[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No. I used the word "direct" to reiterate that one has an unmistakable bearing on your livelihood in its laws and its funding. There is no greater relationship for the public trust. I'm hesitant to accept the possibility that this movement, which is decidedly focused on those of you and I with material/paper wealth instead of those with a pen; could ever work toward shaking the system.

I agree, but I applaud their efforts and attempt to try.

They don't go hand in hand, one is the symptom of the other. Of course I don't have to write all this besson. If I were addressing you exclusively I'd say; "we just disagree" and in every thread, every post, and at every opportunity we'd have nothing more to say to one another than "we disagree". I'm posting in a forum because it's more fun for me. Your posts are useful for exploiting and addressing a more pervasive mentality, nothing personal. I'll find a less offensive way of spring-boarding into my rants.

I appreciate that, but I would add that I don't think anybody in here needed what seemed like a lecture. It sort of came across as a Big Mac style rail against fictitious enemies sort of rant...

To the forum:
You see, some folks don't understand that government can generally only print, borrow, take money, or inject itself into the free market to compete with you. Yet with all four sources of revenue available to it, continues to amass debt exceeding $14 trillion. IMO parroting this Administration's narrative in protests isn't going to solve the problems apparent in our system. Worse, it insulates the system and turns your attention to you and I because of our incomes. Saying you don't buy the fact that government needs corporations while it actively recruits them to carry out its lofty agenda is not going to be enough at this point.

Why does it have to be either bend over backwards and let corporations do whatever they want, or else shunning them and ostracizing them entirely? There is an in-between, you know: simply tempering what we have now. These change start with push-back, which is what a protest can help get started.

I don't buy the notion that the so-called "job creators" (that haven't been doing a good job creating jobs for quite some time now) will face extinction if we don't let them pretty much write their own legislation. This market and the wealth within this country is too big for any smart business person to ignore, and this will not change anytime soon including if we push back on the corporate/government marriage some. If your argument is that these companies will relocate en masse if we tax them a little more, for instance, they'll do that anyway if their production/operation costs are cheaper somewhere else, it is a fool's game to chase after the sorts of jobs that are going away due to globalization.

This country has plenty of wealth for companies to try to convince to relinquish, there is plenty of room for tempering what we have now.

No one has the healthcare costs we have because our usage is subsidizing theirs and our own expenses are primarily subsidized by someone else. Otherwise, I agree that we should've done something about this years ago.

Rubbish.

We aren't subsidizing their day-to-day operational costs, we are feeding new medical science, technology, research, innovation into these markets for now, because we have a lot of private capital.

If we were to reduce our costs, these companies would simply have to find new customers to operate from. There is a growing global market for this. If the advancement of medical science has to be retarded temporarily until these companies make this transition to penetrating global markets, so be it. We simply can't afford to keep increasing our costs, we are well beyond our breaking point.

And the majority of the collective has benefited from the system the way it is.

This is vague. If the collective means the general public, those that can afford their health care have benefited, sure. That most people including many small businesses can't is not a trivial matter.

I don't think the majority of the kids in the OWS movement could have an idea of exactly what it is they're missing out on, evidenced by their focus IMO.

That's why I said the OWS founders.

Again, you are being a hypocrite here. As I've said, every protest group has had their share of lacking focus among its participants, including the Tea Party protesters. I just want you to acknowledge this, because IIRC you were awfully silent during the Tea Party protests.

I think they want their guy to stay in office, I think they're disgruntled at the fact that he's in trouble politically, and I think many of them wished he would shove harder to the left. They don't see anyone on the right who will do this for them and overall, they're concerned a Republican will take the White House so they're attempting to give Obama's message a little boost. They "occupied" the Republican debate last night, but have they occupied any of Obama's numerous visits around the country the past couple of weeks?

I don't really give a smoke what the unwashed masses of protesters want or think they want, I care about the founders and the original intent of the protests that inspired all of this, not what it has mutated to by the hordes of brainless twits out there dancing around in costumes think they want.

Stop conflating the individual protesters with the intent of the movement's founders, or else be consistent and mock the Tea Party protesters too

I not only admitted my own bias

Sorry, I must have missed this. Where, just for my future reference? I appreciate this, but I completely missed this.

but insisted that you can't put too much thought into these matters without developing one. I saw the Tea Party as a direct challenge to the Republican party and has manifest as such, again shaking the party to its core and pissing off the establishment. I don't see this movement challenging the system or attempting to shake it to the core. Time will tell, but for now it appears little more than parroting this Administration's talking points about "the rich" while calling for more wealth distribution and more government action. I maintain what they're protesting is the product of a punitive mentality against prosperity and more government action.

See above, you are conflating the protesters with its founders.

Right. It's interested in "Wall Street", whatever that is. They'd do well to start by checking their own greed IMO and deciding exactly what it is they want and hope to gain by protesting it.

Wall St. is merely a symbol of the entire system. The original founders are mostly concerned with the larger picture, the systemic failure which has led to our present, not the individual symptoms/benefactors/exploiters/whatever.

I maintain that you support all of this, you just don't realize it.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Most of the means to produce banking services in the US is owned by government? And here I'd thought that the Flash Blob was protesting precisely the opposite situation. Not to mention that Bank of America, Chase, Citi, and hundreds of small local banks would beg to differ.

Why does it have to be most? Can it just be growing? For whatever reason, propose the removal of some regulations and there's no limit to the horrific images of cigar-chomping abuses, but mention a growing centralized authority and all of a sudden we have no imagination at all. Look, I don't think it makes sense to decry socialism after we're already entirely or even mostly mired in it.

To your point, the banks themselves are privately-owned financial institutions which is what the Flash Blob is protesting, but you see the government shares of these institutions including $25 billion in preferred stock in JP Morgan, Chase and Citigroup, Bank of America/ Merrill Lynch, another $25 billion in Wells Fargo, and $10 billion in Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs and subsequent growth in lending regulations and stop-losses are all governed by oversight that gives government an increasing share in this productivity. When the government dictates who to lend to and backs the bad paper with its own variety of insurances, you have kids protesting rich people in the street. This just proves that all we need is a suitable crisis for government to move in.

State Farm and Allstate and all the various insurance and reinsurance providers out there are government-owned?

All of them? Certainly not, but then it'd be a little late if this were the case. Socialism by definition is transitional. It doesn't happen over night. It happens most effectively by making the best of a bad situation, one crisis at a time.

Doctors and hospitals (i.e. the means of producing healthcare) are owned by the government?

60-65% of healthcare provisions and spending come from programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE, the Children's Health Insurance Program, and the Veterans Health Administration. Insurers?!? What insurers?

Aside from being educated in public institutions, health care providers are subjected to a wealth of increasing of regulations and controls on medical providers, straining their ability to produce and driving up costs for all of us.

AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Disney, Clear Channel, and many other local entities are government owned?

Ask any one of them if the FCC and related, growing regulations hamper their ability to produce.

Once again, UAL, AMR, Delta, and Southwest (among others) beg to differ.

Most airports are publically-owned and again, ask any one of them if the FAA, the TSA, and the related, growing regulations hamper their ability to produce.

And then the government got back out. Hardly a move toward socialism. If anything, it's more recently a move away.

