# Off-Topic Discussion > Extended Discussion >  >  Occupy Dreamviews

## panta-rei

I'd be surprised if anyone remembers the last time I came onto DreamViews. But this is something that needs a lot of publicity. 

And where better to go than dreamviews for costless publicity? 


Occupy Wall Street is a movement. Starting today, it implores all members of this republic to stand up for what they believe is right. That is, freedom. Political choices are being made more about the economy than about what really matters. Important things like security, social programs, and environmental responsibility are becoming second rung to "economic growth."

I ask you, how important is a strong economy to you? 


https://occupywallst.org/


Not as important as toxins in the air.

----------


## cmind

Your social programs rely on "economic growth" to exist... For example, the teachers pensions in California make their payments based on the assumption of 8% growth. SS is similar. The US actually experiences around 2%, and more recently it's been 0%. So you have two choices, either figure out ways to keep the growth paradigm going, or give up on your social programs. Hint: you're going to lose the social programs.

----------


## Original Poster

> Your social programs rely on "economic growth" to exist... For example, the teachers pensions in California make their payments based on the assumption of 8% growth. SS is similar. The US actually experiences around 2%, and more recently it's been 0%. So you have two choices, either figure out ways to keep the growth paradigm going, or give up on your social programs. Hint: you're going to lose the social programs.



And what's your opinion on institutions like the Pentagon? Should we continue funding our bloated military complex?

I don't hear about corporations losing their subsidies very often, either. Nor taxing the top 2%

Instead they want to cut education and social security

Education is our greatest possible investment as a nation, it should be one of the last functions we relieve in a recession.

----------


## panta-rei

Our military gets an enormous amount of support while there's a mass exodus of professors leaving Wisconsin because their pay is being reduced haphazardly.  

Spending needs to be reallocated. And really, I think that's what most of this movement wants to see. 

You won't find many people who say we should cut education programs, yet our policies reflect that we do. As a democracy, that should not happen.

This movement is largely about how the minority overpowers the majority. Majority rule is the basis of a democracy.

----------


## cmind

> And what's your opinion on institutions like the Pentagon? Should we continue funding our bloated military complex?
> 
> I don't hear about corporations losing their subsidies very often, either. Nor taxing the top 2%
> 
> Instead they want to cut education and social security
> 
> Education is our greatest possible investment as a nation, it should be one of the last functions we relieve in a recession.



The total welfare burden of the US is something like $150 trillion, if they actually paid it all. Defense is certainly bloated, probably by a factor of 10, but it's still nothing compared to welfare. By welfare I mean all forms of free money from the government. You're living in a fantasy if you think that this money will be paid. Either they'll stop sending checks, or they'll have hyperinflation and the checks won't be able to buy anything. Either way, the money won't be paid.

----------


## Xaqaria

I was just about to make this thread and I'm happy that someone beat me to it. I've been on the occupywallst chat almost all night. Things are definitely heating up. Anyone in or around NYC taking part?

----------


## ThePreserver

Well I hope things worked out yesterday.  Constitution Day tends to have a high number of events like this.  Lots of rallies, activist group meetings, (and a few campaign contribution bombs).

I don't agree with everything behind the Occupy Wall Street movement, but I definitely believe militarism needs to be drastically decreased.

----------


## cmind

> I don't agree with everything behind the Occupy Wall Street movement, but I definitely believe militarism needs to be drastically decreased.



Unfortunately, I think the worldwide military presence of the US is the only reason that foreign governments are still buying your bonds. If not for them, the US dollar would collapse under hyperinflation.

----------


## ThePreserver

> Unfortunately, I think the worldwide military presence of the US is the only reason that foreign governments are still buying your bonds. If not for them, the US dollar would collapse under hyperinflation.



As for the hyperinflation I can thank our central banking system for continually diminishing the value of our dollar through lending and QE methods.  We need more money and loans created to satisfy our military expenditures to continue our military presence... vicious cycle that will end in no good.

----------


## cmind

> As for the hyperinflation I can thank our central banking system for continually diminishing the value of our dollar through lending and QE methods.  We need more money and loans created to satisfy our military expenditures to continue our military presence... vicious cycle that will end in no good.



Tax receipts more than cover the military, even as bloated as it is. The main expense responsible for the deficit is welfare programs. The dollar is being devalued to prop up the markets to keep the SS checks flowing. Sorry, but the level of welfare you have in the US is way above what is sustainable.

----------


## ThePreserver

> Tax receipts more than cover the military, even as bloated as it is. The main expense responsible for the deficit is welfare programs. The dollar is being devalued to prop up the markets to keep the SS checks flowing. Sorry, but the level of welfare you have in the US is way above what is sustainable.



Oh I absolutely know.  But to alleviate the pressure we are putting on those who have already paid into Social Security, we need to end our militarism NOW.  Our tax money shouldn't be devoted to welfare OR warfare.  But it's much more expedient to end wars than it is to end social programs.  Our social programs need phased out within the next 10 or so years or else we will be financially destroyed.  The only person in politics that even cares enough to propose a phase-out of both our wars AND social security is Ron Paul.  He is planning an "opt-out" if he is elected President, allowing a way to wean people off of Social Security.  If I didn't have to pay into it, I wouldn't.  And I wouldn't "expect" the government to take care of me, because I don't want it to.  I am a "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" libertarian, and I'd much rather support myself as best as possible than force someone else to pay for me.

----------


## Laughing Man

_If you agree that freedom is the right to communicate, to live, to be, to go, to love, to do what you will without the impositions of others, then you might be one of us._

Well I could somewhat agree with that. Though what if you crossed into another's property? That isn't somewhere you can live or necessarily go.

_If you agree that a person is entitled to the sweat of their brows, that being talented at management should not entitle others to act like overseers and overlords, that all workers should have the right to engage in decisions, democratically, then you might be one of us._

A worker's democracy...you lost me there.

_If you agree that freedom for some is not the same as freedom for all, and that freedom for all is the only true freedom, then you might be one of us._

Ok equality in freedom, I like that.

_If you agree that power is not right, that life trumps property, then you might be one of us._

And you lost me again. Life is property. You own your own body which enables you not to be aggressed against in the first place. If you didn't have self-ownership then how could you defend yourself against the whims of others? Power is not right, but all rights disseminate from property.

_If you agree that state and corporation are merely two sides of the same oppressive power structure, if you realize how media distorts things to preserve it, how it pits the people against the people to remain in power, then you might be one of us._

Ok I can agree with that. 

_We call for workers to not only strike, but seize their workplaces collectively, and to organize them democratically. We call for students and teachers to act together, to teach democracy, not merely the teachers to the students, but the students to the teachers. To seize the classrooms and free minds together_

Hahaha ok. I'm done. You guys were so close to being liberty-orientated but you lost it with that call to action. What happened to the freedom of all? Now it's the freedom of the majority. Now you want workers to steal capital in their workplace and claim it as their own? Such a petty principle, one that is based off thievery just like the elites who steal from the masses. 

There is a reason that teachers are teachers and students are students. It's not some oppressive regime measure meant to smack the hands of children with metaphorical rulers. Let's face it, students are students because they don't know what they come to study to a degree of efficiency. It is as simple as that. That is why they are students. That is why they go to teachers. Does that mean they are complete imbeciles? No. They are capable of knowing a small amount but they are coarse. They come to learn from those with experience or knowledge (the teachers). People who try to act like the teacher is an idiot, they know more then the teacher or grandstand in the classrooms are just showing their immaturity. 

Teach democracy. What bullocks. There is nothing more insidious then the notion that the will of a majority makes an individual free. You want freedom for all? Abolish all forms of voting. Abolish the state. Give up the notion that you are competent enough to govern the lives of strangers. Let the individual have the freedom in all capacities in order to discover themselves and flourish.

----------


## Olysseus

Glad somebody posted on this. Its an idea who's time has come.





> Your social programs rely on "economic growth" to exist... For example, the teachers pensions in California make their payments based on the assumption of 8% growth. SS is similar. The US actually experiences around 2%, and more recently it's been 0%. So you have two choices, either figure out ways to keep the growth paradigm going, or give up on your social programs. Hint: you're going to lose the social programs.



Yes, you need to have growth somehow, but there are alternatives to Wall Street, corporate greed, central banking, and debt-based currencies. I'm not sure what your point is, but I sure hope you don't think you are pointing out some kind of contradiction in the protests against Wall Street corruption.

Pensions and many other social programs will be used to scare people into thinking the don't dare hold Wall Street accountable for corruption. However, at some point the system becomes so corrupt, you have to stop caring whether your measly social security check won't come.

There are other ways to finance growth besides the current wall street model. China's state-controlled bank does a much better job of allocating credit than the irresponsible lending institutions in the US. That's why the US and Britain hate China so much, because China is successfully moving past the obsolete, 19th century Marxist idea that state control of the means of production brings justice. Instead China is directly taking control of the means of exchange, allowing industrial production to be run by the most competent and qualified private individuals, while banking and the allocation of credit remains firmly in the government's hands. China has shown that you can have social programs and growth without the parasitical Anglo-American system of private banking. Right now China's economic system is more "American" than that of the US.government.

----------


## Laughing Man

> Glad somebody posted on this. Its an idea who's time has come.
> 
> Yes, you need to have growth somehow, but there are alternatives to Wall Street, corporate greed, central banking, and debt-based currencies. I'm not sure what your point is, but I sure hope you don't think you are pointing out some kind of contradiction in the protests against Wall Street corruption.
> 
> Pensions and many other social programs will be used to scare people into thinking the don't dare hold Wall Street accountable for corruption. However, at some point the system becomes so corrupt, you have to stop caring whether your measly social security check won't come.
> 
> There are other ways to finance growth besides the current wall street model. China's state-controlled bank does a much better job of allocating credit than the irresponsible lending institutions in the US. That's why the US and Britain hate China so much, because China is successfully moving past the obsolete, 19th century Marxist idea that state control of the means of production brings justice. Instead China is directly taking control of the means of exchange, allowing industrial production to be run by the most competent and qualified private individuals, while banking and the allocation of credit remains firmly in the government's hands. China has shown that you can have social programs and growth without the parasitical Anglo-American system of private banking. Right now China's economic system is more "American" than that of the US.government.



So your alternative solution to centralized banking...is centralized banking?

----------


## Xaqaria

I think he is talking about taking the control of our money supply out of the hands of private individuals and putting it into the hands of elected officials that can (theoretically) be held accountable. I don't think China is the best example of this, but it is what is outlined in our own constitution.

----------


## Laughing Man

> I think he is talking about taking the control of our money supply out of the hands of private individuals and putting it into the hands of elected officials that can (theoretically) be held accountable. I don't think China is the best example of this, but it is what is outlined in our own constitution.



All central banks in the history of the United States have been founded by governmental mandate. The Bank of America, The First & Second Bank of the United States and the Federal Reserve. The government is just carrying on its prerogative of issuing monopoly charters for a banking institution. It was established by the government and is used only by the government. It is for all intensive purposes, the bank of the United States government so it is not as if the money supply isn't in the hands of the U.S. government. The creation of new money is carried out first by the Department of the Treasury. The Federal Reserve is just the printers trying to complete an order.

----------


## Olysseus

> I think he is talking about taking the control of our money supply out of the hands of private individuals and putting it into the hands of elected officials that can (theoretically) be held accountable. I don't think China is the best example of this, but it is what is outlined in our own constitution.



Yes, you understood my position. And you are right, China is not the best example, I was just shooting from the hip and citing one example. The point is China is able to allocate credit to infrastructure projects even when they result in lower yields than say making loans for new yachts. It's not a perfect example, but I was responding to the claim that we need Wall Street to drive growth and I was merely showing there are alternative systems that work. Obviously there are plenty of problems in China as well, its far from perfect.

----------


## Laughing Man

> Yes, you understood my position. And you are right, China is not the best example, I was just shooting from the hip and citing one example. The point is China is able to allocate credit to infrastructure projects even when they result in lower yields than say making loans for new yachts. It's not a perfect example, but I was responding to the claim that we need Wall Street to drive growth and I was merely showing there are alternative systems that work. Obviously there are plenty of problems in China as well, its far from perfect.



