work or come up with money-making ideas.

I mean, doesn't it look like a blast, yelling at "the suits", blaming them for your problems... Let's go! I'll grab the poster board, you get a bullhorn! Woohoo!

What work

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How did you feel about the tea party protesters?

Pretty much the same way, I'm not a tea party member. However, it does seem that most in the Tea Party have careers. They want to keep more of their own money, while these guys want to keep more of everyone else's.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Athens 

What work

I see lots of listings in the paper for jobs, but a lot of people would rather keep drawing unemployment and EBT benefits.

[Athens]

Shaddim what do you say to the protesters who work, make a living and yet still protest for change in the way the 1% control everything. Because I belong to that group. I work, I make a living, im in good shape yet I want change. Its even harder for me to stand around screaming and waving signs because I have to fit it into a already busy life.

[Shaddim]

If the 1% controlled "everything" Obama wouldn't have been elected and we wouldn't have a Democrat controlled Senate.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

If the 1% controlled "everything" Obama wouldn't have been elected and we wouldn't have a Democrat controlled Senate.

I dunno about that. The 9% wins and elects Obama while the 1% still controls 535 other members of Congress. The president really does not matter in the bigger picture. Hes pretty powerless.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Pretty much the same way, I'm not a tea party member. However, it does seem that most in the Tea Party have careers. They want to keep more of their own money, while these guys want to keep more of everyone else's.

Some do possibly, but you are completely missing the point if you think that their central message is to deny people from becoming rich, or that there is something wrong with being rich in general.

Their central message relates to fraud and abuse of power. There can only be so much of this before the entire structure collapses under its own weight. I don't think you'd find many of these people complaining about a company like Apple, because Apple, aside from the possibility of some environmental neglect, earned its money by selling products, not by taking advantage of various financial schemes at the expense of others, and not by lobbying government so that they could stimulate a political climate which benefits the company.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

If the 1% controlled "everything" Obama wouldn't have been elected and we wouldn't have a Democrat controlled Senate.

I think your thinking is flawed in thinking about this in absolutes. 1% does not control *everything*, but look at the overall trend and the amount of power being claimed by that 1% over the course of several years and how this has grown. If you don't think there has been a big change and can justify this, I think this would be a fair point, but otherwise...

[Athens]

The central issue is money shouldn't buy the vote. Democracy is not a democracy if money is the largest factor in who comes to power. Owing rich friends is not governing for the people. Its governing for the few. Might as well go back to King and lords system then.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Athens 

The central issue is money shouldn't buy the vote. Democracy is not a democracy if money is the largest factor in who comes to power. Owing rich friends is not governing for the people. Its governing for the few. Might as well go back to King and lords system then.

Exactly, and it doesn't matter if those votes by you a Democrat or a Republican (I have no doubt Obama has benefited from this), it's still wrong.

[Athens]

Toronto, Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Ottawa, Montreal, Victoria, St. Johns, Windsor, Kelowna, Kamloops, Sault Ste Marie, Charlottetown, Moncton, Saint John are on the Canadian list of protests starting up this Saturday. (I'll be at the Vancouver one) This is pretty impressive. I can't remember any event leading to protests in all these cities at once.

According to the news over 1500 cities and towns are now involved in the protests around the world. Wonder how long it will take to get the message across that we want change and we want it now.

This is what I see as the most important demands

The creation of civilian watchdog agencies to oversee corporate activity in each economic sector.

Increased financial and legal penalties for corporate illegality.

Expanded protection for whistleblower employees.

A requirement that corporations must legally represent not only the interests of shareholders, but also those of their employees, customers, and society and the environment at large.

Contribution limits by individuals and organizations to political campaigns.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I think your thinking is flawed in thinking about this in absolutes. 1% does not control *everything*, but look at the overall trend and the amount of power being claimed by that 1% over the course of several years and how this has grown. If you don't think there has been a big change and can justify this, I think this would be a fair point, but otherwise...

The sheep didn't want the power, they wanted comfort and convenience. And they wanted the comfort and convenience because that's what they were told was better. "Go ahead, relax, indulge, don't you deserve it?"

Originally Posted by Athens 

I dunno about that. The 9% wins and elects Obama while the 1% still controls 535 other members of Congress. The president really does not matter in the bigger picture. Hes pretty powerless.

And he's corrupt, given your analysis. He tried to talk a good game, but he's no different than any other politician in the last 50 years. They don't want things to change, they just want more money and power.

Originally Posted by Athens 

The central issue is money shouldn't buy the vote. Democracy is not a democracy if money is the largest factor in who comes to power. Owing rich friends is not governing for the people. Its governing for the few. Might as well go back to King and lords system then.