I disagree. It's just proof of how easy it is in response to enter crisis here.

The federal government owns my house? News to me! (State and local authorities I can see an argument given my property tax burden. But the Feds? No.)

Government-related entities backed 96.5% of all home loans during the first quarter of 2010, up from 90% in 2009, according to Inside Mortgage Finance. The increase was driven by a jump in the share of loans backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-owned housing-finance giants. My first loan was an FHA first-home buyers loan and is actually extremely popular.

...and here all this time I thought the role of private banks was to give loans. Silly me, I guess.

Right and since when would they have actively sought lending opportunities for unworthy credit risks?

Which represent 'ownership' exactly how? Even the founding fathers thought regulating commerce was a good idea and necessary function of government. It's right there in Article I Section 8.

Regulating commerce and actively competing with the private sector while imposing legal challenges to its success are two different things.

Have there been regulations that have been ill-conceived? Sure. Doesn't make it fit the definition of 'socialism'.

Correct. By your very definition, there is simply no way to view our direction as anything even remotely approaching Socialism. There is simply zero evidence that the government owns the means of producing goods in this country. If it did, then conservatives wouldn't be admonishing these people to shut up and go find a job (since anyone can do so). They'd be joining in the protest.

For some, there is absolutely nothing that will convince them of momentum toward socialism. They keep looking for little mustaches and red arm bands.

[Lint Police]

hypocrites. all of them.

i want free stuff!
Occupy Wall Street Protester Wants College Paid For Because That's What He Wants - YouTube

Prepaid Cards - Credit, Debit, Prepaid - Rushcard


Capital One Venture Card Commercial "Airport" - YouTube

[besson3c]

Huh?

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Why does it have to be most? Can it just be growing? For whatever reason, propose the removal of some regulations and there's no limit to the horrific images of cigar-chomping abuses, but mention a growing centralized authority and all of a sudden we have no imagination at all. Look, I don't think it makes sense to decry socialism after we're already entirely or even mostly mired in it.

Well Chicken Little fears about it when we're nowhere near it don't really help either.

To your point, the banks themselves are privately-owned financial institutions which is what the Flash Blob is protesting, but you see the government shares of these institutions including $25 billion in preferred stock in JP Morgan, Chase and Citigroup, Bank of America/ Merrill Lynch, another $25 billion in Wells Fargo, and $10 billion in Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs and subsequent growth in lending regulations and stop-losses are all governed by oversight that gives government an increasing share in this productivity.

Last time I checked, I can walk down to my friendly neighborhood trader and buy ownership shares in any of these institutions. Quite frankly, until that changes, I'm not particularly concerned. Still not passing the 'means of production is government-owned' smell test. Sorry, try again.

On a side note, I'd thought back a few years ago conservatives wanted the government to invest in private industry to prop up Social Security. When they do, suddenly it's Chicken Little. Interesting.

When the government dictates who to lend to and backs the bad paper with its own variety of insurances, you have kids protesting rich people in the street. This just proves that all we need is a suitable crisis for government to move in.

Wow. I've heard of moving the goal posts, but this is trying to change the goal posts into a home run fence. What does this have to do with government ownership? Says absolutely nothing about any change in control for the means of production.

All these institutions operated on their free will. Even if the government opened the door for them to write bad paper, they more than willingly walked through it. Cry me a river.

All of them? Certainly not, but then it'd be a little late if this were the case. Socialism by definition is transitional. It doesn't happen over night. It happens most effectively by making the best of a bad situation, one crisis at a time.

Yes, yes - I get it now. The sky is falling. Call me when there's something actually impacting the means of production. Still not meeting or even remotely approaching the definition of socialism.

60-65% of healthcare provisions and spending come from programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE, the Children's Health Insurance Program, and the Veterans Health Administration. Insurers?!? What insurers?

Ah, so we're back to insurance. Well, in the healthcare industry, BCBS, UHC, Aetna, and others beg to differ. I'm sure they're clamoring to add all those high-risk patients to their risk pools.

Once again, you're free to start your own health insurance business and cover those folks. And those folks are free to buy any coverage they can find (and they often do buy supplemental coverage). No one is 'owning' the means of production. Bzzt. Try again.

Aside from being educated in public institutions, health care providers are subjected to a wealth of increasing of regulations and controls on medical providers, straining their ability to produce and driving up costs for all of us.

So now public education is control over the means of production? OK - now the goal post is a basketball hoop. Nice work.

Ask any one of them if the FCC and related, growing regulations hamper their ability to produce.

Ah, and now 'regulation'= 'ownership'. What is the goal post this time, a hockey net?

Regulation enables their ability to produce as much, if not more, than it hampers it. Look over the brim of your tinfoil hat and you might see a glimpse of the forest through the trees of 'evil regulations'.

Most airports are publically-owned and again, ask any one of them if the FAA, the TSA, and the related, growing regulations hamper their ability to produce.

Again with the regulation = ownership. I really think you need to go back and review your own definition.

I disagree. It's just proof of how easy it is in response to enter crisis here.

So was the Patriot Act. All these things always will be that way. You can shrink the government all you want today -- if something tomorrow comes up that has overwhelming popular support, we the people will find a way to make it happen. So what's your point?

In this case, it wasn't even that scary. The government's actions (by getting in and getting out) showed it wasn't interested in controlling the means of production (i.e. Socialism). It was interested in keeping these ostensibly TBTF companies as going concerns, and as private entities to boot. You may not like how it picked winners and losers, and I can understand that, but that still does not fit your definition of socialism.

Government-related entities backed 96.5% of all home loans during the first quarter of 2010, up from 90% in 2009, according to Inside Mortgage Finance. The increase was driven by a jump in the share of loans backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-owned housing-finance giants. My first loan was an FHA first-home buyers loan and is actually extremely popular.

My house is paid for. I thought we were talking about housing since we already covered the banks.

If you want to talk mortgages, well, last I checked, the banks are free to give loans that aren't government backed. They just choose not to because they profit more from letting the government assume more risk. Still doesn't pass the 'government owns means of production' test.

Right and since when would they have actively sought lending opportunities for unworthy credit risks?

Well, I guess since they were doing it. But I know - they were just innocent rubes - all the blame should go to the enabler.

Regulating commerce and actively competing with the private sector while imposing legal challenges to its success are two different things.

Yes they are. And if I ever see any of it come anywhere near threatening to control the means of production, I'll get concerned.

For some, there is absolutely nothing that will convince them of momentum toward socialism. They keep looking for little mustaches and red arm bands.

For others, there is absolutely nothing that will convince them that small actions don't equate to socialism in the big picture. They're too busy adjusting their tinfoil hats to look beyond their little sphere.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Well Chicken Little fears about it when we're nowhere near it don't really help either.

Last time I checked, I can walk down to my friendly neighborhood trader and buy ownership shares in any of these institutions. Quite frankly, until that changes, I'm not particularly concerned. Still not passing the 'means of production is government-owned' smell test. Sorry, try again.

This is all I needed to know. You're not concerned until you see little mustaches and red arm-bands.

On a side note, I'd thought back a few years ago conservatives wanted the government to invest in private industry to prop up Social Security. When they do, suddenly it's Chicken Little. Interesting.