What do you think the 447 billion dollar "Jobs Plan" that Obama is pushing is trying to do? It's trying to allocate spending, based on credit, to infrastructure programs such as education, transportation, healthcare etc.

----------


## Olysseus

> So your alternative solution to centralized banking...is centralized banking?



The problem with central banking is that in the west it has been private lenders using government mandate to justify their existence. The real problem with the Federal Reserve is that it isn't actually Federal. This means it is operating on a dishonest basis. One solution would be too completely privatize banking, as Ron Paul would do, another would be to nationalize it and let the government, perhaps the states, collect interest on its activities. You should be able to tell from my post where I stand. 

Technically I'll cede your point, I should have clarified the difference between Western Central Banking and what I am advocating. But I think the context of the post made it somewhat clear.





> What do you think the 447 billion dollar "Jobs Plan" that Obama is pushing is trying to do? It's trying to allocate spending, based on credit, to infrastructure programs such as education, transportation, healthcare etc.



No, absolutely not. This confuses the difference between fiscal and monetary policy. He is allocating spending, not credit. A program based on credit is not the same thing as an entity issuing credit. Obama's proposed spending would be financed by the government going deeper into debt. When the government is issuing credit, it does not need to go into debt, because it is a creditor; it collects interest and makes a profit. Obama is borrowing money to finance his "jobs plan." I recommend you read Ellen Brown's book "Web of Debt" so you can understand the difference.

----------


## Olysseus

Here are two articles that should clarify. My main point is to refute the idea that by criticizing Wall Street and protesting its corruption, people are turning their backs on growth. I have simply cited China as one, very imperfect example of a growing economy without all the trappings of Wall Street. This does not mean I think China is spectacular or that its policies would work everywhere, just that in some ways, it has become more progressively capitalist than the West. 

One reason the American economy is dragging is because lending is drying up. This is because the banks can make better profits with derivatives and other instruments than they can from lending to producers who build factories and other infrastructure. No matter how much money Obama pumps into the economy, the credit crisis remains the same unless we can find a way for businesses and local governments to create financing for themselves. Obama pumping money into the economy is fiscal policy, I am talking about monetary policy.

Ellen Brown: China's Miracle Economy: Have the Chinese Become the World's Greatest Capitalists?

Ellen Brown: China's Creative Accounting: How It Buried Its Debt and Forged Ahead with Stimulus

----------


## Laughing Man

> The problem with central banking is that in the west it has been private lenders using government mandate to justify their existence. The real problem with the Federal Reserve is that it isn't actually Federal. This means it is operating on a dishonest basis. One solution would be too completely privatize banking, as Ron Paul would do, another would be to nationalize it and let the government, perhaps the states, collect interest on its activities. You should be able to tell from my post where I stand. 
> 
> Technically I'll cede your point, I should have clarified the difference between Western Central Banking and what I am advocating. But I think the context of the post made it somewhat clear.



So you think the problem with the Federal Reserve isn't that it counterfeits currency that Americans are forced to use because of legal tender laws but the fact that it isn't apart of the government in name? Unofficially it is very much apart of the federal government. They just aren't elected officials. 







> No, absolutely not. This confuses the difference between fiscal and monetary policy. He is allocating spending, not credit. A program based on credit is not the same thing as an entity issuing credit. Obama's proposed spending would be financed by the government going deeper into debt. When the government is issuing credit, it does not need to go into debt, because it is a creditor; it collects interest and makes a profit. Obama is borrowing money to finance his "jobs plan." I recommend you read Ellen Brown's book "Web of Debt" so you can understand the difference.



What do you think Treasury Bonds are? That is what the Federal Reserve "buys" from the government. That is how new currency is injected into the market. So the US government is in a sense a creditor in Treasury bonds which are based upon future holdings of taxpayers payments.

----------


## Laughing Man

> Here are two articles that should clarify. My main point is to refute the idea that by criticizing Wall Street and protesting its corruption, people are turning their backs on growth. I have simply cited China as one, very imperfect example of a growing economy without all the trappings of Wall Street. This does not mean I think China is spectacular or that its policies would work everywhere, just that in some ways, it has become more progressively capitalist than the West. 
> 
> One reason the American economy is dragging is because lending is drying up. This is because the banks can make better profits with derivatives and other instruments than they can from lending to producers who build factories and other infrastructure. No matter how much money Obama pumps into the economy, the credit crisis remains the same unless we can find a way for businesses and local governments to create financing for themselves. Obama pumping money into the economy is fiscal policy, I am talking about monetary policy.
> 
> Ellen Brown: China's Miracle Economy: Have the Chinese Become the World's Greatest Capitalists?
> 
> Ellen Brown: China's Creative Accounting: How It Buried Its Debt and Forged Ahead with Stimulus



Lending is drying up? The interest rate is at an artificial 0% and has been for months.

----------


## ThePreserver

> Lending is drying up? The interest rate is at an artificial 0% and has been for months.



To the contrary of drying up.  Instead, lending and investments are so EASY with low interest rates, that malinvestment can occur.  Junk investments and loans that are high-risk are now perceived as lower-risk.  It's like telling a sick person they are healthy when they really aren't in a manner of speaking.  Japan tried it in their depression... look what happened to them?  Their economy collapsed.  Funny how we are trying it here.

----------


## Xaqaria

The interest rate you are talking about is what banks are getting from the reserve. The banks are buying bonds instead of lending to businesses precisely because rates are so low, and they can get a better return from bonds. The fed is essentially giving the banks free money so that the treasury can buy it off of them with bonds.

----------


## Laughing Man

> To the contrary of drying up.  Instead, lending and investments are so EASY with low interest rates, that malinvestment can occur.  Junk investments and loans that are high-risk are now perceived as lower-risk.  It's like telling a sick person they are healthy when they really aren't in a manner of speaking.  Japan tried it in their depression... look what happened to them?  Their economy collapsed.  Funny how we are trying it here.



Yes, that is why I said artificial

----------


## Olysseus

> What do you think Treasury Bonds are? That is what the Federal Reserve "buys" from the government. That is how new currency is injected into the market. So the US government is in a sense a creditor in Treasury bonds which are based upon future holdings of taxpayers payments.



Wrong again. Bonds do start out as government loaning to itself, but then are sold to private investors. Go back and read my original post. A government fully authorized to issue credit can loan directly into the economy and earn interest by spurring growth. It has no need of going into debt to spur growth. That's why China's economy is growing. There is no intelligent rationale for comparing that to Obama's "jobs" plan. 

Your arguments are so oversimplified they are just tiresome. The Federal Reserve lends money to the government in exchange for bonds. This is why you wrote the word "buys" in quotes, because we all know its not accurate. The Fed sells these to private investors and holds some in reserve for monetary policy. The Fed is a tool through which private investors finance the US governments operation. Currency is injected when government spends money it has borrowed from the Fed and when the Fed buys back the bonds it has issued. Bonds are IOU's, calling someone a creditor in bonds is ridiculous, The Fed and its private stockholders do not owe the bonds back to the government, rather the government owes interest on the bonds back to the Fed and the private investors it sells the bonds to.

Except in the state of Dakota, where there is a state bank, the government does not loan money to businesses and earn interest on it. The government is not a creditor in any intelligent sense of the term. 

And you're still just evading the ridiculousness of your claim that Obama going deeper into debt with his "jobs" plan is equivalent to government directly lending to businesses to create infrastructure and jobs and earning interest on the loans. Don't you fell even the slightest embarrassment when you get caught lying? 

You keep using phrases like "what do you think x is" and showing woeful ignorance of what you are asking about. Why don't you defend your claim that Obama driving us into debt via the Fed is the same as a state bank issuing loans directly to business and earning interest?

----------


## Olysseus

> Lending is drying up? The interest rate is at an artificial 0% and has been for months.



Again, a sad misunderstanding of how things work. This is the interest rate banks get. They can immediately plunk the money the borrow into various bonds and earn a guaranteed profit. So they have little incentive to loan to businesses and individuals that can spur growth. The interest rate is going down and at the same time banks are getting tighter in their lending practices. The financial sector is certainly growing and the stock market is being propped up, but real growth isn't happening because of tight credit. If I really have to explain something this simple to you again, were done.

----------


## Laughing Man

> Wrong again. Bonds do start out as government loaning to itself, but then are sold to private investors. Go back and read my original post. A government fully authorized to issue credit can loan directly into the economy and earn interest by spurring growth. It has no need of going into debt to spur growth. That's why China's economy is growing. There is no intelligent rationale for comparing that to Obama's "jobs" plan.



Answer me this, what is the "credit" that governments are "fully authorized" to issue into the economy? China's economy is growing because it holds something like 1 trillion dollars of our debt. I would have to check the actual number if you want me to be accurate. 






> Your arguments are so oversimplified they are just tiresome.



Well it seems I have to use small words and generic ideas to many people on this forum. Should we move pass the crayon drawings section?





> The Federal Reserve lends money to the government in exchange for bonds. This is why you wrote the word "buys" in quotes, because we all know its not accurate. The Fed sells these to private investors and holds some in reserve for monetary policy.



The only time that the Fed would sell their bonds is if they wanted to soak up the monetary supply....which they really haven't done. I put the word "buy" in quotes because it is not the Federal Reserve that actually create the money. Physically they print it don't get me wrong but they get their que's from the US Treasury department. It is not as if the Fed chairman wakes up one morning and says "I want to create 300 billion dollars today!" 





> The Fed is a tool through which private investors finance the US governments operation.



Really? And who are these private investors? 






> Currency is injected when government spends money it has borrowed from the Fed and when the Fed buys back the bonds it has issued.



Again, the Fed only sells bonds when it is trying to soak up its monetary supply. Where do you see that happening? 






> Bonds are IOU's, calling someone a creditor in bonds is ridiculous, The Fed and its private stockholders do not owe the bonds back to the government, rather the government owes interest on the bonds back to the Fed and the private investors it sells the bonds to. Except in the state of Dakota, where there is a state bank, the government does not loan money to businesses and earn interest on it. The government is not a creditor in any intelligent sense of the term.



How does the government get money? (Beyond the Fed printing it) It taxes it. Treasury bonds are in effect taxpayer money that is due to the government at a specified time, and then the government gives the money to the bond holder. 

What is a creditor?

Creditor -a person or firm to whom money is due 
Creditor | Define Creditor at Dictionary.com

So kind of like...government being a firm...and taxpayers owing money to it. So when I say:
"So the US government is in a sense a creditor in Treasury bonds which are based upon future holdings of taxpayers payments."

It's true! Hooray! Learning is fun!








> And you're still just evading the ridiculousness of your claim that Obama going deeper into debt with his "jobs" plan is equivalent to government directly lending to businesses to create infrastructure and jobs and earning interest on the loans. Don't you fell even the slightest embarrassment when you get caught lying?



Where is Obama going to get 447 billion dollars to lend to these businesses? The debt is now at 14.7 trillion dollars, meaning that the United States government owes 14.7 trillion dollars. Ok get ready cause this is the crayon drawing section. The government revenue has only been 2 trillion this year soooo

14 Trillion....minus 2 Trillion....equals.....come on....12 trillion!

The deficit of the US is 1.3 trillion dollars. That means that this year we have already spent 1.3 trillion dollars more then we have taken in. So unless Obama has a magic wand up his ass, he is going to borrow/print that 447 billion dollars which will stack up the national debt. So more spending in a deficit economy...means more national debt.

Do you feel the slightest embarrassment when you have to be shown basic math? 





> You keep using phrases like "what do you think x is" and showing woeful ignorance of what you are asking about. Why don't you defend your claim that Obama driving us into debt via the Fed is the same as a state bank issuing loans directly to business and earning interest?



I keep using the Socratic method but honestly why do I? I just have to hold your hand through the forest anyways. I mean honestly, you don't even know what a deficit is so how can I treat you like an intelligent human being?