Well, you'll have to get rid of the media then, because those are the cash cows at work. Advertising, sensationalism, ratings, and all of it revolving around money. The "1%" isn't the issue, it's those who want to inflate the conflict to generate more revenue. If you think any part of this isn't about making more money for a company somewhere, you're being gullible.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I see lots of listings in the paper for jobs, but a lot of people would rather keep drawing unemployment and EBT benefits.

The job market is shit and you know it. Brushing these people off by saying "just get a job" is just as generalizing as calling rich people evil.

The anger shown by these protests is exactly what's been said again and again, highlighted by the letter Dakar posted. The middle class do not and will never have enough money and influence to buy legislation the way the ultra-rich do, and that is an affront to the true ideals of a Democracy.

But who cares right? Why speak out against shady dealings when you can land a sweet sub 30K a year job and continue to be a faceless cog in a machine you no longer have any say in?

The rule of law in this country is bullshit. The rich can buy their way out of prison, they can buy their way out of taxes, they can buy their way out of having to be accountable for enslaving people in third world countries. The best way to continue with business as usual is to settle back into your role and shut your mouth.

Edit: Just so you know, based on what you have said about your personal income, you are no way in the ballpark of the 'rich' I am talking about here.

[Athens]

Oh Shaddim, scan or take a photo of the job postings in your paper. Lets see what you have.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Oh Shaddim, scan or take a photo of the job postings in your paper. Lets see what you have.

Why does he have to do it? If you're curious, you can start here.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Shaddim what do you say to the protesters who work, make a living and yet still protest for change in the way the 1% control everything. Because I belong to that group. I work, I make a living, im in good shape yet I want change.

I would tell them "if you want change, why didn't you vote for it?" It's very simple, vote for politicians that wallstreet/corporations hate. It's obvious who they are, but whenever you suggest someone vote for them everyone, including most people on these forums, will say those politicians are crazy because they don't go along with status quo. What it comes down to and this true of repubs and democrats, is everyone just wants a government that will give money to their cause. I don't see much of a work ethic in this country on either party's side.

What I hear is "Wall street, you guys suck! now give us jobs and money!" It's laughable. Why don't they go out and do something productive with their time; like put all that protest energy and free time into organizing their own business/corporation or communities. If they're so educated, and good at manufacturing why don't they just go set up a shop and do it. Create some competition. The only thing standing in their way would be government licensing and regulatory fees. Everyone seems to have this perverted cultural dream that they need to be handed a job by a corporation/government to be successful. Everyone thinks if the media doesn't support a candidate then nobody can vote for said candidate.

If they're the 99% then why is it so hard for them to give the right politicians 99% voting support rather than the Bush's, Obama's, Kerry's or whoever. Its not like they're being forced to vote for who the media tells them to vote for.

Its even harder for me to stand around screaming and waving signs because I have to fit it into a already busy life.

This is by [government] design... It's how it's suppose to be. They don't want you organizing, socializing, thinking... Just go to your weekly sports game with what little free time you have; eat a hotdog, git crazy drunk, release all your weekly stress as fast as you can, scream at the (insert team here), and shut up. That's what they want. I'll save that discussion for another thread though.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Oh Shaddim, scan or take a photo of the job postings in your paper. Lets see what you have.

Look in any paper around the USA, I'm sure you'll see listings there.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by sek929 

The job market is shit and you know it. Brushing these people off by saying "just get a job" is just as generalizing as calling rich people evil.

The anger shown by these protests is exactly what's been said again and again, highlighted by the letter Dakar posted. The middle class do not and will never have enough money and influence to buy legislation the way the ultra-rich do, and that is an affront to the true ideals of a Democracy.

But who cares right? Why speak out against shady dealings when you can land a sweet sub 30K a year job and continue to be a faceless cog in a machine you no longer have any say in?

The rule of law in this country is bullshit. The rich can buy their way out of prison, they can buy their way out of taxes, they can buy their way out of having to be accountable for enslaving people in third world countries. The best way to continue with business as usual is to settle back into your role and shut your mouth.

Edit: Just so you know, based on what you have said about your personal income, you are no way in the ballpark of the 'rich' I am talking about here.

The job market isn't great, but blaming the faceless "rich" doesn't help. The populace sold their birthright for cool gadgets and cheap conveniences, they're as much to blame as anyone, and you know it.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Look in any paper around the USA, I'm sure you'll see listings there.

No no, I want to see the listings you saw in your paper. I want to see what millions of jobs look like in a single paper. Because you act like there is enough jobs for every job seeker...