I think your sources twisted this up a bit for you. The argument was that your rate of return on Social Security is weak; that people ought to be able to divert a portion of their payroll taxes into the market. They weren't arguing for the government to invest in private industry to prop up Social Security, more like... the other way around, without government.

Wow. I've heard of moving the goal posts, but this is trying to change the goal posts into a home run fence. What does this have to do with government ownership? Says absolutely nothing about any change in control for the means of production.

All these institutions operated on their free will. Even if the government opened the door for them to write bad paper, they more than willingly walked through it. Cry me a river.

Cry you a river? There's no need to get testy with me, I don't own you. When the government assumes a portion of risk, it is actively distorting the market at your expense on the front and back end. It creates bubbles where they would otherwise not exist. If you don't think one is more apt to gamble with someone else's money, there's not much I could do to convince you of the moral hazard created by mandating a certain percentage of a lending institution's portfolio contain bad risk, then subsidizing the problem with your revenue. Then, when it goes belly-up, taking more of your money to bail it out.

Yes, yes - I get it now. The sky is falling. Call me when there's something actually impacting the means of production. Still not meeting or even remotely approaching the definition of socialism.

Ah, so we're back to insurance. Well, in the healthcare industry, BCBS, UHC, Aetna, and others beg to differ. I'm sure they're clamoring to add all those high-risk patients to their risk pools.

They have tons of high-risk patients in their risk pools.

Once again, you're free to start your own health insurance business and cover those folks. And those folks are free to buy any coverage they can find (and they often do buy supplemental coverage). No one is 'owning' the means of production. Bzzt. Try again.

Bzzt. Talk about moving goalposts around. The fact that people would rather their health care be partially subsidized by the government should not surprise you in the least. I never said socialism was stupid for the selfish.

So now public education is control over the means of production? OK - now the goal post is a basketball hoop. Nice work.

It is when the average expense on financial aid is $154 billion for an average college tuition of more than $11k a year. You're right though, there's no productivity involved in these figures, money grows on trees that only rich people have by birthright.

Ah, and now 'regulation'= 'ownership'. What is the goal post this time, a hockey net?

No, of course the goalpost is little mustaches and red armbands. Seeing as your threshold for pain is exceedingly high, not concerned until you can no longer invest in the stock market, I'm going to assume that even self-proclaimed socialist models wouldn't satisfy your criteria of socialism.

Regulation enables their ability to produce as much, if not more, than it hampers it. Look over the brim of your tinfoil hat and you might see a glimpse of the forest through the trees of 'evil regulations'.

All regulation does is distort supply and demand, making decisions we're perfectly capable of making on our own and creating wink-nod relationships with the entities these kids are up in arms about.

So was the Patriot Act. All these things always will be that way. You can shrink the government all you want today -- if something tomorrow comes up that has overwhelming popular support, we the people will find a way to make it happen. So what's your point?

That entitlements create a dependency class while doing nothing for wealth disparity. The entitlements then cannot be challenged as they are an assault on seniors, an assault on the children, an assault on teachers, an assault on patients, an assault on _________. This is why an increasing percentage of welfare is being doled out to the Middle class, making dependents of them, and justifying an ever-growing bureaucracy. I'm not decrying the end result of communism, I'm decrying the product of socialism; a transitional governing model.

In this case, it wasn't even that scary. The government's actions (by getting in and getting out) showed it wasn't interested in controlling the means of production (i.e. Socialism). It was interested in keeping these ostensibly TBTF companies as going concerns, and as private entities to boot. You may not like how it picked winners and losers, and I can understand that, but that still does not fit your definition of socialism.

I maintain that for you, nothing will.

If you want to talk mortgages, well, last I checked, the banks are free to give loans that aren't government backed. They just choose not to because they profit more from letting the government assume more risk. Still doesn't pass the 'government owns means of production' test.

I'm not sure anything will CreepDogg.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This is all I needed to know. You're not concerned until you see little mustaches and red arm-bands.

No. I'm concerned when I see something that fits the definition you provided.

It is when the average expense on financial aid is $154 billion for an average college tuition of more than $11k a year. You're right though, there's no productivity involved in these figures, money grows on trees that only rich people have by birthright.

So basically your argument is that since public education exists and is the gateway into productivity for some in the industry (ignoring the fact that private education is another avenue), that government owns the means of production. Gotcha.

No, of course the goalpost is little mustaches and red armbands. Seeing as your threshold for pain is exceedingly high, not concerned until you can no longer invest in the stock market, I'm going to assume that even self-proclaimed socialist models wouldn't satisfy your criteria of socialism.

Once again, I'm just focusing on the definition you provided and am not subject to Chicken Little fears.

All regulation does is distort supply and demand, making decisions we're perfectly capable of making on our own and creating wink-nod relationships with the entities these kids are up in arms about.

Right - centralizing management of the frequency spectrum (FCC) is horrible for the communications industry. Putting aviation safety standards in place (FAA) that give customers confidence to patronize airlines is horrible for the airline industry. That's right - I forgot - all regulation is bad and everybody will just be open and transparent about what they're doing on their own. It's all puppies and unicorns in anarchy-land!

That entitlements create a dependency class while doing nothing for wealth disparity. The entitlements then cannot be challenged as they are an assault on seniors, an assault on the children, an assault on teachers, an assault on patients, an assault on _________. This is why an increasing percentage of welfare is being doled out to the Middle class, making dependents of them, and justifying an ever-growing bureaucracy. I'm not decrying the end result of communism, I'm decrying the product of socialism; a transitional governing model.

Well you won't get a lot of quibbles out of me over this. However, it has little to do with government owning the means of production.

I maintain that for you, nothing will.

I'm not sure anything will CreepDogg.

Hey, I'm just staying laser-focused on the definition you provided and applying your assertions to it. All I'm getting from you is unfocused rants about all the things government does that you don't like, and grumbling about government-corporate collusion and entitlements.

Hey - wait a minute! Unfocused rants...grumbling about government-corporate collusion... I'm beginning to think besson is right -- you have more in common with these protesters than you think!

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

They have tons of high-risk patients in their risk pools.

They don't seem happy about it. They refused the hell out of my high-risk ass.

The only way I have insurance is through a state CHIPS pool.

But, FWIW, it's still a private insurance provider, and I pay a frigging arm and a leg for it. At least it feels like an arm and a leg. Is $4,000/year a lot for a $5,000 deductible? I don't know what other people pay.

[Athens]

Wow, according to Vancouver its already cost $500 000 for the protest (mostly fudged numbers)

Occupy Vancouver protest costs city $500K so far - British Columbia - CBC News

[Athens]

LOL Cop's don't need to do anything the weather will end the protest in Vancouver

Global BC | Occupy Vancouver protesters need help staying dry

A Message from #OccupyVancouver - Oct. 21. 2011 - YouTube

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

They don't seem happy about it. They refused the hell out of my high-risk ass.

The only way I have insurance is through a state CHIPS pool.

But, FWIW, it's still a private insurance provider, and I pay a frigging arm and a leg for it. At least it feels like an arm and a leg. Is $4,000/year a lot for a $5,000 deductible? I don't know what other people pay.

It's a good question. How much is full healthcare coverage worth to you? You have the option of not having the insurance and saving the $4000/year, but then if it wasn't a net-gain for you to have the coverages you have, you'd likely not have it right?