----------


## Laughing Man

> Again, a sad misunderstanding of how things work. This is the interest rate banks get. They can immediately plunk the money the borrow into various bonds and earn a guaranteed profit. So they have little incentive to loan to businesses and individuals that can spur growth. The interest rate is going down and at the same time banks are getting tighter in their lending practices. The financial sector is certainly growing and the stock market is being propped up, but real growth isn't happening because of tight credit. If I really have to explain something this simple to you again, were done.



With lending at .25 that would infer that banks are more likely to borrow money from the Federal Reserve therefore beefing up their currency reserves. With the current 3% inflation (which lets be honest is probably higher because they keep on changing what they input into it), what "bonds" are the banks buying up  that is getting them this "guaranteed profit?"

----------


## Dannon Oneironaut

blah blah blah. Back to occupy wall street and the 99% please.

----------


## Olysseus

Hopefully you realize that at this point, everyone else is bored with this, so I will respond once more merely to show the following:
1- All of your objections and questions are easily dealt with.
2- Its not worth dealing these questions further because most of your points don't deal with essentials and are based on misunderstanding my position, perhaps intentionally. Your needless sarcasm and butchery of the socratic method only force me to explain why trivial details are trivial details.





> Answer me this, what is the "credit" that governments are "fully authorized" to issue into the economy? China's economy is growing because it holds something like 1 trillion dollars of our debt. I would have to check the actual number if you want me to be accurate.



Part of the reason China is growing is because it holds our debt. This is not a relevant objection to anything I've said. China must be doing other things right, otherwise it would have never obtained so much of our debt to begin with. This is a trivial detail not a response to any essential point I've made. And no, I don't care if you want to re-check figures for such a trivial point.

As to your actual question, look at the Bank of North Dakota, it loans money to businesses and individuals and thus earns interest from the growth of the private sector. That is the crucial difference between what I favor and the current operation of our government, a point you repeatedly evade.






> Well it seems I have to use small words and generic ideas to many people on this forum. Should we move pass the crayon drawings section?



If you really have to bring crayons into the discussion it say more about you than me. If you're having trouble with that many people, the problem just might be on your end. 





> The only time that the Fed would sell their bonds is if they wanted to soak up the monetary supply....which they really haven't done. I put the word "buy" in quotes because it is not the Federal Reserve that actually create the money. Physically they print it don't get me wrong but they get their que's from the US Treasury department. It is not as if the Fed chairman wakes up one morning and says "I want to create 300 billion dollars today!"



Yes, mostly true but again not a contradiction of what I've said, because it is more accurate to say the Fed loans the money to the federal government. My essential point is that the word "buy" is misleading either way. 





> Really? And who are these private investors?



Any individual or financial institution that buys bonds is a private investor that is financing the government's debt. The federal government could become less reliant on this by using its own reserves to create credit and earn interest on it, just like any other financial institution.






> Again, the Fed only sells bonds when it is trying to soak up its monetary supply. Where do you see that happening?



Partly right, the Fed can sell bonds for other reasons. Here is a WSJ article from last week about the Fed selling bonds:
The Federal Reserve Says, 'Let's Do the Twist' - WSJ.com






> How does the government get money? (Beyond the Fed printing it) It taxes it. Treasury bonds are in effect taxpayer money that is due to the government at a specified time, and then the government gives the money to the bond holder.



Yes, so ultimately the taxpayer is paying the bondholder, so that the government can finance itself. The government is not earning interest on the bond, the bondholder is. 






> So kind of like...government being a firm...and taxpayers owing money to it. So when I say:
> "So the US government is in a sense a creditor in Treasury bonds which are based upon future holdings of taxpayers payments."
> 
> It's true! Hooray! Learning is fun!



Two can play the definitions game:
What Does Creditor Mean?
An entity (person or institution) that extends credit by giving another entity permission to borrow money if it is paid back at a later date. Creditors can be classified as either "personal" or "real". Those people who loan money to friends or family are personal creditors. Real creditors (i.e. a bank or finance company) have legal contracts with the borrower granting the lender the right to claim any of the debtor's real assets (e.g. real estate or car) if he or she fails to pay back the loan.

Read more: Creditor Definition

Even under your definition the government is not a creditor in regards to the bonds it issues. By your definition, I could easily say that I am a creditor because I have a job, and I am a "person to whom money is due" but that's a pretty meaningless use of the word creditor. It would be even less intelligent to say I am a creditor because the money I owe requires me to collect money from others.






> Where is Obama going to get 447 billion dollars to lend to these businesses? The debt is now at 14.7 trillion dollars, meaning that the United States government owes 14.7 trillion dollars. Ok get ready cause this is the crayon drawing section. The government revenue has only been 2 trillion this year soooo
> 
> 14 Trillion....minus 2 Trillion....equals.....come on....12 trillion!
> 
> The deficit of the US is 1.3 trillion dollars. That means that this year we have already spent 1.3 trillion dollars more then we have taken in. So unless Obama has a magic wand up his ass, he is going to borrow/print that 447 billion dollars which will stack up the national debt. So more spending in a deficit economy...means more national debt.
> 
> Do you feel the slightest embarrassment when you have to be shown basic math?



I'm glad you know how to subtract, but it doesn't do much for your argument. Nice evasion perhaps though. Another piece of evidence of your basic dishonesty. 

One possible solution to the actual question you pose (Where the money will come from) is that the government does have reserves it could lend against. I am not saying this is the best or only solution but, the government could set up its own bank and use the gold in its vaults as reserves through which it could create credit and loan into the economy. It would not have to loan the actual gold out, but could create credit using the gold as reserves. This would limit the amount of money it could create as credit, but it would still be earning interest and spurring the economy at the same time. This is so radically different from what Obama is doing that your continuing to bring it up, convinces me we can't really move forward. The government has a number of other holdings of precious metals that could be used the same way. Hell, we could even tap pension funds if we had the political will and use them to create credit. There are a number of options, so you're comments about math are a pretty transparent and pretentious attempt to impress yourself. 

It was a nice try, but I actually run a math tutoring service and have been growing my business rapidly as schools cut back because local governments are all buried in debt. That means I not only have to know math inside out, but I have to be able to explain it to others in a way that gets immediate results. So, no, I'm not embarrassed by your sad failures of logic because your mighty subtraction skills don't relate to my argument. Did you really think that you were being impressive there?






> I keep using the Socratic method but honestly why do I? I just have to hold your hand through the forest anyways. I mean honestly, you don't even know what a deficit is so how can I treat you like an intelligent human being?



You're not quite clear on what the Socratic method is. The Socratic method depends on finding and responding to essential points, not trivial details. Socrates did not try to point out imagined contradictions before he understood the overall gist of other's arguments. He usually tried to state the other's argument in the clearest way possible and then looked to see if it stood up or not. It might be fun to fancy yourself a modern Socrates asking questions that no one will answer, but if people are repeatedly explaining to you why your questions don't relate to what they're saying, that's your first clue that your application of the method has gone awry.

Quite frankly I don't care how you treat me. It is clear you have all your basic intellectual faculties working, I have no need to randomly insult your vocabulary or basic capacities, but when I have to explain that Obama's borrowing and spending is different then loaning money, and your only response is to demand that I explain what bonds are, the best possible scenario I can imagine is that you are being evasive. To call your questions Socratic is laughable.





> With lending at .25 that would infer that banks are more likely to borrow money from the Federal Reserve therefore beefing up their currency reserves. With the current 3% inflation (which lets be honest is probably higher because they keep on changing what they input into it), what "bonds" are the banks buying up that is getting them this "guaranteed profit?"



Actually, I'll admit this is a good question and I should elaborate. Too bad you couldn't have started with questions like this. Banks can borrow at near 0% and buy up short term bonds yielding more than 0. They can immediately sell on secondary markets or slice and dice them up and package them in derivative contracts to lower the risk of said contracts. I said before that financial institutions can now use a number of tools to gain a greater return on their money than they can by lending to productive businesses and that is what I would claim is partly responsible for stalling our economy. 

Here is another person explaining (I don't claim this proves I am right, it is just another articulation that may help you understand the essential point.):
Philip Greenspun's Weblog » How Wall Street is making its billions

Lastly, just in case you actually ever do want to understand and learn, the two articles below explain the difference between my position and the current system. Maybe next time we could have a more productive debate.


If government created money instead of debt: Thomas Edison - National Nonpartisan | Examiner.com

Debt-damned economics: learn monetary reform or kiss your assets goodbye. 1 of 2 - National Nonpartisan | Examiner.com

Ciao Amigo

----------


## Xaqaria

Its not that we are bored, its that we are mostly well aware of Laughing Man's shoddy argument tactics and poor logic and would rather discuss the topic at hand then try to beat him over the head with reality.

----------


## Laughing Man

> Part of the reason China is growing is because it holds our debt. This is not a relevant objection to anything I've said. China must be doing other things right, otherwise it would have never obtained so much of our debt to begin with. This is a trivial detail not a response to any essential point I've made. And no, I don't care if you want to re-check figures for such a trivial point.



You're original comment concerned spurring growth without causing debt. The Chinese government is able to build so many public works because of the surpluses that it has acquired. Where has it acquired them? From financing U.S. borrowing. That is why I commented that China's market is growing because it holds 1.1 trillion dollars in U.S. debt






> As to your actual question, look at the Bank of North Dakota, it loans money to businesses and individuals and thus earns interest from the growth of the private sector. That is the crucial difference between what I favor and the current operation of our government, a point you repeatedly evade.



The government doesn't "have" money to loan out. Not in the strict sense of the word. The only way government acquires money is through taxation. What it doesn't acquire through taxation, it borrows or prints (thus increasing the debt). You act as though governments have a nice portfolio of assets that help it to acquire an income. 








> If you really have to bring crayons into the discussion it say more about you than me. If you're having trouble with that many people, the problem just might be on your end.



Well I would think that if I didn't have to example basic governmental principles to you, like deficits and surpluses. 







> Yes, mostly true but again not a contradiction of what I've said, because it is more accurate to say the Fed loans the money to the federal government. My essential point is that the word "buy" is misleading either way.



Loans it on the basis of the Treasury department que's. Something I previous said. 







> Any individual or financial institution that buys bonds is a private investor that is financing the government's debt. The federal government could become less reliant on this by using its own reserves to create credit and earn interest on it, just like any other financial institution.



Bonds are sold by the government, not the Federal Reserve unless they are trying to soak up monetary excess which again have you seen them doing? So its not as if private investors are working THROUGH the Federal Reserve to finance the government. 








> Partly right, the Fed can sell bonds for other reasons. Here is a WSJ article from last week about the Fed selling bonds:
> The Federal Reserve Says, 'Let's Do the Twist' - WSJ.com



Those bonds are usually 30-90 day investments and again the article points out that they are utilizing that to buy long term bonds. So they aren't soaking up monetary excess. 








> Yes, so ultimately the taxpayer is paying the bondholder, so that the government can finance itself. The government is not earning interest on the bond, the bondholder is.



Again, not true. The bondholder isn't necessarily a taxpayer. Remember that 1.1 trillion dollar trade imbalance with China...we don't owe they tea cups. 








> Two can play the definitions game:
> What Does Creditor Mean?
> An entity (person or institution) that extends credit by giving another entity permission to borrow money if it is paid back at a later date. Creditors can be classified as either "personal" or "real". Those people who loan money to friends or family are personal creditors. Real creditors (i.e. a bank or finance company) have legal contracts with the borrower granting the lender the right to claim any of the debtor's real assets (e.g. real estate or car) if he or she fails to pay back the loan.
> 
> Read more: Creditor Definition
> 
> Even under your definition the government is not a creditor in regards to the bonds it issues. By your definition, I could easily say that I am a creditor because I have a job, and I am a "person to whom money is due" but that's a pretty meaningless use of the word creditor. It would be even less intelligent to say I am a creditor because the money I owe requires me to collect money from others.