[Athens]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Why does he have to do it? If you're curious, you can start here.

because

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I see lots of listings in the paper for jobs, but a lot of people would rather keep drawing unemployment and EBT benefits.

So lets see those listings.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

I would tell them "if you want change, why didn't you vote for it?" .

Because I don't have the millions of dollars needed to buy my vote/influence. Now if we could see which politicians owed which corporations we could at least vote for the guy backed by the companies we dont hate as much. Oh this guy owes a lot to GM but this guy over here owes a lot to Apple. Lets vote for the Apple guy because we really don't want GM running the government.

But we don't even get that.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Athens 

No no, I want to see the listings you saw in your paper. I want to see what millions of jobs look like in a single paper. Because you act like there is enough jobs for every job seeker...

Who said millions? Well, this is TN, we don't have millions of people, but we do have quite a few jobs listed. Enjoy, looks like a lot were added just today!

Jobs in Tennessee

[Athens]

LOL first one I look at in my field the very first line is

"Candidates must have right to work in the United States."

Shucks guess im out of luck (at least until my green card gets approved)

183 Jobs in IT Services in Tennessee (6.4 Million People, 1 IT job for every 34,972 people and 104 of those in Nashville)
http://jobsearch.local-jobs.monster....nxnewssentinel

181 jobs in IT Services in BC (4.5 Million People, 1 IT job for every 24,861 people)
http://jobsearch.monster.ca/jobs/Bri...ad=32-km&cy=ca

I like my odds here at home thank you

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Athens 

LOL first one I look at in my field the very first line is

"Candidates must have right to work in the United States."

Shucks guess im out of luck (at least until my green card gets approved)

Well, that's hardly my fault, you asked for listings in TN.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

The job market isn't great, but blaming the faceless "rich" doesn't help. The populace sold their birthright for cool gadgets and cheap conveniences, they're as much to blame as anyone, and you know it.

You're totally right. The same people calling out companies like Samsung for their manufacturing conditions buy Samsung devices...like me for example. The only difference is that I postulate a company that uses slave labor can pay Americans a fair salary to manufacture goods and still turn a profit, just not a super-duper over-the-top profit.

Greed is the single biggest factor determining the fate of our country. Pure, rampant greed. Some people, such as myself, do not see the amassing of wealth to be a goal and are perfectly happy working our stupid little jobs for fair pay and living out our happy simplistic lives. Does this make me less of a man than someone who is worth billions? In this country it does. If I pushed numbers around for a living then I'd be a real go-getter I would, but instead I use my own two hands to build structures that will stand hundreds of years. Thing is honest work hasn't been valuable in this country for a loooong time. Companies can make an extra couple billion by enslaving children in other countries, and buy the loyalty of politicians who make sure they can continue raping the world in order to make a few extra bucks for their investors.

The culture of money and greed will have its day.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Well, that's hardly my fault, you asked for listings in TN.

No I asked for the listings in your news paper

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Athens 

No I asked for the listings in your news paper

Many of those listings are in my newspaper, the jobs section is several pages long.

Also, you may have to look outside your field. I had to do that myself at one time, even washed dishes for a summer to make ends meet. Things like that happen, but I turned out okay.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by sek929 

You're totally right. The same people calling out companies like Samsung for their manufacturing conditions buy Samsung devices...like me for example. The only difference is that I postulate a company that uses slave labor can pay Americans a fair salary to manufacture goods and still turn a profit, just not a super-duper over-the-top profit.

Greed is the single biggest factor determining the fate of our country. Pure, rampant greed. Some people, such as myself, do not see the amassing of wealth to be a goal and are perfectly happy working our stupid little jobs for fair pay and living out our happy simplistic lives. Does this make me less of a man than someone who is worth billions? In this country it does. If I pushed numbers around for a living then I'd be a real go-getter I would, but instead I use my own two hands to build structures that will stand hundreds of years. Thing is honest work hasn't been valuable in this country for a loooong time. Companies can make an extra couple billion by enslaving children in other countries, and buy the loyalty of politicians who make sure they can continue raping the world in order to make a few extra bucks for their investors.

The culture of money and greed will have its day.

I guess the answer is, stop buying their stuff. I buy local, hand-made items every time I get the chance. It's not as cheap, but those things are usually higher quality and buying them has the added benefit of helping the people who live near me. The other day I went and bought some really nice hand-knitted sweaters at the local crafts fair. They weren't much more expensive than what I see at the high-end retail places. We do the same thing with groceries and most other household items. Support your local economy.