It should be noted that the average profit margin of a health insurer is 3.3%; about a 1/4th what your local gas utility earns.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I appreciate that, but I would add that I don't think anybody in here needed what seemed like a lecture. It sort of came across as a Big Mac style rail against fictitious enemies sort of rant...

I'm not trying to create enemies. I simply maintain that our current ratio of government:market is skewing increasingly away from the free market. I'm annoyed that these protests are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. My perception is that their message is insulating the government from its due accountability by pointing a finger at those with material/paper wealth and that what their "founders" advocate would be destructive to what actually drives the US economy; not the monoliths propped up by government, but small businesses.

Why does it have to be either bend over backwards and let corporations do whatever they want, or else shunning them and ostracizing them entirely? There is an in-between, you know: simply tempering what we have now. These change start with push-back, which is what a protest can help get started.

They are yelling to tax the rich and increase regulation to protect the "little guy", but I'm telling you that this is only more of what we've gotten. If the money were to go into the debt for example, I might be more open-minded to it, but this Administration has already expressed an additional battery of programs it'd like to use this revenue on for the "little guy" and there's literally zero to suggest fiscal sanity. The in-between has been the compromises we have in place today where the wealthy (mind you, not the uber-rich who are actively participating in our legislative process in Washington as welcomed contributors) are paying exponentially more into a system that is merely making dependents out of the Middle class under an ever-increasing entitlement expenditure that has done nothing for income disparity. That's not what these folks are protesting at all. Not their "founders" and not their ilk. The fact that you repeatedly express what these founders are supposedly for without offering any specifics only illustrates the problem you all are having here. It's not for as much as it's against.

I don't buy the notion that the so-called "job creators" (that haven't been doing a good job creating jobs for quite some time now) will face extinction if we don't let them pretty much write their own legislation. This market and the wealth within this country is too big for any smart business person to ignore, and this will not change anytime soon including if we push back on the corporate/government marriage some. If your argument is that these companies will relocate en masse if we tax them a little more, for instance, they'll do that anyway if their production/operation costs are cheaper somewhere else, it is a fool's game to chase after the sorts of jobs that are going away due to globalization.

My argument is that they will continue to invest elsewhere and/or employ less resources in the US. Worse, there will continue to be fewer new startups which is what we really need to keep up with an ever-increasing workforce. I think it'd be simpler for most businesses to employ and invest in the US logistically, but the rewards aren't great enough to justify the additional administrative burden of hiring and/or investing here. I think we can make adjustments to simplify the code, eliminate loopholes and regulations that choose winners and losers, and decrease the overall rate of taxation. I see the calls for removing loopholes and I see the calls for increasing taxes and regulations on "the rich". I don't see how this helps anything at all and I don't see how this challenges the system we already have in place.

Rubbish.

Look into the cost of pharmaceuticals virtually anywhere else on the globe besson as, but one example of how we subsidize health care provisions abroad. It's not rubbish. Look at the profit margins of health insurers vs virtually any other industry in the US. I'm not sure your employer would be ecstatic about a meager 3.3% return on investment. If you're self-employed, I'm not sure it'd even be worth it to you.

We aren't subsidizing their day-to-day operational costs, we are feeding new medical science, technology, research, innovation into these markets for now, because we have a lot of private capital.

If we were to reduce our costs, these companies would simply have to find new customers to operate from. There is a growing global market for this. If the advancement of medical science has to be retarded temporarily until these companies make this transition to penetrating global markets, so be it. We simply can't afford to keep increasing our costs, we are well beyond our breaking point.

What you say above is true as well. Why not remove the red tape, allow folks to purchase specialized plans for their industries and allow people to shop coverages across state lines. Allow people tax-deferred HSAs and compatible plans and enable State-by-State chartering to encourage more competition. That's not what I'm seeing from these protests. We have the most horrific imagination possible when it comes to giving you, me, and the private sector more say in who succeeds and fails by pulling burdensome regulation, but for whatever reason you have no imagination at all when it comes to an increasingly intrusive government. This is clearly not what the founders of OWS or its sheeple are protesting for.

This is vague. If the collective means the general public, those that can afford their health care have benefited, sure. That most people including many small businesses can't is not a trivial matter.

poppycock. They can afford twice what they spend for health care on fun things. We need a fundamental check on exactly what it is we expect from our system and what our contribution should be. I say the system should be doing less and our contribution more, but that is clearly not what OWS' founders or the protesters are saying.

You said so yourself; "because we have a lot of private capital." Where is all this private capital? In the employers and insurers we increasingly sock with our health care costs through government legislation. Do you have a child in daycare besson or did you? If you did, you would see skyrocketing costs in daycare as well not only due to increased demand (something that would be odd in health care unless we're increasingly risky in our lifestyles), but due to much of it being subsidized by someone else. In many cases it costs one rate for those paying cash and another, much higher rate for those using State or Federal aid. Why? Because there's a lot of capital in these larger entities and simply put, they can sock it to the larger entities. Because someone else is picking up the tab, we're not aggressively shopping our care and we're not holding providers accountable for skyrocketing costs. The paradigm has shifted away from investing in one's self to continuously expecting someone else to invest in us. This is not what the "founders" of the protest are seeking to change.

That's why I said the OWS founders.

I disagree. I don't think you have any better idea what the "founders" of OWS are for than I do, only that you agree with what they're against.

Again, you are being a hypocrite here. As I've said, every protest group has had their share of lacking focus among its participants, including the Tea Party protesters. I just want you to acknowledge this, because IIRC you were awfully silent during the Tea Party protests.

You keep saying a "lacking focus" and I keep saying "misdirected focus". Their focus cannot have an appreciable impact on the system because they're not focused on the system. They're focused on people with paper/material wealth. If anyone is creating enemies, it is OWS' "founders" and that enemy is you and me, should we ever be prosperous God forbid.

I don't really give a smoke what the unwashed masses of protesters want or think they want, I care about the founders and the original intent of the protests that inspired all of this, not what it has mutated to by the hordes of brainless twits out there dancing around in costumes think they want.

Stop conflating the individual protesters with the intent of the movement's founders, or else be consistent and mock the Tea Party protesters too

It was mutated from its founding and the unwashed masses of brainless twits are illustrative of the majority mindset that would support it.

Sorry, I must have missed this. Where, just for my future reference? I appreciate this, but I completely missed this.

It wasn't directed at you. It was in response to sek929.

See above, you are conflating the protesters with its founders.

I don't think I have and I'm even less convinced you've managed to separate the OWS protesters from its founders. This isn't an example of a singular racist at a Tea Party rally of over 6,000 people identifying the movement as "racist", this is an example of an overwhelming majority of OWS protesters railing on the same "societal ills".

Wall St. is merely a symbol of the entire system. The original founders are mostly concerned with the larger picture, the systemic failure which has led to our present, not the individual symptoms/benefactors/exploiters/whatever.

I maintain that you support all of this, you just don't realize it.

It is more clear what they're against than what they're for and I maintain that nothing principled/actionable/fruitful will come of it.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It's a good question. How much is full healthcare coverage worth to you? You have the option of not having the insurance and saving the $4000/year, but then if it wasn't a net-gain for you to have the coverages you have, you'd likely not have it right?