Really? We're going to do this? I just pointed out how the government is a creditor in the sense of bond issuing, and yes in a sense you are a creditor because you labor under the premise that you are going to get money. So in a way, your employee is the debtor because they owe you for services rendered. Will we have to talk about what a paycheck is next? Or how about what labor is? That is always fun. 







> I'm glad you know how to subtract, but it doesn't do much for your argument. Nice evasion perhaps though. Another piece of evidence of your basic dishonesty.



When the US borrows money, it goes into debt unless it has a surplus but then again why would it borrow money when it has a surplus. Anyways when I say, Obama is allocating spending, based on credit, for his jobs plan, you say "oh no no no, It's not credit!" We have a deficit. 1.3 trillion. We have a debt of over 14 trillion. We already are on credit now...so acquiring more money...from borrrowing...is based on....credit....

Apparently this concept is so hard for you to imagine that you think I have somehow tricked you. 





> One possible solution to the actual question you pose (Where the money will come from) is that the government does have reserves it could lend against. I am not saying this is the best or only solution but, the government could set up its own bank and use the gold in its vaults as reserves through which it could create credit and loan into the economy. It would not have to loan the actual gold out, but could create credit using the gold as reserves. This would limit the amount of money it could create as credit, but it would still be earning interest and spurring the economy at the same time. This is so radically different from what Obama is doing that your continuing to bring it up, convinces me we can't really move forward. The government has a number of other holdings of precious metals that could be used the same way. Hell, we could even tap pension funds if we had the political will and use them to create credit. There are a number of options, so you're comments about math are a pretty transparent and pretentious attempt to impress yourself.



...What do you think the US dollar was before 1971? If the notes that the government is issuing as credit can't be redeemed in gold then what is stopping the government from inflating the monetary supply to the levels it is now? The primary reason for why we have such high inflation is because gold is no longer keeping the spending in check. Before if the government spent and incurred huge trade deficits then the gold would flood out of the country in foreign nations. Now it is illegal to redeem notes into gold or use gold as a monetary base. It makes you wonder why the U.S. doesn't return the gold in Fort Knox, yes return it because it is the product of the Gold Confiscation act of 1933. The government does not own that gold in Fort Knox. So you think you've invented an alternative but really you are only explaining what we have today. 





> It was a nice try, but I actually run a math tutoring service and have been growing my business rapidly as schools cut back because local governments are all buried in debt. That means I not only have to know math inside out, but I have to be able to explain it to others in a way that gets immediate results. So, no, I'm not embarrassed by your sad failures of logic because your mighty subtraction skills don't relate to my argument. Did you really think that you were being impressive there?



See above comments








> You're not quite clear on what the Socratic method is. The Socratic method depends on finding and responding to essential points, not trivial details. Socrates did not try to point out imagined contradictions before he understood the overall gist of other's arguments. He usually tried to state the other's argument in the clearest way possible and then looked to see if it stood up or not. It might be fun to fancy yourself a modern Socrates asking questions that no one will answer, but if people are repeatedly explaining to you why your questions don't relate to what they're saying, that's your first clue that your application of the method has gone awry.



You not understanding deficits, trade imbalances, how bonds work seems an essential point. And who said I wanted to be a "modern Socrates?" Sir, you give me too much gusto.  





> Quite frankly I don't care how you treat me. It is clear you have all your basic intellectual faculties working, I have no need to randomly insult your vocabulary or basic capacities, but when I have to explain that Obama's borrowing and spending is different then loaning money, and your only response is to demand that I explain what bonds are, the best possible scenario I can imagine is that you are being evasive. To call your questions Socratic is laughable.



Who asked you to explain bonds? I asked you which bonds these banks are buying up to get their "guaranteed profit." Obviously making such a statement would mean you know at least a little about it. Otherwise you would just be spitting out assertions which obviously you would never do...I mean come on. This is the internet right?






> Actually, I'll admit this is a good question and I should elaborate. Too bad you couldn't have started with questions like this. Banks can borrow at near 0% and buy up short term bonds yielding more than 0. They can immediately sell on secondary markets or slice and dice them up and package them in derivative contracts to lower the risk of said contracts. I said before that financial institutions can now use a number of tools to gain a greater return on their money than they can by lending to productive businesses and that is what I would claim is partly responsible for stalling our economy.



And how can you be so sure that banks are investing in things like derivatives and why would they so hurriedly invest in them in such a volatile market with such high inflation? And how can you say that they are actually making these exchanges when bank reserves in depository banks have been steadily increasing since Dec 10? And borrowing from the Federal Reserve has gone down since that very same time.

Federal Reserve Statistical Release H.3 - September 22, 2011





> Here is another person explaining (I don't claim this proves I am right, it is just another articulation that may help you understand the essential point.):
> Philip Greenspun's Weblog » How Wall Street is making its billions
> 
> Lastly, just in case you actually ever do want to understand and learn, the two articles below explain the difference between my position and the current system. Maybe next time we could have a more productive debate.
> 
> 
> If government created money instead of debt: Thomas Edison - National Nonpartisan | Examiner.com
> 
> Debt-damned economics: learn monetary reform or kiss your assets goodbye. 1 of 2 - National Nonpartisan | Examiner.com
> ...



Ah god, no wonder you're saying such inane things. You are one of those "Money=Debt" proponents. Ugh now we have to get into one of those long "money isn't debt just the Fed causes debt because it needs to print money" conversations and Xaqaria is going to cry.

----------


## tommo



----------


## Xaqaria

Mike Krieger: "Rebellion Has Arrived In America" | ZeroHedge

----------


## Xei

I think TheAmazingAtheist would have done better if he'd shouted 'derp' for ten minutes.

----------


## Xaqaria



----------


## stormcrow

There is a planned demonstration in my city on October 6th I don't know whether I'm gonna go or not, Ive never been to a protest before...

----------


## tommo

YES!!!! GO!!!!

And encourage everyone you know to go as well!

_This_ is the time to make a change.

----------


## Descensus

> There is a planned demonstration in my city on October 6th I don't know whether I'm gonna go or not, Ive never been to a protest before...



It would probably be more productive to stay home, especially if it's an Occupy Wall Street demonstration lol

----------


## Supernova

> There is a planned demonstration in my city on October 6th I don't know whether I'm gonna go or not, Ive never been to a protest before...



DO IT

Get all your friends to go.  Life experience.

----------


## Neoquestmoo

I agree and disagree with these protesters.
While I agree that spending and focus on the economy is out of hand, I believe the economy should be America's #1 priority right now- all of our problems find root in, or are at least contributed to by, the failing economy.
>People are starving because they've lost their jobs.
>It would be too expensive to switch to cleaner power rather than to stick with oil and gas (I'm not saying green energy is too expensive to use, I'm saying its too expensive to install.)
>Our military is beginning to fall behind because research money has run dry.
>Funding for social programs has also gone out the window.
But the outrageous margin of focus between economy and other pressing issues (like poverty, energy and defense) overcompensates for this. The protesters cause, in this case, is ill-fated, and ill-conceived. At least in New York, they will, at best, be able to slow down Wall Street's function, and that will only constrict the economy further. What can these protesters do? Educate people on the best candidates for what needs to happen, (I'm not picking a side) and try to persuade people to vote for people with sensibility when it comes to the economy. Who that is, is up to them.

----------


## tommo

Um.... idiot.

How can you possibly fix an economy without removing the root cause of the fucking problem _with_ the economy?

Not that the way it is done is perfect, but it is not _that_ bad.  It's the people who fuck it up and exploit it who make it absolutely ridiculous and broken.

All no, not all, _most_ of your and other countries problems are caused by the failing economy, *which is caused by the people who are exploiting it.

*It wouldn't be failing right now if it wasn't for them.

----------


## Xei

It also wouldn't be failing if it wasn't for the droves of Americans who took out stupid loans they knew they couldn't repay. :/

Okay, here's what I think of this whole thing right now:

Stephen Colbert Fails to See Point of 'Occupy Wall Street' Protest

(video is lulzy)

tommo, the OP of this thread specifically says that the movement is about not giving a shit about the economy.

Yet you're saying it's the exact opposite and it's about holding to account the people responsible for the economy.

I put it to you that nobody in this movement has any idea what they are talking about.

In any case they have totally failed as a protest movement, because I (an observer) have no clue what they are protesting about.

----------


## tommo

> It also wouldn't be failing if it wasn't for the droves of Americans who took out stupid loans they knew they couldn't repay. :/
> 
> Okay, here's what I think of this whole thing right now:
> 
> Stephen Colbert Fails to See Point of 'Occupy Wall Street' Protest
> 
> (video is lulzy)
> 
> tommo, the OP of this thread specifically says that the movement is about not giving a shit about the economy.
> ...



Um, dude.  That Steven Colbert video was basically saying that they actually have a good point.

How did you miss that?

He says "it's just stoners who have no idea what they're talking about"  or something to that effect.
Then he shows a video of them and they're giving clear, concise answers about what they actually believe.
It's called irony.

Listen to specifically 1:08 to 2:00 minutes.

As for the people taking out loans they couldn't repay.... anyone can fall for anything.  The smartest people in the world could fall for a scam if it was cleverly concealed enough.
A guy who writes in the Skeptical Inquirer magazine, and so is obviously a hardcore skeptic (can't remember his name right now) fell for the Ponzi scheme.
The reason there are logical fallacies, a giant list of them in fact, is because we automatically fall for them.  That is how our brain is wired due to advantages survival wise.
Everyone falls for bullshit at some point.  Although no doubt a lot of them were stupid, doesn't mean they all were.  And doesn't mean it was their fault.

It's the bankers and investors who caused all this.  If you are denying that.... well I just feel sorry for you.

----------


## Xei

Right, none of that answered how you think the protests are about the exact opposite of what the OP thought the protests are about, did it?

BTW, demonising investors is completely inane, please stop it.

----------


## tommo

The OP doesn't say they don't give a fuck about the economy, does it?

No!  It says that there is too much political focus on the economy and trying to gain economic growth, when there are FARRRRRRR more important thing to fix.  Economy should take second priority basically.

----------


## Xei

So why are you discussing the economy in this thread?





> Important things like security, social programs, and environmental responsibility are becoming second rung to "economic growth."







> _most_ of your and other countries problems are caused by the failing economy.



lolwat

----------


## tommo

Coz that nequestmoo moron was talking about the economy?  Saying it's the most important thing?

Jesus christ, you are autistic aren't you?

----------


## Xei

But you agreed with him? Herp.

"most of your and other countries problems are caused by the failing economy."

^ the above statement means that the economy is secondary to environmental and security problems.

Have I stepped into RS or something..?

----------


## Supernova

> >Our military is beginning to fall behind because research money has run dry.



Fall behind who?

----------


## tommo

> But you agreed with him? Herp.
> 
> "most of your and other countries problems are caused by the failing economy."
> 
> ^ the above statement means that the economy is secondary to environmental and security problems.



 Yeah, the above quote might seem that way *when you cut off the first half of it and ignore the rest of my post/s.*

----------


## Descensus

People who claim the economy should come second will have a hard time fixing other problems if the economy actually does "come second."

----------


## ThePreserver

It was mentioned earlier that Occupy Wall Street is at the "root" of the problem, but this is a multi-rooted problem.  Why aren't we occupying THIS building too?



The root of the problem isn't only the bankers and investing firms who were incentivised for malinvestment, but the system that gave out faulty incentives.  In the wake of the Dot Com bubble when the Fed manipulated interest rates to increase bond transactions, it was actually mortgage bundles that were being traded under the new, lower rates.  Banks were encouraged to loan more under a false rate since they were getting both lower rates, and Fannie and Freddie were getting subsidized while issuing funds to banks for subprime loans.

It's not just Wall Street's fault... they were simply doing what you would NORMALLY do if the market wasn't manipulated.  Unfortunately for them, it was manipulated.

----------


## Xei

The market is essentially just a bunch of dudes betting their money. It's not a secret club either, anybody can do it. What's sinister about that? Somebody please explain how vilifying investors is anything but a colossal derp?

How can the problem lie anywhere except government?