Of course, that doesn't help when it comes to electronics, because we've destroyed the domestic electronics industry, but I don't suppose there's much we can do about that now.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Why didn't they do these protests during the bailouts? Where were they then? That was the time to get angry and stop them from getting a bunch of money. Oh wait they were all begging the government to DO something (aka bailout banks with their tax dollars) to prevent a total COLLAPSE of society because they said government was trustworthy and knows what its doing. This seems all too late... I agree, what are they protesting now anyway?

Many things really, I'm just not sure they know it. I think this movement is little more than angst looking for a cause. There are folks trying to help them with a cogent message, but I'm not sure it's done cooking yet. After all, most of its activists aren't. I think at the core of this is disappointment with the President, but they don't want him out of office. They're afraid that his record may not be strong enough to overcome his challengers and they're lashing out. Obama has been increasingly critical toward "the rich" and has been actively tying this albatross around the necks of Republicans. This movement is simply an arm of that agenda and ironically, unemployment just shovels fuel into it. If it is to be founded on anything, it would be ignorance of their own disappointment.

Like bitchin' to yourself about that guy's Lexus while standing on railroad tracks.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Maybe the protesters will be satisfied when some/all of the following is visible?

- the rich and powerful can not buy politicians and influence elections as much as they do (i.e. campaign finance reform)

There've been many. What sort of reforms do you want? Are you sure your preferred candidate would survive without the rich and powerful behind him/her as much as they are? Whether we like it or not, it costs a lot of money to brand yourself for votes. Unless we don't vote any more which I'm sure you'd agree isn't good. What's most ironic is among the worst examples of manipulating elections is recruiting them off Craigslist.

- our national conversation steers away from how to cater to these so-called job creators, how to give them more tax breaks, etc. and the idea of raising the taxes of the very wealthy as most Americans seem to want to do gains some political capital so that it is at least a part of the conversation

That's my issue with all this... tax them more for what?

- financial regulatory reform (whatever happened with this anyway? Was it shot down?) Put an end to all financial monkey business that involves hi-risk gambling

The problem is, what your government wants to do is very expensive. The more it wants to do, the more dependent it will be on the fat-cats that influence it. Otherwise, you're just asking government to impose a moral value you happen to agree with.

- close tax loopholes

Totally agree, corporations don't do this.

- the non wealthy elite or those without a media platform having more political power and access to the media in a very general way (i.e. a general call to action for the working/middle class)

I don't get this. Never before has their been more working/middle class access to media, in the most general way imaginable. A kid with a $250 computer/camera setup in his bedroom can utilize the outlet provided him via Google/You Tube to share with people on the other side of the globe.

Whether the rallies will accomplish any of this is another story, but I think these sorts of things are the goals of the protesters. I don't know how they'll ascertain whether these goals have been met either, but more realistically, a protest like this is intended to simply push us in the right direction as a country. It may have already succeeded to some extent, or not.

We disagree here for sure. I think it's founded on antagonism and cannot be expected to bear fruit. I'll tell you what though, as long as it doesn't get violent in a stupid way, I will concede that it was productive.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There've been many. What sort of reforms do you want? Are you sure your preferred candidate would survive without the rich and powerful behind him/her as much as they are? Whether we like it or not, it costs a lot of money to brand yourself for votes. Unless we don't vote any more which I'm sure you'd agree isn't good. What's most ironic is among the worst examples of manipulating elections is recruiting them off Craigslist.

I don't give a rat's ass whether candidate a or b will survive, I root for my ideas to succeed, I can't get excited over a candidate that doesn't support the ideas most important to me whether that candidate is Obama, the corpse of Abraham Lincoln, or MacNN Abe.

The reforms I want are the elimination of PACs that exploit loopholes that enable unfair financial advantages, funding from lobbyists, the supreme court ruling pertaining to donations overturned, etc.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/22/bu...pagewanted=all

That's my issue with all this... tax them more for what?

At this point we can't even get to this question, because the very premise is a non-starter to some who insist that government should not seek out additional revenue.

The problem is, what your government wants to do is very expensive. The more it wants to do, the more dependent it will be on the fat-cats that influence it. Otherwise, you're just asking government to impose a moral value you happen to agree with.

I'm asking government to have more of a spine and not get the fat-cats influence as much as they do. They can still get along just fine with slightly less friendly economic/regulatory/environmental/etc. policy.

I don't get this. Never before has their been more working/middle class access to media, in the most general way imaginable. A kid with a $250 computer/camera setup in his bedroom can utilize the outlet provided him via Google/You Tube to share with people on the other side of the globe.

This is true, but why has government been seemingly blindsided by the surge of OWS?

We disagree here for sure. I think it's founded on antagonism and cannot be expected to bear fruit. I'll tell you what though, as long as it doesn't get violent in a stupid way, I will concede that it was productive.