I think the point is if it wasn't for the state CHIPS program I'd likely not have it.

As far as the insurance companies are concerned, they wouldn't take me even at $4K a year.

I only brought up the cost to show that even though I'm in a state pool, it's a far cry from being a handout.

[Athens]

Or attack the food industry and get the excess sugar removed from everything so people would stop getting sick so there isn't a massive burden on the healthcare system....

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Or attack the food industry and get the excess sugar removed from everything so people would stop getting sick so there isn't a massive burden on the healthcare system....

Attack the food industry to get rid of excess sugar? You're kidding right?

Besson, is this the kind of stuff the Occupiers' founders are all about?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

I think the point is if it wasn't for the state CHIPS program I'd likely not have it.

This is due to risk pools and the self-employed. Even very high risk patients are covered under most employer insurance programs because they're pooled in with lower risks. Yes, the premiums can be very high with high deductibles, but... what would you expect for high risk? Still, there's nothing to suggest you couldn't be saving this money for your own healthcare costs. As I mentioned before, there's very little profit in health insurance, particularly the high risk variety. Someone has to assume the cost somewhere, who else should or would?

As far as the insurance companies are concerned, they wouldn't take me even at $4K a year.

But you've already claimed a private insurer does cover you, just through a State pool.

I only brought up the cost to show that even though I'm in a state pool, it's a far cry from being a handout.

I never suggested it was a handout for you, but since you've brought it up; someone must be subsidizing something right? Wouldn't that be a partial handout then? What's bizarre is that the program set up "for the children" often does cover more adults as is the case in Minnesota.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I never suggested it was a handout for you, but since you've brought it up; someone must be subsidizing something right? Wouldn't that be a partial handout then? What's bizarre is that the program set up "for the children" often does cover more adults as is the case in Minnesota.

I honestly have no idea to what level it's subsidized. It doesn't appear to be subsidized for me. It also should be stated in Illinois that the "C" in CHIPS stands for "Comprehensive" and not "Children".

I also get the feeling you think I'm complaining about the expense, because you keep telling me it's reasonable. I'm not complaining. I think it's reasonable. I'd even be willing to pay more. The point is there wasn't any amount of money I could pay to an insurance company and get a policy. With our current system, and me being self employed, to have insurance I need the state to interfere on my behalf. Period.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Attack the food industry to get rid of excess sugar? You're kidding right?

Besson, is this the kind of stuff the Occupiers' founders are all about?

No thats what im saying to fix the high costs of medical. Nothing to do with Occupy....

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Besson, is this the kind of stuff the Occupiers' founders are all about?

Don't be a douche.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm not trying to create enemies. I simply maintain that our current ratio of government:market is skewing increasingly away from the free market. I'm annoyed that these protests are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. My perception is that their message is insulating the government from its due accountability by pointing a finger at those with material/paper wealth and that what their "founders" advocate would be destructive to what actually drives the US economy; not the monoliths propped up by government, but small businesses.

Instead of clinging to these perceptions, why not take the time to check out what the founders of the movement have said the movement is for, then go back to your preexisting beliefs?

They are yelling to tax the rich and increase regulation to protect the "little guy", but I'm telling you that this is only more of what we've gotten. If the money were to go into the debt for example, I might be more open-minded to it, but this Administration has already expressed an additional battery of programs it'd like to use this revenue on for the "little guy" and there's literally zero to suggest fiscal sanity. The in-between has been the compromises we have in place today where the wealthy (mind you, not the uber-rich who are actively participating in our legislative process in Washington as welcomed contributors) are paying exponentially more into a system that is merely making dependents out of the Middle class under an ever-increasing entitlement expenditure that has done nothing for income disparity. That's not what these folks are protesting at all. Not their "founders" and not their ilk. The fact that you repeatedly express what these founders are supposedly for without offering any specifics only illustrates the problem you all are having here. It's not for as much as it's against.

Again, you are conflating the protesters with its founders and being a hypocrite in the process.

poppycock. They can afford twice what they spend for health care on fun things. We need a fundamental check on exactly what it is we expect from our system and what our contribution should be. I say the system should be doing less and our contribution more, but that is clearly not what OWS' founders or the protesters are saying.

You must know some pretty darn successful small business then if you think the majority of them have this sort of money to burn. Are you aware of how many small businesses don't make it?

I disagree. I don't think you have any better idea what the "founders" of OWS are for than I do, only that you agree with what they're against.

I do, because I've listened to their interviews and stuff.

Snipped out the other stuff because I'm seeing that it is pointless to have this debate with you when you are so deeply entrenched in seeing this as you want to see it, and blowing off my suggestions that you pay more attention to the founders who are easily Googleable.

[besson3c]

ebuddy: the first Google hit for "Occupy Wall St. founders"

An Occupy Wall Street Founder Talks About The Origins Of The Movement And Where It's Headed Next

People criticize you for your numerous goals and messages. What is the main message in this movement?

What this protest is about is an opposition against the fundamental inequality in society — social, economic, ecological — and we want to change the ways that our society is structured and run so that way, the vast majority of people — the 99% — have their interests accounted for, their voices heard, their needs represented. And that's just simply not the way we feel our society works now. It's a society run for and by the 1%.

- No "kill the 1%". There was "move your money" movement discussed in this article, for specific reasons, none of which had to do with the financial success of the big banks
- No "let's be socialist!"
- Note the phrase fundamental inequality in society: THIS INCLUDES GOVERNMENT, and they make up/enable/co-exist with/are the 1% too

Also, for your interest:

Tea Party co-founder expresses support for Occupy Wall Street | The Raw Story



Are you guys done with the knee jerking and hypocrisy now?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

I also get the feeling you think I'm complaining about the expense, because you keep telling me it's reasonable. I'm not complaining. I think it's reasonable. I'd even be willing to pay more.

First, I never claimed it was reasonable. I asked you what you thought you should be paying because you said it costs you an "arm and a leg". I would consider neither an arm nor a leg in exchange for insurance "reasonable", but I wanted to get an idea from you what is. If you're willing to pay more than an arm and a leg, what would you give them next?

The point is there wasn't any amount of money I could pay to an insurance company and get a policy. With our current system, and me being self employed, to have insurance I need the state to interfere on my behalf. Period.

But you pay an amount of money to have an insurance policy with a private insurer. You're simply being pooled for a State-sponsored program. Where I agree with you is "in our current system" which should allow people to pool their risks across the country without reliance upon a State-sponsored program. Do you suppose that's what OWS is protesting for?

[besson3c]

An interesting quote from that Tea Party article I just posted (changing the topic a little):

“One of the things that the Occupy movement seems to have going for it is it has not turned around and issued a set of formal demands,” he explains. “This is a good thing, not a bad thing. Everyone is looking for a set of demands. The problem is that as soon as you pipe up with a list of four or five things — and you’ve got to keep it simple and short — then somebody’s going to say, ‘Well, we gave you 70 percent of it, now go home.’ And the fact is, that’s exactly the sort of thing that happened with the Tea Party.”