----------


## Descensus

> The market is essentially just a bunch of dudes betting their money. It's not a secret club either, anybody can do it. What's sinister about that? Somebody please explain how vilifying investors is anything but a colossal derp?
> 
> How can the problem lie anywhere except government?



In b4 the word "greed" is brought up as if everybody doesn't act in their own self-interest.

----------


## ThePreserver

The majority of the fault lies with the government.  However, investors were stupid enough to NOT see how investing in a government-backed and subsidised industry might be bad...

While they have good intentions at Occupy Wall Street, do they not see how much of a part the Federal Reserve had in this financial crisis?

----------


## Xei

> The majority of the fault lies with the government.  However, investors were stupid enough to NOT see how investing in a government-backed and subsidised industry might be bad...



Bad investors should lose the money they gambled. Surely this is how it works? Making stupid investments isn't immoral, it's just that - stupid - and in any decent system it should just have the natural comeuppances.

----------


## ThePreserver

> Bad investors should lose the money they gambled. Surely this is how it works? Making stupid investments isn't immoral, it's just that - stupid - and in any decent system it should just have the natural comeuppances.



It SHOULD be how it works, yes.  Bad investors should have had the foresight.  Banks who were foolish shouldn't have been REWARDED either... Goldman Sachs was given 10 billion for failing to function.

No such thing as "too big to fail."  The greater the boom, the more painful a market correction will be, and the Federal Reserve is attempting to stretch out the market correction with quantitative easing... so instead of letting it hit us hard and fast, they will force us to suffer through economic recession for an extra couple of years.

----------


## Xaqaria

> The market is essentially just a bunch of dudes betting their money. It's not a secret club either, anybody can do it. What's sinister about that? Somebody please explain how vilifying investors is anything but a colossal derp?
> 
> How can the problem lie anywhere except government?



On the one hand, I agree. The government should be above corruption, they should know that they should refuse bribes, not give favors for campaign contributions, etc. On the other hand, I look at our government and I see a lot of people who used to work officially for the financial corporations and most likely still do, and will continue to long after they leave office. They are essentially regulating themselves. They are passing legislation that benefits themselves. They are bailing themselves out with public funds. If you want to change things, do you go to where they pretend to work for the government or do you go to where they really work, the companies like Goldman Sachs, BofA, jpmorgan, etc.? It isn't about trying to get the attention of the people who are committing the crimes. They already know what they are doing. It's about getting the people to realize where the real seat of power is in this country.

----------


## ThePreserver

Funny you mention them, because the top contributors to Obama and Romney (and Pawlenty) in the second quarter were all banks, Goldman Sachs was one of them, so was Morgan-Stanley.

Ron Paul was the only candidate who had ANY branch of the military in his top 20.  (All 3, Army, Navy, and Air Force were in his top 7.)  He doesn't have any bank support, because he doesn't support them back.

Same goes for Gary Johnson but to a lesser extent.  He's mostly small business-financed.

Wall Street isn't the issue, the government is.  All the power to Occupy Wall Street, but it won't solve anything until they start supporting efforts like Americans Elect and candidates who care like Kucinich or Paul.

----------


## Xei

> On the one hand, I agree. The government should be above corruption, they should know that they should refuse bribes, not give favors for campaign contributions, etc. On the other hand, I look at our government and I see a lot of people who used to work officially for the financial corporations and most likely still do, and will continue to long after they leave office. They are essentially regulating themselves. They are passing legislation that benefits themselves. They are bailing themselves out with public funds. If you want to change things, do you go to where they pretend to work for the government or do you go to where they really work, the companies like Goldman Sachs, BofA, jpmorgan, etc.? It isn't about trying to get the attention of the people who are committing the crimes. They already know what they are doing. It's about getting the people to realize where the real seat of power is in this country.



Still government. The banks still only have power through its ties to government. Want to stop this? Stop voting for politicians who do it.

It's all about government and it can all be fixed by a willing, educated electorate.

The electorate isn't educated or willing? Well, democracy's a bitch.

----------


## ThePreserver

> The banks still only have power through its ties to government.



10 Points to Gryffindor!

Also, End the Fed, and whatnot.

----------


## Xaqaria

LIST OF PROPOSED "DEMANDS FOR CONGRESS"

CONGRESS PASS HR 1489 ("RETURN TO PRUDENT BANKING ACT" H.R. 1489: Return to Prudent Banking Act of 2011 (GovTrack.us) ). THIS REINSTATES MANY PROVISIONS OF THE GLASS-STEAGALL ACT. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass–Steagall_Act --- Wiki entry summary: The repeal of provisions of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933 by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act in 1999 effectively removed the separation that previously existed between investment banking which issued securities and commercial banks which accepted deposits. The deregulation also removed conflict of interest prohibitions between investment bankers serving as officers of commercial banks. Most economists believe this repeal directly contributed to the severity of the Financial crisis of 2007–2011 by allowing Wall Street investment banking firms to gamble with their depositors' money that was held in commercial banks owned or created by the investment firms. Here's detail on repeal in 1999 and how it happened: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass–Steagall_Act#Repeal .   Vote Here

USE CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY AND OVERSIGHT TO ENSURE APPROPRIATE FEDERAL AGENCIES FULLY INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE THE WALL STREET CRIMINALS who clearly broke the law and helped cause the 2008 financial crisis in the following notable cases: (insert list of the most clear cut criminal actions). There is a pretty broad consensus that there is a clear group of people who got away with millions / billions illegally and haven't been brought to justice. Boy would this be long overdue and cathartic for millions of Americans. It would also be a shot across the bow for the financial industry. If you watch the solidly researched and awared winning documentary film "Inside Job" that was narrated by Matt Damon (pretty brave Matt!) and do other research, it wouldn't take long to develop the list.  Vote Here

CONGRESS ENACT LEGISLATION TO PROTECT OUR DEMOCRACY BY REVERSING THE EFFECTS OF THE CITIZENS UNITED SUPREME COURT DECISION which essentially said corporations can spend as much as they want on elections. The result is that corporations can pretty much buy elections. Corporations should be highly limited in ability to contribute to political campaigns no matter what the election and no matter what the form of media. This legislation should also RE-ESTABLISH THE PUBLIC AIRWAVES IN THE U.S. SO THAT POLITICAL CANDIDATES ARE GIVEN EQUAL TIME FOR FREE AT REASONABLE INTERVALS IN DAILY PROGRAMMING DURING CAMPAIGN SEASON. The same should extend to other media.  Vote Here

CONGRESS PASS THE BUFFETT RULE ON FAIR TAXATION SO THE RICH AND CORPORATIONS PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE & CLOSE CORPORATE TAX LOOP HOLES AND ENACT A PROHIBITION ON HIDING FUNDS OFF SHORE. No more GE paying zero or negative taxes. Pass the Buffet Rule on fair taxation so the rich pay their fair share. (If we have a really had a good negotiating position and have the place surrounded, we could actually dial up taxes on millionaires, billionaires and corporations even higher...back to what they once were in the 50's and 60's. Vote Here

CONGRESS COMPLETELY REVAMP THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION and staff it at all levels with proven professionals who get the job done protecting the integrity of the marketplace so citizens and investors are both protected. This agency needs a large staff and needs to be well-funded. It's currently has a joke of a budget and is run by Wall St. insiders who often leave for high ticket cushy jobs with the corporations they were just regulating. Hmmm.

CONGRESS PASS SPECIFIC AND EFFECTIVE LAWS LIMITING THE INFLUENCE OF LOBBYISTS AND ELIMINATING THE PRACTICE OF LOBBYISTS WRITING LEGISLATION THAT ENDS UP ON THE FLOOR OF CONGRESS.  Vote Here

CONGRESS PASSING "Revolving Door Legislation" LEGISLATION ELIMINATING THE ABILITY OF FORMER GOVERNMENT REGULATORS GOING TO WORK FOR CORPORATIONS THAT THEY ONCE REGULATED. So, you don't get to work at the FDA for five years playing softball with Pfizer and then go to work for Pfizer making $195,000 a year. While they're at it, Congress should pass specific and effective laws to enforce strict judicial standards of conduct in matters concerning conflicts of interest. So long as judges are culled from the ranks of corporate attorneys the 1% will retain control.  Vote Here

ELIMINATE "PERSONHOOD" LEGAL STATUS FOR CORPORATIONS. The film "The Corporation" has a great section on how corporations won "personhood status". THE CORPORATION [2/23] Birth - YouTube . Fast-forward to 2:20. It'll blow your mind. The 14th amendment was supposed to give equal rights to African Americans. It said you "can't deprive a person of life, liberty or property without due process of law". Corporation lawyers wanted corporations to have more power so they basically said "corporations are people." Amazingly, between 1890 and 1910 there were 307 cases brought before the court under the 14th amendment. 288 of these brought by corporations and only 19 by African Americans. 600,000 people were killed to get rights for people and then judges applied those rights to capital and property while stripping them from people. It's time to set this straight.

----------


## Xaqaria

> Still government. The banks still only have power through its ties to government. Want to stop this? Stop voting for politicians who do it.
> 
> It's all about government and it can all be fixed by a willing, educated electorate.
> 
> The electorate isn't educated or willing? Well, democracy's a bitch.



The electorate isn't educated in large part because some of the same people behind the corporate coup of our government own all the major media outlets in our country. Wonder why you haven't heard about Occupy Wall st. in the news? Probably because Billionaire Mayor Bloomberg of new york happens to have his own media conglomerate and doesn't want anyone to know what is going on. The major media of this country is controlled by just 5 corporations.

----------


## Xei

Actually it's probably because I'm British. But what do you suggest doing about it? It seems to me that the American public is too stupid to understand rationality and scepticism; the information is freely available, you just have to have the sense to go and get it rather than being spoonfed bollocks by some corporation or other.

----------


## Xaqaria

The people of this country need to accept responsibility. We are to used to being spoonfed, as you say. I think one solution would be to actually strike at the heart of the problem, education. We have one of the worst education systems in the first world. Our government has been purposely raising the citizens to be stupid dependent and lazy. We've been taught that we are entitled to the benefits of one of the largest economies on the planet without doing anything to deserve those benefits. Instead of cutting education to finance debt and bail out the financial sector, we should be funneling as many resources to our schools as we can afford, and reforming the way those schools teach our children. We should take the power to define our curriculum out of the hands of a few text book publishers in Texas of all places and actually set rational and informed standards for what should be taught.

I meant to say something about your "stop voting for politicians..." comment. The problems that we are facing are so deep that voting doesn't really seem to have much of an effect any more. Looking only at the presidency, how am I supposed to vote for someone who doesn't work for the corporations when the corporations are choosing who gets put on the ballot? When I have only 2 choices and both of them are corporate stooges, what on earth can I hope to accomplish through voting?

----------


## Xei

But of course, that would require the people to vote sensibly to change said spending (in order for them to be educated well enough to realise that they should vote sensibly...). We're back to the same problem.

Edit: the OWS protests just made it across the pond to the BBC news front page as a result of mass arrests.

----------


## stormcrow

> YES!!!! GO!!!!
> 
> And encourage everyone you know to go as well!
> 
> _This_ is the time to make a change.



Ya I'm for sure going now and I'm bringing some friends from work too. I'm mainly going to document the event, Ill post some pictures as soon as possible(probably Thursday night or Friday). I don't plan on rioting or anything of that sort but I do want to show my support and document it. These are some pretty crazy times we are living in...

I'm just nervous about the police instigating violence to delegitimize the demonstration. I hope its a peaceful march I'm not into the wannabe anarchist black bloc bullshit.

----------


## Spartiate

> I'm just nervous about the police instigating violence to delegitimize the demonstration. I hope its a peaceful march I'm not into the wannabe anarchist black bloc bullshit.



Exercise caution in that respect.  It doesn't take much to get caught up with the wrong crowd in the chaos of a protest, you DON'T want to end up with a criminal record...  Ideology is all fun and games but that would really fuck up your life later on.

----------


## tommo

> People who claim the economy should come second will have a hard time fixing other problems if the economy actually does "come second."