What you see is a lack of consistent focus, but this is pretty common among all organized activism, it's not like the Tea Party was terribly focused and coherent either. Some protesters are so unfocused that they might as well not be protesting until they get their prostitute together, and some don't have their facts straight, but I've listed so many valid causes for these protests (even if you disagree with them I hope we can agree that they are valid). If just one of these causes hits home and motivates, this is not based on completely misdirected antagonism.

If you are willing to concede that these might be productive, will you also concede that what fueled your original mockery in this thread was based on your own bias?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There've been many. What sort of reforms do you want? Are you sure your preferred candidate would survive without the rich and powerful behind him/her as much as they are? Whether we like it or not, it costs a lot of money to brand yourself for votes. Unless we don't vote any more which I'm sure you'd agree isn't good. What's most ironic is among the worst examples of manipulating elections is recruiting them off Craigslist.

The creation of civilian watchdog agencies to oversee corporate activity in each economic sector.

Increased financial and legal penalties for corporate illegality.

Expanded protection for whistleblower employees.

A requirement that corporations must legally represent not only the interests of shareholders, but also those of their employees, customers, and society and the environment at large.

Contribution limits by individuals and organizations to political campaigns.

That's my issue with all this... tax them more for what?

How about just tax them at the same % for all forms of income. Capital gain taxes should be the same % as working income taxes. Why should a billionaire who makes millions a year on interest or a investor who makes millions a year on investments pay a much lower % rate then those that work hard for money.

The problem is, what your government wants to do is very expensive. The more it wants to do, the more dependent it will be on the fat-cats that influence it. Otherwise, you're just asking government to impose a moral value you happen to agree with.

No, companies that profit and profit big on services which we want are what is costly. Government controlled by those same companies is why they get away with it. The amount of tax money wasted is incalculable. Why would any member of government who is only going to be employed in government for 4 -8 years is going to lift any finger to make things safer, cheaper and more accountable if the next job they have is going to be a high position in one of the corporations that funded him to get into government in the first place.

Totally agree, corporations don't do this.

Yes they do, they encourage members of government to turn a blind eye to holes, or to create them in the first place.

I don't get this. Never before has their been more working/middle class access to media, in the most general way imaginable. A kid with a $250 computer/camera setup in his bedroom can utilize the outlet provided him via Google/You Tube to share with people on the other side of the globe.

Media has never been more controlled and more groomed then at any point in history either.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I think many people would have been more comfortable with the bank bailouts if they were followed up with regulatory reform, an end to the practices that created the mess, etc.

Instead, it seemed like it was pretty much just:

1) bail out
2) back to business as usual

I guess I wasn't surprised at the back to business as usual. People called me cynical, as usual, but it all happen the way I predicted it. This is a perfect example of people puting too much faith in government.

People don't do the right thing, not when it requires any amount of work, sacrifice or going against the system, and they especially don't do the right thing when operating in large communal bureaucratic groups such as government or corporations; such a thing would be carrier suicide. It's not governments purpose to regulate justly. That may be its purpose to you, but from the perspective of government, it's goal must line up with the people who run it; and their goal is to preserve their own power, and when opportunity arises their goal is to gain more power. This is the goal all regulations and laws have in mind; and why "more regulations" is not the answer. Even if they did impose more regulations on the wall street (which Im not opposed to), it would not have a result that ends in your favor. You see there is no real "loop holes" to close as everyone misleadingly thinks. These large organizations have ways around all of it no matter the regulation. Regulations primarily are used to generate profit for government from small businesses who don't have ways around them.

This is how the whole thing is playing out to me:
1. Government and corporations conspire against everyone like they always do.

2. Back when it mattered; when people tried talking politics with the young liberal college kids who are protesting now, they would have said " I hate politics. Who cares about politics? Just have fun, smoke some weed man, legalize weed its the most important issue, support gay rights what ever that is its the most important issue. hehehe stupid dork boring old people... The glass is half full... people should be more positive... lets go party and drink mann. Have u evr tried mixing alcohol with weed. Come over to watch some jackass videos with my $50/month cable...hehe you said come. No lets watch it on my $70 a month smart phone plan... Mann I only have $80 left for weed this week, the man just wont pay us any money, cuz they're greedy"

3. Republicanists said "gig em there ain't no conspiracies Jeez whats with all you the sky is falling nut jobs... If corporations really did bad business they would fail, then small business could prevail. They're all making profit so I thinks ther be nuthin wrong with the way they dos business. They're'all so efficient compared to small business that's why they put everyone else out of business... now let me go say the pledge of allegiance to the government and corporate america #$%$ YEAH"

4. Years of poor bureaucratic inefficient corrupt business practices causes corporate America to face bankruptcy. Some of the top 1% are on the verge of losing most their wealth. Small business is about to have its day in the sun as it picks up all the pieces.