Maybe the lack of formal demands thing is a calculated thing based on what happened to the Tea Party and how it was, in the words of the co-founder, "hijacked by the Republican establishment"

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

ebuddy: the first Google hit for "Occupy Wall St. founders"

An Occupy Wall Street Founder Talks About The Origins Of The Movement And Where It's Headed Next

Are you guys done with the knee jerking and hypocrisy now?

Who are "you guys", what is "knee jerking" and how does protesting resolve "fundamental inequality in society — social, economic, ecological"?

So this is the intentions of the founders you keep espousing? You'll get nowhere protesting "fundamental inequality". Hell, they're fundamentally unequal from OWS protesters in other countries. Are they going to divvy up some of their paychecks for an equal playing field?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Who are "you guys", what is "knee jerking" and how does protesting resolve "fundamental inequality in society — social, economic, ecological"?

Now you are just shifting the argument away from what the protests are actually about to their possible effectiveness.

I'm glad that you confessed to sek that you are more sympathetic to the Tea Party, because your clinging to your bias has really gone quite far.

I just want you to acknowledge that the OWS founders have a valid point (just as you and I both believe the Tea Party founders also have a valid point, which is actually not all that dissimilar BTW)

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Now you are just shifting the argument away from what the protests are actually about to their possible effectiveness.

This has been my complaint the whole time besson. You can't protest something as ambiguous as "inequality" any more than you can protest "jealousy". This is "against" something, not "for" something. Why don't you tell me what they're for besson? If it officially claims it is for a single-payer health care system for example, it will be at odds with the majority of the country and will get nowhere. If it officially claims it wants a minimum wage of $20/hour, it will be at odds with common sense and will get nowhere. If it claims it is for ending the influence of the corporate lobbyists, then they're squarely at odds with the largest corporate lobby in Washington --GE, and will get nowhere.

I'm glad that you confessed to sek that you are more sympathetic to the Tea Party, because your clinging to your bias has really gone quite far.

C'mon besson, this is not "clinging to a bias". It's merely expressing an opinion about the disconnectedness and ambiguity of the movement.

I just want you to acknowledge that the OWS founders have a valid point (just as you and I both believe the Tea Party founders also have a valid point, which is actually not all that dissimilar BTW)

I maintain that as soon as OWS coalesces around an actual message, it will disband. There is no valid point and I can assure you, once a point is accepted by the majority of these folks, it will be deemed so invalid as to render the movement impotent.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Athens 

No thats what im saying to fix the high costs of medical. Nothing to do with Occupy....

Why did you copy-paste pictures of Occupy within the post about banning excess sugar?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This has been my complaint the whole time besson. You can't protest something as ambiguous as "inequality" any more than you can protest "jealousy". This is "against" something, not "for" something. Why don't you tell me what they're for besson? If it officially claims it is for a single-payer health care system for example, it will be at odds with the majority of the country and will get nowhere. If it officially claims it wants a minimum wage of $20/hour, it will be at odds with common sense and will get nowhere. If it claims it is for ending the influence of the corporate lobbyists, then they're squarely at odds with the largest corporate lobby in Washington --GE, and will get nowhere.

I don't have to tell you what I think they are for, just read the quote from the founder in one of my last posts.

What you seem to desire is specific demands, specific solutions, and specific goals. That they haven't been articulated doesn't mean that the movement doesn't have a valid point, that's my point. You can't get into specific actionable goals without buy-in to the more broad and more fundamental concepts. I.e. there is no way to make the voices of the 99% heard if you feel that they have never been ignored the way that the protest founders do.

If you read the other article I posted, you'll have read the opinion that the Tea Party's specific demands were its downfall. I think there is some wisdom to this.

I also don't buy your saying that your only problem with OWS is the way the protests have been carried out. Several of your posts contradict this.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Why did you copy-paste pictures of Occupy within the post about banning excess sugar?

What picture?

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...7/#post4121981

[Athens]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Why did you copy-paste pictures of Occupy within the post about banning excess sugar?

Was late, was on my sleeping pills and I edited the post and added it when it should have been a new post. I forgot what I had wrote in my last post. Simple mistake. The sugar thing was a reply about the costs of health care further up. Photo was a update on the growing tent city. 2 seperate things.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

First, I never claimed it was reasonable. I asked you what you thought you should be paying because you said it costs you an "arm and a leg". I would consider neither an arm nor a leg in exchange for insurance "reasonable", but I wanted to get an idea from you what is. If you're willing to pay more than an arm and a leg, what would you give them next?

It was a turn of the phrase. However, when you said "what did you expect?", that came off as, well... "what did you expect?"

As in "since it appears you were expecting something different, you have unrealistic expectations".

I'm trying to make clear I'm not expecting something different, therefore there is no need to alter my expectations..

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

But you pay an amount of money to have an insurance policy with a private insurer. You're simply being pooled for a State-sponsored program. Where I agree with you is "in our current system" which should allow people to pool their risks across the country without reliance upon a State-sponsored program. Do you suppose that's what OWS is protesting for?

Probably not, but our current system was what I was talking about, which does require state interference for someone like myself to get insurance.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I don't have to tell you what I think they are for, just read the quote from the founder in one of my last posts.

So... they're for equality. Equality for who? What is equality in their minds? More money? In exchange for what, existing? See... when blacks marched for equality, it was clear what they were for. When women marched and protested it was clear what they were for. When the "99%" protest for equality, it is not clear what this means. First, they don't claim who the 99% is. You added "government" to their message for them, but you see they haven't protested any of the sitting President's numerous stops around the country, but they did manage to protest the Republican debate. Are they for being against Republicans then? Does the 99% include kids with rich parents? Does it include any union employees who would actually be part of the 10%? OWS is worldwide which means there are some of the 99% unequal with some of the other 99%. Does this mean they are now part of the 65% and should be paying more to the other 34%?

What you seem to desire is specific demands, specific solutions, and specific goals. That they haven't been articulated doesn't mean that the movement doesn't have a valid point, that's my point. You can't get into specific actionable goals without buy-in to the more broad and more fundamental concepts. I.e. there is no way to make the voices of the 99% heard if you feel that they have never been ignored the way that the protest founders do.

This is like a child frantically waving his arms in class for the teacher's attention, the teacher finally calls on the student for his contribution, and with his moment to finally express himself yells; "Johnny gets all the girls!".

What if they haven't uttered specific demands, specific solutions, and specific goals because the demands are preposterous, the solutions draconian, and the goals indefensible? What if it were determined that OWS' sudden taking to the streets was not grassroots at all, but actually connected to the Alliance For Global Justice promoting opposition to free market capitalism, working toward economic justice by promoting Marxist "revolutions" abroad, affiliated with the Revolutionary Communist Party? Is it possible that it would behoove the "founders" to lack clarity in order to simply stoke the revolutionary rhetoric such as the "1%" as touted by an heir of Johnson and Johnson wealth; Jamie Johnson? Maybe there's no central theme because it's much bigger than working toward a better America and has something else in mind entirely, something far less sympathetic to most?

If you read the other article I posted, you'll have read the opinion that the Tea Party's specific demands were its downfall. I think there is some wisdom to this.