Yeah a good economy is always a sign of a happy populace.

Extremest sarcasm possible ^

----------


## ThePreserver

It's not impossible to use the system to try and beat the system.  Ron Paul has been doing it for 12 Congressional terms, Gary Johnson did it, Dennis Kucinich does it...

Oh yeah.  This: Americans Elect 2012 | The first direct presidential nomination

If you're registered to vote and an American, you should probably join this organization.

----------


## ninja9578

> Want to stop this? Stop voting for politicians who do it.



That's not possible in the united states.  The ruling class decides who can run for office, the people only get to vote on the ones they pick out for us.  A congress campaign costs about two million dollars, and presidential campaigns cost even more.  Only the top 1% can afford to finance those, and the require something back when they do.  Bribery is legal in the usa, we just don't call it bribery, we call it lobbying.  If the ruling class doesn't like someone who is running, they simply give the guy they do like suitcases full of money to saturate the market with more ads.  Getting elected isn't about the views of the politician, it's about how well their marketing department is.  We only get to see the political views at the very very end.

Only in extreme cases can the people actually get someone elected.  Obama is the only one in a very very long time who did not accept bribes, and that was only possible due to the overwhelming Fuck Bush attitude.

On a very related note, Chase Bank (one of the one's who helped cause the financial meltdown) just "donated" 4.2 million dollars to the NYPD.  The timing and the fact that they've never done anything like that before is indicative that they are trying to buy the cops to get the protesters to be quiet because people are starting to take notice.

----------


## stormcrow

> Obama is the only one in a very very long time who did not accept bribes, and that was only possible due to the overwhelming Fuck Bush attitude.



I'm pretty sure that Obama's presidential campaign was funded by the Bank of America..

----------


## ninja9578

> I'm pretty sure that Obama's presidential campaign was funded by the Bank of America..



You are right, my mistake.  It wasn't bank of America though.  No one can run for any office without the permission / financial backing of the corporate giants.

----------


## Dannon Oneironaut

Obama was funded by all the same corporations and big banks all the presidential candidates are. He lied when he said that he was only being funded by donations from citizens.

----------


## tommo

Well you can't spend a billion dollars from donations from the public.  It obviously has to be corporations.

You two ignored the part relevant to this thread:
"On a very related note, Chase Bank (one of the one's who helped cause the financial meltdown) just "donated" 4.2 million dollars to the NYPD. The timing and the fact that they've never done anything like that before is indicative that they are trying to buy the cops to get the protesters to be quiet because people are starting to take notice."

----------


## ThePreserver

Ah, so much pessimism.  Top Contributors to Barack Obama | OpenSecrets  That will tell you who is paying Obama.

NOT EVERY candidate gets corporate backing; Paul (I know, I'm a broken record) has all branches of military servicemen as three of his top four donor groups, Army, Navy, and Air Force.  No other candidate has them in the top 20.

But you're right, any candidate who wants to easily win will be backed by corporate interests.  BUT... with enough people voting for the anti-corporatists, Paul and Kucinich, maybe we can send a message to corporations that not everyone can be bought?  I recommend doing that, which is why I'm registering Republican just to vote for Paul in the primaries.

Since I can't protest corporatism with my time, I'll protest it with my vote.

----------


## ninja9578

> Ah, so much pessimism.  [url=http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?cycle=2012&id=N00009638]Paul (I know, I'm a broken record) has all branches of military servicemen as three of his top four donor groups, Army, Navy, and Air Force.  No other candidate has them in the top 20.



But Paul doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning.  He's a novelty candidate that a few people vote for mostly just to be different.  He's the Ralph Nader of this generation of politics.

----------


## ninja9578

> "On a very related note, Chase Bank (one of the one's who helped cause the financial meltdown) just "donated" 4.2 million dollars to the NYPD. The timing and the fact that they've never done anything like that before is indicative that they are trying to buy the cops to get the protesters to be quiet because people are starting to take notice."



Now lets bring the discussion back to occupy wallstreet.

----------


## Descensus

> But Paul doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning.  He's a novelty candidate that a few people vote for mostly just to be different.  He's the Ralph Nader of this generation of politics.



Yeah, I'm sure they're all just voting for him to be hipsters. 

What a load of shit.

----------


## ninja9578

No, they are voting for him to make a statement that they dislike the corrupt two party system, same reason they voted for Nader.

----------


## Descensus

> No, they are voting for him to make a statement that they dislike the corrupt two party system, same reason they voted for Nader.



So they're not doing it "just to be different." They actually have a justified reason.

----------


## Laughing Man

> No, they are voting for him to make a statement that they dislike the corrupt two party system, same reason they voted for Nader.



So, they are voting for a Republican to show that they don't like the Republican vs Democrat only dynamic. Either you didn't think before you wrote that...or you somehow deduced millions of people's stupidity in choosing how to vote....

----------


## ninja9578

During the 2008 election he was on the Ballot as "Constitutional Party" in the few states that placed him on the ballot.  His views are Republican, but because he can't get their nomination, he went third party.  If the voters who voted for Paul wanted a Republican, they would have voted for McCain, they knew Paul wouldn't win the election, so they voted for him purely as a statement.  Same way Nader was a Democrat in most of his views, but ran under the Green Party's nomination, no one thought Nader would win, the votes for him were just a statement.  Now drop it and go back to the Occupy Wallstreet thread.

----------


## Descensus

> During the 2008 election he was on the Ballot as "Constitutional Party" in the few states that placed him on the ballot.  His views are Republican, but because he can't get their nomination, he went third party.  If the voters who voted for Paul wanted a Republican, they would have voted for McCain, they knew Paul wouldn't win the election, so they voted for him purely as a statement.  Same way Nader was a Democrat in most of his views, but ran under the Green Party's nomination, no one thought Nader would win, the votes for him were just a statement.  Now drop it and go back to the Occupy Wallstreet thread.



You know the motives of every person that voted for RP or Nader? Interesting.

----------


## ThePreserver

... maybe we voted for someone against the war, against the war on drugs, against insane government debt, against the Federal Reserve (which is one of the primary causes of the recession, NOT Wall Street.), and against interventionism?

Or maybe you're right.  Maybe my vote is just to "stick it" to everyone else.  I'm sure everyone else knows better why I'm voting than me.

But when asked about Occupy Wall Street, Ron Paul and Ralph Nader did a mini media "tour" together speaking out against the stupidity that is the Federal Reserve, to enlighten people about how we have a government within a government causing so many problems.  Kucinich did the same, "Where did this problem arise?"  He responded that they'd have to go back to the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 to find the answer.  (See?  Still on topic!)

----------


## ninja9578

Guess which [what Fox would call] leftist socialist said this?




> ‎We're going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share.  They sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing while a bus driver is paying 10 percent of his salaryand that's crazy.




*Spoiler* for _Answer_: 



Ronald Reagan

----------


## tommo

> You know the motives of every person that voted for RP or Nader? Interesting.



The thing is, if people are too stupid to vote properly, they don't say "oh I'm gonna be koolz and votez Ron Paul, man".
They post on their facebook "WHO SHOULD I VOTE FOR!??? I DON'T KNOW WHO I SHOULD CHOOSE!"
And they end up going with one of the two main candidates, because they probably don't even realise any other parties exist.  (Unless I convince them to vote Greens of course  ::lol:: )

So the people who vote Ron Paul are the ones who are making an informed decision and realise the two main candidates are a turd sandwhich and a douchebag.

----------


## Laughing Man

> During the 2008 election he was on the Ballot as "Constitutional Party" in the few states that placed him on the ballot.  His views are Republican, but because he can't get their nomination, he went third party.  If the voters who voted for Paul wanted a Republican, they would have voted for McCain, they knew Paul wouldn't win the election, so they voted for him purely as a statement.  Same way Nader was a Democrat in most of his views, but ran under the Green Party's nomination, no one thought Nader would win, the votes for him were just a statement.  Now drop it and go back to the Occupy Wallstreet thread.



That does not make sense. Firstly, Ron Paul never ran as a third party candidate. If people decided to write him in as a write-in vote, he has no control over that. So he did not go third party. Secondly, you can only vote for McCain if you are voting Republican...that is the whole point of the primaries. You couldn't vote Ron Paul AND vote Republican.

Now how you turn this previous action into a belief that "this is why people are voting for him now" is beyond the bizarre.

----------


## Spartiate

> NOT EVERY candidate gets corporate backing; Paul (I know, I'm a broken record) has all branches of military servicemen as three of his top four donor groups, Army, Navy, and Air Force.  No other candidate has them in the top 20.



Wait, how does that work?  I hope the US military isn't using federal money to fund a single political candidate?





> The thing is, if people are too stupid to vote properly, they don't say "oh I'm gonna be koolz and votez Ron Paul, man".
> They post on their facebook "WHO SHOULD I VOTE FOR!??? I DON'T KNOW WHO I SHOULD CHOOSE!"
> And they end up going with one of the two main candidates, because they probably don't even realise any other parties exist.  (Unless I convince them to vote Greens of course )
> 
> So the people who vote Ron Paul are the ones who are making an informed decision and realise the two main candidates are a turd sandwhich and a douchebag.



Solid logic there...

----------


## tommo

I don't see how it isn't.  Obviously it doesn't apply to everyone, nothing does.

But it is obvious that most people who would vote for a non-main candidate/party are doing so because they realise their policies are better, and the two main candidates suck.

Rather than just "oh I'm gonna be cool and vote for this random dude".

----------


## Xaqaria

The two main candidates are def. a turd sandwich and a douchebag, but Ron Paul isn't a bed of roses either. In economic matters he may be spot on but he's still the anti-gay anti-abortion type.

----------


## Laughing Man

> The two main candidates are def. a turd sandwich and a douchebag, but Ron Paul isn't a bed of roses either. In economic matters he may be spot on but he's still the anti-gay anti-abortion type.



I know that he is against abortions and wants to leave them to the states, but where do you see him being "anti-gay?"

----------


## cmind

> The two main candidates are def. a turd sandwich and a douchebag, but Ron Paul isn't a bed of roses either. In economic matters he may be spot on but he's still the anti-gay anti-abortion type.



Anti-gay? He's stated on many occasions that he's for equal rights for ALL, and that would include gays. He's also stated that he's against gay marriage because *he's against all government marriage, gay or straight.*

----------


## Original Poster

Ron Paul ran on the libertarian ticket in 1988. He has not since run with a 3rd party.

I like Ron Paul because he's not a fundamentalist. Fundamentalism is the most corrosive taint to ever lactate the GOP. Liberals are capable of fundamentalism, too. I would define it as any agenda to push the values of one group of people on everybody else. Ron Paul may have deeply conservative values aligned with the traditional core of this country, but he doesn't act like everyone else needs to adapt that view too.

Defending the sacredness of marriage is a perfect exampled of a fundamentalist argument being twisted into something else to hide it's true nature. A very vocal base of this country believes gays and liberals are actively trying to destroy the country, they put themselves on the victim side of things and suddenly fundamentalism becomes not only excusable but your only option left.

----------


## ThePreserver

CLINTON, a Democrat, signed the Defense of Marriage Act... that's real progressive of him eh?

Also, I'm quite happy, a bunch of Occupy Wall Street protesters were chanting "Fuck the Fed" today.  Successful breakthroughs!

----------


## Xaqaria

Yeah, I think I made the mistake of repeating something I read without checking to see if it was true.

Ron Paul on Gay Marriage:




I think Ron Paul could preside over the new American Renaissance except he would almost surely be assassinated if he were ever elected.

----------


## Original Poster

He makes a good point but what protocol should a hospital follow for visitation rights? What protocol should a judge follow when someone dies absent of a will? Marriage is not purely a religious issue.

----------


## ThePreserver

They should allow any "significant other" in.  We could have "civil unions" for all consenting couples of legal age... and your state can call it marriage.

He wants it to go to a state level if necessary.