5. Government and its largest corporations use scare tactics to convince uneducated lemmings (the 99%) that if you don't just give them money IMMEDIATELY society will be cast into the stone age and banks will foreclose on people's houses, and the whole economy will come to a grinding halt without wall street and its productive gambling activities that are just too complicated to explain to anyone.

6. Republican and democrat 99 percenters are like "OMG OMG OMG THE SKY IF FALLING!!!! Give em money! Giv em whatever dey ask for! We trust you to do yer jobs government, you guys know whats best and understand this economy stuff way better than us dumb asses. Mann we're so glad to have an american government the only democratic government in da world who can solve our problems for us. We don't want to lose em big corporations! we all want jobs frm them! whooz going to hire us?!!?! da global economy de global economyyyyy it must be saved at all costs...

7. Government hands wall street keys to vault; wall street takes money and goes into competition mode. They buy each other, they foreclose on every house they intended too before, government rewrites laws so banks can generate even more record profits from foreclosures. Everyone else predictably gets screwed just like they have every other time this has happened throughout history. Small business doesn't have it's day in the sun, instead it now must compete with large corps operating on cash freely handed to them.

8. People get political when it's too late. Instead of getting educated on whats really going on, or how to intelligently address the problem they take to the streets shaking sticks and grunting at wall street buildings... Some people do yoga in the street to protest something about wall street. Really they should be protesting the choices they made with their votes and faith in government; they're the ones who gave the top 1% all the power in the first place. You can't blame wall street. Corporations have no morals and can't be expected to.

9. el chupacabra predicts history will repeat itself for the nth +1 time before the century is up, since nobody reads the history books that matter.

This whole protest thing is a perfect example of Twain's quote:

It is always the way; words will answer as long as it is only a person's neighbor who is in trouble, but when that person gets into trouble himself, it is time that the King rise up and do something.

Sorry but it's a bit too late now. Shouldn't have trusted government or wall street to do the right thing® in the first place. Should have been more political before government gave wall street the keys to the vault.

"the top 1% don't control everything; they don't control anything; the 99% control everything. The top 1% just use the ignorance of the top 99% to manipulate them into controlling things in the 1%'s favor."
-his greatness the wise el chupacabra, ocean of wisdom


Bank Bailouts Explained - YouTube

Quantitative Easing Explained - YouTube

[Athens]

Generation HOW: Taxed to death - News Hour - Videos | Global BC

Taxes and taxes and taxes or and more taxes sigh....

[Athens]

Wow its getting attention that is fore sure

Gorbachev says Wall Street protests justified - British Columbia - CBC News

The Occupy Wall Street protests that are spreading around the globe are significant and justified, former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev said Thursday.

Speaking through an interpreter in Vancouver, Gorbachev said he respected the movement, but warned that unspecified "extremist elements" might try to hijack it.

"What we have to bear in mind is that there is a reason for such a protest," Gorbachev, 80, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, said after a speech to high school students.

"When we see [Americans] protesting, I think that means a great deal."

Better in Canada, says Jim Flaherty
In Ottawa, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said the U.S. protesters decrying the income gap between rich and poor have a point.

At the same time, Flaherty suggested the situation was better in Canada, a view movement sympathizers dismissed as wrong-headed and self-serving.

"We have a progressive income tax, and it favours the people with lower incomes who are vulnerable," Flaherty said in Ottawa.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty says Canada has a fairer tax system than the U.S. CBCThe Manhattan protests, which have spread across the U.S. and are due to arrive in Canada on the weekend, have taken aim at what they see as government-abetted corporate greed that has served only the interests of the richest elites.

I can't believe for once I agree with that idiot Flaherty.... The world is going to hell in a hand basket.

[screener]

Originally Posted by Athens 

I can't believe for once I agree with that idiot Flaherty.... The world is going to hell in a hand basket.

Freaking hippie.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Athens 

LOL first one I look at in my field the very first line is

"Candidates must have right to work in the United States."

Shucks guess im out of luck (at least until my green card gets approved)

183 Jobs in IT Services in Tennessee (6.4 Million People, 1 IT job for every 34,972 people and 104 of those in Nashville)
Computer & IT Services Jobs in Tennessee

181 jobs in IT Services in BC (4.5 Million People, 1 IT job for every 24,861 people)
Computer & IT Services Jobs in BC - Classic Job Search

I like my odds here at home thank you

Your logic is off on this my friend. If the entire population of the State were seeking IT jobs, there wouldn't be 183 IT jobs available. Besides, does societal justice hinge upon whether or not one can find a job in information technology?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I don't give a rat's ass whether candidate a or b will survive, I root for my ideas to succeed, I can't get excited over a candidate that doesn't support the ideas most important to me whether that candidate is Obama, the corpse of Abraham Lincoln, or MacNN Abe.