This is silly. If you express zero demands, zero demands will be met. As much as many would like to occur, there's been no downfall of the Tea Party. They'll wreak as much havoc on the Republican Presidential candidates as they had the Republican Senatorial candidates and governorships. They're working on the system from the inside-out with successes here and there, but any movement expecting a complete 180 overnight is foolish. At least start with the grievance and your proposed solution. If your message is defensible, it shouldn't be so problematic or cryptic.

I also don't buy your saying that your only problem with OWS is the way the protests have been carried out. Several of your posts contradict this.

I'll put it this way; I have a pretty good idea why they lack transparency. They have to. Whoever the "founders" are, their demands will be found to be preposterous, the solutions draconian, and the goals indefensible. The longer they remain sufficiently vague about their real intentions, the longer they can stoke the "revolutionary" rhetoric by exploiting fashionable youth seeking an outlet for their angst. The message, should they ever be bold enough to present one over the noise of the placards and platitudes, will not be a popular message and the movement will be no more. They're well aware of this fact and they're letting our future cigar-chomping insurance salesmen, used car dealers, computer manufacturers, and union laborers make asses of themselves while racking up police reports of stolen iPads and expressing their environmental integrity by trashing every area they occupy.

[besson3c]

I think I'm done having this debate with you ebuddy, I think you're just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point...

[Athens]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I think I'm done having this debate with you ebuddy, I think you're just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point...

I would call it being in denial.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I think I'm done having this debate with you ebuddy, I think you're just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point...

I apologize for being argumentative with you besson, but there's a good reason why people were defending the Tea Party and other people are defending OWS. To your earlier point about bias, I think our problem is just differing opinions based on what is likely, a pretty good pulse on what the other is generally up to.

I wouldn't have to apologize if you'd just place a mental, "IMO" before everything I say.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I apologize for being argumentative with you besson, but there's a good reason why people were defending the Tea Party and other people are defending OWS. To your earlier point about bias, I think our problem is just differing opinions based on what is likely, a pretty good pulse on what the other is generally up to.

I wouldn't have to apologize if you'd just place a mental, "IMO" before everything I say.

You don't have to apologize, I just don't think I'm going to accomplish what I set out to accomplish here, making you see that OWS has a valid point. If I were to have been successful at making that point I would have gone on to say that it isn't all that dissimilar from the Tea Party in many ways, and would have tried to convince you that you do support OWS, cause it's all the same stuff really.

It doesn't seem like you are interested in having any of that though, so...

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Athens 

I would call it being in denial.

What am I denying, that there are cigar-chomping crooks bending the majority of us over? Of course not. Do I believe they are among you and I? Nope...

... not even if you were to become a multi-millionare through a winning lottery ticket. You see Athens, you and I aren't the problem. You might say; "But that's exactly what OWS is saying ebuddy; the 99%." without acknowledging besson's point about the bias.

I think the distasteful aspects of the 1% (which could include you and I should we find instant wealth) they're protesting begin and end with government; those who draft our laws and craft the game we play. I believe the most valuable tool you could ever own is a pen. I don't see a willingness of this movement to decrease the government's dependency on money and until they do, the distasteful aspects of the 1% will continue to prevail. Why? Because they're not challenging the system, they're challenging a symptom of it.

You simply disagree with me. This is not me denying anything.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What am I denying, that there are cigar-chomping crooks bending the majority of us over? Of course not. Do I believe they are among you and I? Nope...

... not even if you were to become a multi-millionare through a winning lottery ticket. You see Athens, you and I aren't the problem. You might say; "But that's exactly what OWS is saying ebuddy; the 99%." without acknowledging besson's point about the bias.

I think the distasteful aspects of the 1% (which could include you and I should we find instant wealth) they're protesting begin and end with government; those who draft our laws and craft the game we play. I believe the most valuable tool you could ever own is a pen. I don't see a willingness of this movement to decrease the government's dependency on money and until they do, the distasteful aspects of the 1% will continue to prevail. Why? Because they're not challenging the system, they're challenging a symptom of it.

You simply disagree with me. This is not me denying anything.

And again, for the 2093480923480923th and hopefully last time, that 1% does not exclude government.

Get it? Got it? Good.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

And again, for the 2093480923480923th and hopefully last time, that 1% does not exclude government.

Get it? Got it? Good.

You keep repeating yourself because you're not getting what I'm saying. The whole "government's expensive solutions" thing; the reason you decided you were done with me.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You keep repeating yourself because you're not getting what I'm saying. The whole "government's expensive solutions" thing; the reason you decided you were done with me.

That was not the reason why I decided I was done with you.

I decided I was done with you because you either don't seem to get it, or you don't want to get it. Based on your going on about the intent of OWS without even thinking of paying attention to its founders this would suggest the former, but your insistence on arguing relentlessly about points that had nothing to do with the reason for my suggesting that you pay attention to this (i.e. that OWS has no point) once this was brought to your attention suggests the latter. Based on the fact that you insist that the 1% being protested ought to begin and end with government, I'm definitely leaning towards the former though.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

That was not the reason why I decided I was done with you.

I decided I was done with you because you either don't seem to get it, or you don't want to get it. Based on your going on about the intent of OWS without even thinking of paying attention to its founders this would suggest the former, but your insistence on arguing relentlessly about points that had nothing to do with the reason for my suggesting that you pay attention to this (i.e. that OWS has no point) once this was brought to your attention suggests the latter. Based on the fact that you insist that the 1% being protested ought to begin and end with government, I'm definitely leaning towards the former though.

Right, they want to change the way society is structured, got it. Except, they're not protesting the leader of the current structure. They're protesting Republican candidates for the future of it. It's probably right that you should be done with me in this case. It seems the more detailed you get for them, which you've been very careful to avoid, the harder it is to validate their cause du jour.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Right, they want to change the way society is structured, got it. Except, they're not protesting the leader of the current structure. They're protesting Republican candidates for the future of it. It's probably right that you should be done with me in this case. It seems the more detailed you get for them, which you've been very careful to avoid, the harder it is to validate their cause du jour.

If your beef is that they aren't specific enough why didn't you just say this from the get go? This conversation wouldn't have taken place if you did. Your arguing is kind of all over the place.

What triggered my responses to you is your claim that OWS has no valid point and no mission. If you want to change the conversation to the tactics of OWS be my guest, but I'd appreciate that you at least acknowledge my point that OWS has a valid mission.

I wouldn't characterize the mission as changing how society is structured though, I would say that they want to affect the balance of power. Maybe that entails changing some structure, but the word "structure" is a little too vague for my liking, and you want what you say to be to my liking, don't you?

Kneel before Zod.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

If your beef is that they aren't specific enough why didn't you just say this from the get go? This conversation wouldn't have taken place if you did. Your arguing is kind of all over the place.

If you haven't caught that my beef is their lack of specificity, I'm not sure how else to word it. Based on the rhetoric, the source of the rhetoric, and what I've characterized as a misdirected focus; it is obvious to me why they'd lack specificity. Not unlike a presidential candidate who doesn't want to give details of his economic plan because he knows going in that it's fodder for the public shredder.

What triggered my responses to you is your claim that OWS has no valid point and no mission. If you want to change the conversation to the tactics of OWS be my guest, but I'd appreciate that you at least acknowledge my point that OWS has a valid mission.

So far, it remains a non-mission. A goal without a game-plan is a boat without an oar.