----------


## Original Poster

Yeah I get that he doesn't think it's a federal issue, most issues handled by the feds should be handled by the states or county/city and this is something I support Paul for but a civil union is a marriage, In don't care what you call it church and state are already separate so by default any handlings the state has of marriage is over how marriage effects people in a secular fashion, meaning it should not differentiate between faiths or personal beliefs. Whether or not you call it marriage or civil union does not change what is in the eyes of the state: a financial and legal union. Whether or not this is a federal issue, a presidential candidate is still free to make the point that married individuals have rights that unmarried people do not for the protection of both the married and unmarried from opportunism. The state distinguishes married and unmarried for a secular purpose. Vocabulary is irrelevant.

----------


## Xaqaria

Don't want to go to far into it because its way off topic (and we are already way off the topic of occupy wall st.) Civil Unions should be the extent of legal marriage and anyone should be able to do it; if I'm a neckbeard gamer with no girlfriend but have had the same (male or female) roommate for 5 years we should be able to have a civil union, or conversely there could simply be a legal standard that if you can show you have been living with someone for a certain amount of time then you have certain rights of visitation and or property in the event of their illness or death.

----------


## Original Poster

That strikes me as flexible. Besides, marriage is about union in the eyes of the state. Union in the eyes of God has always been a separate issue. The word marriage is nothing more than a synonym for union and carries no precursory religious connotation.

----------


## Descensus

This guy needs three things: A medal, a megaphone, and a bag of lozenges.

----------


## Ne-yo

I must say that's a very powerful speech and I commend that guy. I didn't even know people were making speeches out there. All of the streams I've come across were people playing the conga drums and dancing in the streets. For a moment, I was thinking OWS was just a huge come one, come all street festival in N.Y...lol

All jokes aside this guy gets mad respect from me, great job.  ::goodjob2::

----------


## Descensus

11 Reasons Why Occupy Wall Street Protesters Are Hypocrites If They Do Not Call For Barack Obama To Resign - BlackListedNews.com

----------


## Original Poster

> 11 Reasons Why Occupy Wall Street Protesters Are Hypocrites If They Do Not Call For Barack Obama To Resign - BlackListedNews.com



This is valid, but calling Obama to resign would alienate the liberals in this country and turn OWS into another tea party demonstration. Real liberals dislike Obama because he's a corporatist but unfortunately the tea-party ruined all substantial criticism against Obama by calling him a socialist Kenyan. The reality is pinning this too much on Obama would promote the Republican bid for 2012 but it would not do jack to solve corruption in the private sector.

----------


## Laughing Man

> This is valid, but calling Obama to resign would alienate the liberals in this country and turn OWS into another tea party demonstration. Real liberals dislike Obama because he's a corporatist but unfortunately the tea-party ruined all substantial criticism against Obama by calling him a socialist Kenyan. The reality is pinning this too much on Obama would promote the Republican bid for 2012 but it would not do jack to solve corruption in the private sector.



Do you mean Socialist Keynesian?

----------


## Descensus

> This is valid, but calling Obama to resign would alienate the liberals in this country and turn OWS into another tea party demonstration. Real liberals dislike Obama because he's a corporatist but unfortunately the tea-party ruined all substantial criticism against Obama by calling him a *socialist Kenyan*. The reality is pinning this too much on Obama would promote the Republican bid for 2012 but it would not do jack to solve corruption in the private sector.



Socialist Kenyan or socialist Keynesian? I saw a satirical YouTube video where people mistook "Keynesian" for "Kenyan" and started calling the people who had the sign "birthers."

Edit - Laughing Man and I had a moment of mental resonance.

----------


## Laughing Man

> Socialist Kenyan or socialist Keynesian? I saw a satirical YouTube video where people mistook "Keynesian" for "Kenyan" and started calling the people who had the sign "birthers."
> 
> Edit - Laughing Man and I had a moment of mental resonance.



Are you thinking of this right now?

----------


## Descensus

> Are you thinking of this right now?



No, and now I never want to think of that lmao

----------


## Laughing Man

> No, and now I never want to think of that lmao



Don't be a bigot against Garth Merenghi

----------


## ThePreserver

> Socialist Kenyan or socialist Keynesian? I saw a satirical YouTube video where people mistook "Keynesian" for "Kenyan" and started calling the people who had the sign "birthers."



That's sad.  Sad that people don't understand that there ARE other ways to run an economy... ways that don't rely on one man's politics.

----------


## stormcrow

> Exercise caution in that respect.  It doesn't take much to get caught up with the wrong crowd in the chaos of a protest, you DON'T want to end up with a criminal record...  Ideology is all fun and games but that would really fuck up your life later on.



Thanks for the advice, Ill keep on my toes and exercise caution when photographing cops which is what I am most worried about. Walking around with a camera at a protest is like wearing a shirt with a bulls eye on it that says "arrest me". I'm going tomorrow morning (I'm really nervous but also pretty excited) anyone have any other advice that might save my ass in some way?

----------


## ThePreserver

Know your rights, both overall and in peaceful assembly.

Know that they must read you your Miranda Rights, or else you can appeal.

Exercise respect, too.  You're there to make a statement, not be an asshole!

----------


## stormcrow

Also there is a live feed of the events in New York on adbusters.org.
Shit is actually hitting the fan right now.

Its also being streamed at http://www.livestream.com/globalrevolution

----------


## Spartiate

> I'm going tomorrow morning (I'm really nervous but also pretty excited) anyone have any other advice that might save my ass in some way?



If ever law enforcement does stop you for whatever reason, be calm and cooperative, unless you're the kind that likes to be on TV...

----------


## stormcrow

> If ever law enforcement does stop you for whatever reason, be calm and cooperative, unless you're the kind that likes to be on TV...



Nah I don't want to be on TV and especially not in jail, I'm pretty respectful to police. I don't really plan on getting arrested nor do I even expect there to be any violence whatsoever but right now as we speak (type) there are people in New York getting beaten and arrested by police. Its 9:43 where I live so it is 11:43 in New York and there are still 20,000 people occupying the streets. Its been a couple weeks and the movement is growing more rapidly than ever. Its getting pretty crazy out there.

----------


## juroara

HI GUYS!

I need your help ASAP!

Im slow on the uptake and I just found out occupy will be in Dallas tomorrow not so far from where I work. Timing couldn't be any better because I'm really worried about my job, as much as I love working for an eco-friendly-we-hate-monsanto company, its losing money fast and boss can break to me the bad news to me at any time now. 

I wanna be a part of occupy tomorrow!

Me and my friend could use help with our signs! Theres so much to say I wouldn't know where to begin. I can see a lot of people like to share their personal story. I might do that. But I also want a bullet list. Hope someone can help me before the night.

A top issue for me is education and how ridiculously expensive it is to go to school, and how banks happily profit off student loans. The whole logic behind it for me, is absurd. I just dropped $500 today on my student loans, not a penny went to the initial loan it all went to the interest. 

What are some top issues for you?

----------


## stormcrow

> HI GUYS!
> 
> I need your help ASAP!
> 
> Im slow on the uptake and I just found out occupy will be in Dallas tomorrow not so far from where I work. Timing couldn't be any better because I'm really worried about my job, as much as I love working for an eco-friendly-we-hate-monsanto company, its losing money fast and boss can break to me the bad news to me at any time now. 
> 
> I wanna be a part of occupy tomorrow!
> 
> Me and my friend could use help with our signs! Theres so much to say I wouldn't know where to begin. I can see a lot of people like to share their personal story. I might do that. But I also want a bullet list. Hope someone can help me before the night.
> ...



I live in Dallas and am going to the protest tomorrow as well but I am not bringing a sign. I believe that one of the big issues is the fact that the rich (who are in the minority) have more sway in the government than the working people (the majority) which is incompatible with a self-declared democratic country. There are many issues being raised but most are economic in nature hence Wall Street being the central location for the protest in New York. Just go with what you think feels right. I hope to see you there be safe!

Also this just came out in New York

----------


## DeletePlease

I like how the cop in blue is calmly telling the guy with the camera to back up a bit and then the the fat dude in white comes out of nowhere with his baton and goes Rambo on everyone.

----------


## Ne-yo

> Its also being streamed at globalrevolution - live streaming video powered by Livestream



I have a friend from Madrid named Monica procasting on livestream out in N.Y. as well. If you ever happen to watch it, look out for her she's a revolutionary, hard core type but you could never tell by her looks. Anyway, Stormcrow be safe bro.

----------


## tommo

Where is her link to stream?

EDIT:  Here is a good link which sort of brings everything to a more personal level....
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/0...ll-Bring-Tears

----------


## juroara

*cries* I got lost. Epic failure! I'm new to town okay! I only had a paper map and somehow twice I missed pearl street. I'mma try again after work since I'm not too far from downtown. I hope other people will still be there! I just saw a video and I'm surprised by the turn out. Sure its not NY, but its more than I thought Texas would bring! I hope they do this again tomorrow or sometime in the weekend. I was supposed to meet a friend there but she CHICKENED out!

----------


## IndieAnthias

I'd be there in Dallas if I could, that's where I'm from. Give 'em hell for me.

----------


## stormcrow

> *cries* I got lost. Epic failure! I'm new to town okay! I only had a paper map and somehow twice I missed pearl street. I'mma try again after work since I'm not too far from downtown. I hope other people will still be there! I just saw a video and I'm surprised by the turn out. Sure its not NY, but its more than I thought Texas would bring! I hope they do this again tomorrow or sometime in the weekend. I was supposed to meet a friend there but she CHICKENED out!



Too bad I just took the Dart so I didn't have trouble getting there. People will still be there but considering the protest started at 9:00 in the morning many people will have left. Show up tomorrow they are protesting Bank of America (today we demonstrated in front of the Federal Reserve Building and Chase Bank). On Saturday is going to be the *big* day so be there! Today was absolutely amazing, almost a 1000 people turned out (at the fed at 9:00am) I wish I was still there but I have to work tomorrow...

Also mods can I post a bunch of pics on this thread or do I have to make a new one? (also I dont know how to do the spoiler thing..)

----------


## Ne-yo

> Where is her link to stream?



She streams on the link Stormcrow submitted. Procasting mostly during the afternoon hours. I had to call her earlier today to get a status update because for some strange reason Time Warner Cable had some sort of black-out in Lower-Manhattan and it took pretty much half the day for the network to be restored.





> Its also being streamed at globalrevolution - live streaming video powered by Livestream

----------


## Supernova

Just thought I'd mention, I'll be dropping in on Occupy Philadelphia this Sunday.  I'll let you guys know what I think after.

_This is the world we live in
and these are the hands we're given
use them and let's start trying
to make this a place worth living in_

----------


## stormcrow

Fuck the spoilers and TinyPic as well its taking about 10 minutes to upload one picture so I will upload them sporadically throughout the night. Im also uploading videos on youtube but they are taking about an hour each to upload so Ill post a link to them later tonight.

----------


## Supernova

I can haz protest sign.

corrupt1.jpg

I want to be all "don't use this without asking me first", but I kinda realized, the framework for this was some random picture that some person took that I snagged off google images  ::lol:: .  So just don't make it look like you made it.

----------


## tommo

Make a sign saying.  "Fed up with the fed.  Will not feed until they end this greed".
And put a dead, emaciated mannequin next to it.  ....Or just see what happens and sit there yourself.

----------


## Zhaylin

"Kleptocracy"?  I LOVE that lol!!

----------


## juroara

> Too bad I just took the Dart so I didn't have trouble getting there. People will still be there but considering the protest started at 9:00 in the morning many people will have left. Show up tomorrow they are protesting Bank of America (today we demonstrated in front of the Federal Reserve Building and Chase Bank). On Saturday is going to be the *big* day so be there! Today was absolutely amazing, almost a 1000 people turned out (at the fed at 9:00am) I wish I was still there but I have to work tomorrow...
> 
> Also mods can I post a bunch of pics on this thread or do I have to make a new one? (also I dont know how to do the spoiler thing..)



Good news!! I found the fed building yesterday!! But there was no one there........... A fed employee was waiting for his ride and he kept looking at me with weird eyes. >:/

Where is Saturday going to be at? 