Your ideas succeed through the vehicles that deliver its message besson. When the idea has to be taken across more than 300 million people, it will cost money. I trust you can find a number of millionaires working right now at your message. You have to put your money where your mouth is and donate to that vehicle. There's simply no way around the fact that branding is expensive. The candidate espousing your preferred ideas needs money to survive an election into office to put about the changes you're seeking.

The reforms I want are the elimination of PACs that exploit loopholes that enable unfair financial advantages, funding from lobbyists, the supreme court ruling pertaining to donations overturned, etc.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/22/bu...pagewanted=all

The posterchild for the disgust of PACs in your article was Perry, but Perry is performing abysmally among Republicans. I don't think they carry quite the weight you think they do. I understand your concern and my biggest concern would be the foreign money influence on US elections, but with regard to the megaphones in the US, we're treading dangerously close to inhibiting freedom of speech. I'm somewhat torn on this one to be honest. Again, there's no getting around the fact that no matter who you are, regardless of message, you need money to communicate it. There are already a wealth of laws requiring disclosure and funding limitations, etc... and normally I'd say for change a candidate has to take the high road and say "ya know what, I'm not participating", but then this naiveté beat McCain over the head in the last election.

At this point we can't even get to this question, because the very premise is a non-starter to some who insist that government should not seek out additional revenue.

For me, it's not about whether or not the government could use the extra revenue, it's what the government is doing with the revenue it already gets. It makes no sense to continue pushing water through open pipes. It's just a very fundamental conundrum we have here. We would not treat any of our own financial matters in this way and expect a positive outcome yet when we talk about government, the entire discussion gets conflated with words like "revenue" forgetting that it's our revenue we're talking about here. It seems simple; tax wealth and/or tax the rich. After all, if we're not rich, it doesn't affect us. If we don't smoke, we're all for taxing cigarettes more. If we don't drink, we're all for taxing alcohol more. If we're not a corporation using millions of kilowatt hours of energy a week, we're all for taxing energy. Why? To reduce the behaviors we believe are reckless. But you see taxation has the same impact on wealth that it has on tobacco, alcohol, and energy. Reduction. Again, somehow when we talk about "those rich people", we seem to lose all common sense. We're not going to amass more money for whatever your ideas for progress are with policies that alienate it.

I'm asking government to have more of a spine and not get the fat-cats influence as much as they do. They can still get along just fine with slightly less friendly economic/regulatory/environmental/etc. policy.

That's just it, they can't. We already have among the highest corporate tax rates on the globe and economic freedoms ranking below many countries including Canada. You cannot continue to push money out of the country while proposing expensive government growth. If the government is to grow, it needs money. The more hostile the policies toward wealth, the less wealth will be available to tap into, and the less the government can grow. The more it wants to grow, the more it has to cuddle up to the ones with money.

This is true, but why has government been seemingly blindsided by the surge of OWS?

How do you mean blindsided? I think Union-backing is at the core of it and many on the left in office are attempting to coopt the movement just as those on the right did the Tea Party. The problem with OWC is that politicians are waiting for an overarching message to stand behind. After all, there's a hell of a lot of money on the left as well and they'd be shrewd to keep themselves an arm's length away. We'll see what comes of it.

What you see is a lack of consistent focus, but this is pretty common among all organized activism, it's not like the Tea Party was terribly focused and coherent either. Some protesters are so unfocused that they might as well not be protesting until they get their prostitute together, and some don't have their facts straight, but I've listed so many valid causes for these protests (even if you disagree with them I hope we can agree that they are valid). If just one of these causes hits home and motivates, this is not based on completely misdirected antagonism.

If you are willing to concede that these might be productive, will you also concede that what fueled your original mockery in this thread was based on your own bias?

Just as sek pointed out with his diagram, there are commonalities between movements. I just believe this particular movement is disconnected from a cogent message because it is not founded for anything, but merely against something. Interestingly, it is against the very things giving the movement the thrust it has; it just doesn't know.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Athens 

The creation of civilian watchdog agencies to oversee corporate activity in each economic sector.

Who creates the watchdog agencies? Is this not potentially rife with abuses? There are already a wealth of online "civilian" resources for determining whether or not a company is acting in the public trust. If people aren't paying attention, creating more inaudible noise isn't going to help.

Increased financial and legal penalties for corporate illegality.