I wouldn't characterize the mission as changing how society is structured though I would say that they want to affect the balance of power. Maybe that entails changing some structure, but the word "structure" is a little too vague for my liking, and you want what you say to be to my liking, don't you?

You may want to read your quote from one of their founders. Structure is a little vague. Is this were I claim you either don't get it or don't want to get it?

Kneel before Zod.

Does Zod have free healthcare, lots and lots of money, and lollipops for all? On my knees baby I don't care how he does it!

[Athens]

Looks like one goal has been achieved by the occupy group in the US

Obama to offer plan to help students buried in loan debt - Oct. 25, 2011

The president is under pressure to address the financial concerns that students and recent graduates face with dour job prospects in this economy. Student loan debt, which is now outpacing credit card debt, is one of the things being protested at Occupy Wall Street marches in New York.

Average student loan debt for the graduating class of 2009 at four-year nonprofit colleges was $24,000, including all private and federal loans, according to the Institute for College Access & Success.
In 2010, the unemployment rate for college graduates age 24 and younger rose to 9.4%, the highest since the Labor Department began keeping records in 1985.
Income-based repayment of loans

One of the Obama proposals would advance the start date for a special loan repayment program based on income that aims to help struggling graduates.
The Income-Based Repayment Plan is not well-known, higher education experts say.
The way it works now is that graduates who enroll get charged 15% of their monthly discretionary income to pay off loans, with debt forgiven after 25 years.
Congress passed a law set to go into effect in 2014 that would drop the monthly payment to 10% of discretionary income and would forgive all debt after 20 years. The Obama administration would improve on the law by fast-forwarding the new terms to take effect in 2012, sources say.

The bright spot for the unemployed is that the monthly payments are based on any income above 150% of the poverty line. For a graduate living alone, the payments would be on 15% of any dollars made above $16,335, based on the 2011 poverty line.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

If you haven't caught that my beef is their lack of specificity, I'm not sure how else to word it. Based on the rhetoric, the source of the rhetoric, and what I've characterized as a misdirected focus; it is obvious to me why they'd lack specificity. Not unlike a presidential candidate who doesn't want to give details of his economic plan because he knows going in that it's fodder for the public shredder.

So far, it remains a non-mission. A goal without a game-plan is a boat without an oar.

You're exactly right this thing is a boat without an oar, and that's a good thing.

Before the boat needs an oar it needs people in that boat, it needs an idea as to what it would do with that oar, who will be controlling that oar, and how it will work.

As the Tea Party founder said in the article I posted, their movement became diluted because of all of demands, the message got a little out of control. What began as a mission to make the establishment Republicans answerable to the people became mutated into guns and all of this other weird stuff on the side - too many demands and a nebulous focal point. Part of this was that element I've addressed of individual protesters clouding the message of the original founders, but the Tea Party never really seemed to get back on track after this point.

If you read my article, the Tea Party founder thinks it's actually a good idea to not get into the specific demands now, and I agree. What the group needs to be doing now is building momentum and buy-in with its mission - to get people to realize that the boat actually exists. It needs to be really careful about controlling its message and not letting it get out-of-control when it reaches the point of being able to get into specifics and actually changing stuff.

Does Zod have free healthcare, lots and lots of money, and lollipops for all? On my knees baby I don't care how he does it!

General Zod was a ruthless criminal and dictator over his criminal brethren. He was banished from Krypton because of this. If you were in politics this comment would be a gaffe, my friend!

Time to backpedal, unless you want MacNN to think that you support criminal dictators?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You're exactly right this thing is a boat without an oar, and that's a good thing.

Before the boat needs an oar it needs people in that boat, it needs an idea as to what it would do with that oar, who will be controlling that oar, and how it will work.

I don't think that's a good thing. I think it's just loading a bunch of people onto a boat without a direction. I believe the people they're loading on to the boat will eventually lead to looting and violence once they realize it is sinking.

As the Tea Party founder said in the article I posted, their movement became diluted because of all of demands, the message got a little out of control. What began as a mission to make the establishment Republicans answerable to the people became mutated into guns and all of this other weird stuff on the side - too many demands and a nebulous focal point. Part of this was that element I've addressed of individual protesters clouding the message of the original founders, but the Tea Party never really seemed to get back on track after this point.

Don't you think that's part of the problem is that it's diluted with too much already? Here you're saying this about the Tea Party (using a Tea Party founder) when this is really most apparent in OWS. Look, time will tell, but I'm telling you IMO it will have no appreciable impact on the system because it is diluted with demands from it such as free health care, ridiculous minimum wage requirements, loan reconciliation, etc... They cannot get all this into a single, cogent gripe other than; "we're mad as hell at government and corporate croneyism so we want more government help with ____, ____, ____, ____, ____, and _____!" to even the playing field. Except, it doesn't and it will do even less for taking the money interest out of Washington.

If you read my article, the Tea Party founder thinks it's actually a good idea to not get into the specific demands now, and I agree. What the group needs to be doing now is building momentum and buy-in with its mission - to get people to realize that the boat actually exists. It needs to be really careful about controlling its message and not letting it get out-of-control when it reaches the point of being able to get into specifics and actually changing stuff.

It's got a whole bunch of ridiculous demands, it's just that no one including the Tea Party founder you're quoting and the founders of OWS have put any real thought into them. It's directionless angst with no discernible mission stoking revolutionary rhetoric for a pipe dream. I promise, this is my last post about them until it begins to get colder and the urgency on this thing is ratcheted up.

General Zod was a ruthless criminal and dictator over his criminal brethren. He was banished from Krypton because of this. If you were in politics this comment would be a gaffe, my friend!

Time to backpedal, unless you want MacNN to think that you support criminal dictators?

If I were in politics, I would hope that I had communicated my message clearly enough that my audience would understand the sarcasm in the irrelevance of who Zod is, as long as he's giving away free healthcare, lots and lots of money, and lollipops for everyone. In other words, substitute Zod for Pol Pot... it doesn't matter what freedoms are trampled as long as we get our nerf-world and freebies.

[Athens]

Just needs some one to take charge and be the voice of the movement....

[Athens]

Meet the 99% Noticed a trend in the people CNN posted from the different occupy protests. American cities a lot of those posted on CNN are unemployed while Vancouver, London and Copenhagen its mostly employed people.

Either way its worth reading the different opinions of the different people and the different issues around the globe and more important the similar issues.

[Shaddim]

Eh, I'm bored with this already. Our OWS crowd in Knoxville evaporated and now I don't care. I was going to go take a sign that said, "I'm the 1%, suck it" but there aren't enough people to even bother anymore.

[screener]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Eh, I'm bored with this already. Our OWS crowd in Knoxville evaporated and now I don't care. I was going to go take a sign that said, "I'm the 1%, suck it" but there aren't enough people to even bother anymore.

Just for clarification purposes, Knoxville Tennessee?
If so,

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

It's likely because there are 5 studios nearby, one of which is run by Vivid. My wife is a former exotic dancer/escort, she knew many of these women back when she was doing that sort of thing. They still come over and hang out sometimes.

I would assume Vivid films there as well as L.A.
Do they do this underground out of sight of the good people of Knoxville?
The reason I ask is because of this,
New porn store creating a stir in north Knoxville
?