This doesn't resolve the cuddly relationship between Big Government and Big Corporation. In fact, it only develops more relationships rife with abuses. Illegal immigration for example. If the government likes the potential voting bloc of those sympathetic to illegal immigrants, it may be more apt to turn a blind eye to the illegal hiring of said immigrants. If the head of GE is welcomed into the President's economic advisory panel for example, can you see how this may fare advantageous for GE?

Expanded protection for whistleblower employees.

You mean like book deals? Witness relocation program? I don't know what you mean here. Serious charges require serious investigation. You don't simply get to slander people without making a case.

A requirement that corporations must legally represent not only the interests of shareholders, but also those of their employees, customers, and society and the environment at large.

Don't you think a company not representing the interests of employees, customers, and society at large will have a difficult time maintaining customers, retaining employees, and garnering the support of society at large? I think they should simply be allowed to fail when they fail. Otherwise, these goals seem not only lofty, but entirely meaningless.

Contribution limits by individuals and organizations to political campaigns.

done.

How about just tax them at the same % for all forms of income. Capital gain taxes should be the same % as working income taxes. Why should a billionaire who makes millions a year on interest or a investor who makes millions a year on investments pay a much lower % rate then those that work hard for money.

Couple of problems. The money that goes into the venture is taxed and the money pulled from the venture is taxed. People complaining about the tax rate on investors don't understand how investments work. Plus, a government that wants to grow, needs money to grow. The more it wants to grow, the more it needs to cuddle up to the money interest. A smaller government with less bureaucracy like civilian anti-corporate action committees will be less beholden to Corporate interest.

No, companies that profit and profit big on services which we want are what is costly. Government controlled by those same companies is why they get away with it. The amount of tax money wasted is incalculable. Why would any member of government who is only going to be employed in government for 4 -8 years is going to lift any finger to make things safer, cheaper and more accountable if the next job they have is going to be a high position in one of the corporations that funded him to get into government in the first place.

This is the biggest problem I have with this mentality. Government is not controlled by Big Corporation. Big Corporation is feeding off of Government and Big Government controls the relationship. The Bigger Government wants to be, the more money it will need from Big Corporation. Big Government has to welcome in Big Corporation for it to have any influence. A government that does less, requires less, including less Big Corporation dollars.

Yes they do, they encourage members of government to turn a blind eye to holes, or to create them in the first place.

If members of government want more government, they'll need more money.

Media has never been more controlled and more groomed then at any point in history either.

You'll get no argument from me on this. Their relative silence during the last election is much of why we're in the mess we're in.

[Kerrigan]

At the end of the day, it's all about money. Tea Partiers are angry because the money that they've accumulated through hard work is being wasted by the government, and they worry that the problem is getting exponentially worse.

The Flea Party (Occupy Wall Street crowds) want money given to them. They want handouts, free college, guaranteed jobs, etc. They want more of other peoples' money, in a nutshell.

If you think that these protests have some loftier goal, then you are a fool. The Tea Party isn't about racism, and the Flea party isn't about any attainable social policy . . . it's all about money.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

At the end of the day, it's all about money. Tea Partiers are angry because the money that they've accumulated through hard work is being wasted by the government, and they worry that the problem is getting exponentially worse.

The Flea Party (Occupy Wall Street crowds) want money given to them. They want handouts, free college, guaranteed jobs, etc. They want more of other peoples' money, in a nutshell.

If you think that these protests have some loftier goal, then you are a fool. The Tea Party isn't about racism, and the Flea party isn't about any attainable social policy . . . it's all about money.

Feel better?

We've gone over the motivations behind this movement in this thread. Why not address this rather than saying dumb tired ponies and rainbows like this?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

At the end of the day, it's all about money. Tea Partiers are angry because the money that they've accumulated through hard work is being wasted by the government, and they worry that the problem is getting exponentially worse.

The Flea Party (Occupy Wall Street crowds) want money given to them. They want handouts, free college, guaranteed jobs, etc. They want more of other peoples' money, in a nutshell.

If you think that these protests have some loftier goal, then you are a fool. The Tea Party isn't about racism, and the Flea party isn't about any attainable social policy . . . it's all about money.

Wow your logic is flawed and your flat out wrong. The Flea Party as you call it is not about wanting free handouts. Maybe some of them are but most want changes in waste, and more important the political control that the rich have over every one. We want a proper government that governs for the people not business. Guess your part of the 1%, worried about being lynched if this movement takes off?

[el chupacabra]

If the protesters were smart they'd organize a run on the banks, stop taking out loans, or something that targets pension / 401k funds. They all use wall streets services yet aren't being forced to.