1000 people sounds nice! But 10,000 would be even more awesome. What's it gonna take for us to get those numbers? I told a couple of friends and family and all of them gave me the same excuse "but I have to work". I can understand how hard it is to miss work. I missed two days this pay period because I was sick, I was worried about missing a third for the protest, because then I might not make rent.

But at the same time, if everyone is like "i can't go because i can't miss work", then aren't we already losing the fight? Isn't the lack financial security, living paycheck to paycheck one of the reasons why we want this whole system to change? Isn't the person who says "I can't miss work" the person who needs to be there the most?

----------


## Supernova

"a corporation isn't a person until Texas executes one"
Classic XD

----------


## ThePreserver

> "a corporation isn't a person until Texas executes one"



I almost want to laugh at the joke... but then I remember how many people have been exonerated while on death row... 139 people (in recent history.)

It's soooooo depressing.  Horribly depressing.

----------


## Supernova



----------


## ThePreserver

Nothing.  Just being a buzz kill is all.

To clarify, since 1970, 139 convicted murderers on death row have been exonerated due to further evidence.  How many people have we killed now that were innocent?

Buzz killing, and depression-building.

----------


## Supernova

Depressing indeed, but a different issue.

----------


## juroara

I joined my first Occupy protest today. It was a small group especially for a saturday. But the people who were there were dedicated. They even provided us with food and water which was nice. There were pros and cons about today's strategy, lots to take in and think about. Dallas is going to be a huge challenge I think. We had good and bad responses. We had a guy call us losers from his aloft hotel room, and we had employees at work cheer us on. There was a wedding that thought we were a tourist attraction. The police were nice to us but they treated us like a parade. I'm not sure how I feel about that. Its kinda nice to know the Dallas police are protecting our right to speak out, other times it felt belittling. 

It reminds me of when I let my cat play outside and I watch her from a distance and them im like "okay time to go back inside". Yeah, that's what I got from the police.

We didn't go the Fed building today which was really disappointing. I'm surprised they were only there for one day, and I'm wondering if the Fed building pulled the private property card on them or what.

Oh yeah and my feet are going to fall off

KEEP UP THE FIGHT

----------


## tommo



----------


## stormcrow

> I joined my first Occupy protest today. It was a small group especially for a saturday. But the people who were there were dedicated. They even provided us with food and water which was nice. There were pros and cons about today's strategy, lots to take in and think about. Dallas is going to be a huge challenge I think. We had good and bad responses. We had a guy call us losers from his aloft hotel room, and we had employees at work cheer us on. There was a wedding that thought we were a tourist attraction. The police were nice to us but they treated us like a parade. I'm not sure how I feel about that. Its kinda nice to know the Dallas police are protecting our right to speak out, other times it felt belittling. 
> 
> It reminds me of when I let my cat play outside and I watch her from a distance and them im like "okay time to go back inside". Yeah, that's what I got from the police.
> 
> We didn't go the Fed building today which was really disappointing. I'm surprised they were only there for one day, and I'm wondering if the Fed building pulled the private property card on them or what.
> 
> Oh yeah and my feet are going to fall off
> 
> KEEP UP THE FIGHT



I didn't go Saturday I have to work on weekends. The police have been very cooperative and respective but the Dallas city council wants to prevent us from demonstrating starting this Friday. I was there yesterday briefly but I left because cops where searching protesters and some black bloc wannabes were trying to convince everyone that we should "fight the cops" so I kicked rocks. I cant stand violence and the simple minded people who cannot think of a solution to a problem that doesn't involve violence. Yes the fed has gotten the police to evacuate us off of the property numerous times. Things are moving really fast, I addressed by dissatisfaction with some of the decisions that certain parts of the group were advocating at the general assembly. Some agreed and some didn't we couldn't really reach a consensus all day. I love that the diversity of opinion in the group is an accurate reflection of democracy and don't expect everyone to agree on everything but Occupy Dallas seems to be splitting off into two separate factions I cant say I agree with either of them (nevertheless I support the movement [just not all of the decisions we vote on]). I work and go to school all of this week but I am going on Friday. Good luck and stay safe.

----------


## juroara

>:/

I will occupy your mind!

This saturday, everyone, at 11:30 am, join your local occupy group. Now go make some fun signs!

----------


## Original Poster

I guess they're kicking everyone out of NYC tomorrow to clean up and not letting them return with camping gear.

----------


## juroara

today occupied dallas protested at two banks, i missed out on it. 

Later on we had a speaker, he marched as a teenager with MLK. He related his own experiences to us, and it turns out what occupy dallas is going through right now is not so different what he went through. The city of dallas is asking the occupiers to get a million dollar insurance policy to continue occupying the park or else. It turns out, the same thing happened to him all those years ago, to which he replied "there is no insurance policy for constitutional rights"

The group, earlier this week, had voted to move to another location that the cops said they could stay in. But this location is further away from the action, actually it means the federal building workers no longer have to look at us everyday. He griped at us! To really badly paraphrase him "If MLK was here, he wouldn't care what the cops told him. He'd stay right, and camp out in this park with you. He would not move." The mood of the group changed, and more people rallied that they should stay no matter what rather then let cops push us around.

But the concerns for arrest weren't done. "How many people would have to be arrested for it to matter? Lets say only five people get arrested?"

To be practical, and to get the media attention which in this case would be good for the cause, he explained "You need at least fifty people who refuse to leave and are ready to be arrested" The group will decide tomorrow. At least we have a practical number. As five people staying in the park and getting arrested sends no message at all. He also explained that we should refuse to pay bail and except to stay the entire time. Why? Because the city can't actually afford to keep mere protesters locked up when they need the jail space for real criminals. Hopefully this is as true today as it was for him.

But still, the thought terrifies me - and I don't want to see any arrests. That and mom who knows Im out there phones me everyday "dont you do anything that'll get you arrested" "yes mom!". But there are members in the group who've stated that they are ready to be arrested. If it comes to that, I at least hope the media does coverage so the arrest doesn't go to waste. And if it comes to that, I will protest their arrests!

He gave us great advice on how to increase our numbers, which have dwindled everyday. He basically said, that we all here have a responsibility to organize and coordinate the groups efforts, to rally more people. That's the situation I think all the texas occupy groups are in, which is no surprise really. Yes we've grown smaller, but I think we've weeded out confused people who expect us to become a political party and don't understand the meaning of a social movement.

He explained to us, that while the media portrays us as unfocused with no specific aim - that its a load of bull. The message is clear - 99%. If youre incapable of understanding what we stand for youre like, half alien.

Occupy dallas is getting is really getting its act together. The website is finally announcing when-and-where to be protests (took a few days to get that going! thank you media crew). Hopefully, all the website viewers will snap out of their zombieness and join us tomorrow.




PS. Dreamviews, for all these years you have been the most radical, socially-conscious and aware people I have ever known. Don't be all talk! Show up!

----------


## tommo

> I guess they're kicking everyone out of NYC tomorrow to clean up and not letting them return with camping gear.



Kick out, what?  10's of thousands of people?  Uhm.... nope.

----------


## ninja9578

23 people were arrested for simply trying to close their bank accounts at Citi.  They did it in front of live video feeds.   ::wtf::

----------


## tommo

wtf?!?!?!?!?!??????????????????????????????????

----------


## Quantiq

> 23 people were arrested for simply trying to close their bank accounts at Citi.  They did it in front of live video feeds.



You're kidding me. What were they officially arrested for?  ::wtf::

----------


## tommo

"You were inside" was the official reason................

Some non-uniformed guy basically fondles her breasts.

----------


## Quantiq

What a society we live in.  ::cry::

----------


## Original Poster

It seems they've upped the ante. Now what is the public's response? Is this condoned? Or not?

The question is simple. The answer... that's up to you.

----------


## juroara

I marched, I'm tired, I come home and the first thing I read is people were arrested for wanting to close their bank account? What-the-hell-is-happening-and-why-is-no-one-paying-attention?

----------


## ninja9578

> You're kidding me. What were they officially arrested for?



The banks paid the cops to arrest people who withdrew their money from the banks.  I think that was the official reason.  According to the video the cop said "because you were inside."

Citibank released a statement saying that they were being disruptive, which is stupid on their part seeing that the entire protest is broadcast live to the web and anyone can see that they weren't.   The statement has already been taken off of the internet, looks like a DDoS retaliation.  I would like to read it when the attack is done.  I hope they attack citi's transaction RPCs too.  If they attack their customers, their customers will attack them.

----------


## juroara

I still dont understand >:/

And, I was on the spanish news. I want to find the news clip, im not sure if thats possible. Can anyone help me out? I think the station was called univision?

----------


## ninja9578

News clip of what?  The people closing their accounts being arrested?  It went viral hours ago, you can find it on youtube.  It was posted in this thread a few posts back.  The entire protest is streamed live to the internet, thats the beauty and power of the internet, we don't have to wait for the news for people to know what's going on.

If you are trying to understand why they did it, no one understands, thats the point of the entire protest.  The banks pretty much own the government including the police force.

----------


## Supernova

Nothing much was going on last time I went.  Today a bunch of my friends went, but I couldn't go because of work.  The joined in on a march down Market Street, waving signs and chanting - everything they described is exactly the experience I've been wanting to have  :Mad: 

Ah, well, I'll be off work next Saturday, and although I'm going over tomorrow, if I see anything big scheduled I'll go over next Saturday.

----------


## juroara

> News clip of what?  The people closing their accounts being arrested?  It went viral hours ago, you can find it on youtube.  It was posted in this thread a few posts back.  The entire protest is streamed live to the internet, thats the beauty and power of the internet, we don't have to wait for the news for people to know what's going on.
> 
> If you are trying to understand why they did it, no one understands, thats the point of the entire protest.  The banks pretty much own the government including the police force.



no sorry I meant me XD

I had three news stations on me this past Wednesday and when I went to work, the spanish-speaking workers told me they saw me on the news. I just wanna find the clip and see if it was good/bad/neutral press, I'm kinda paranoid too. What did they say about me?

Three news stations again were on occupy dallas, we had a good group out there so I hope it brings more attention - I hope more people understand what were about. Where ever we go we tell everyone they are the 99% because there's a lot of confusion. We tell the cops, middle class americans technically, that they're the 99%. But even then......the cops don't seem to like us protesters. lol

I was with a small group and we got lost on our way to the demonstration at goldman sachs. There were some cops and we asked them "which way to the protest?" and they just sneered at us "what protest" and drove off. Of course they knew about the protest, they were heading in that direction!

I'm finally understanding why people set up these tent cities. At first I was like "I dont need the tent city I can just drive back home and plop on my cushy bed". But joining the group today cost me $10. $5 for gas and $5 for parking. I can't keep this up.

At least now I can better explain to people why occupy sets up tent cities, as most people passing by think its a homeless community. Its just too damn expansive to continue the protest any other way. And the tent city offers much needed food and water for all day marchers, and the all important media tent! When everything goes down, protect that media tent, they're the ones broadcasting the real news!

----------


## tommo

> News clip of what?  The people closing their accounts being arrested?  It went viral hours ago, you can find it on youtube.  It was posted in this thread a few posts back.  The entire protest is streamed live to the internet, thats the beauty and power of the internet, we don't have to wait for the news for people to know what's going on.
> 
> If you are trying to understand why they did it, no one understands, thats the point of the entire protest.  The banks pretty much own the government including the police force.



I found on here, not sure if you're in it.  It's from the 3rd so probably not.




If you post a pic of yourself, we can tell you if we see the video.

----------


## juroara

nope, I aint there, but I'm in this one! go dallas! this was our march back to camp after having fun at goldman sachs, honestly we didn't spend enough time there but I think everyone was starving (I was)

our march wraps around the entire street! there was a lady in a car who was really excited and she starts honking in unison with our chant



pfff..ive never actually posted my picture here because it weirds me out to do that online especially since this forum is actually public (you can't read my sign, its a glowin in the sun )

----------


## tommo

lol well, I don't know how we can help you find it then?

----------


## ninja9578

Here was my FB status for a while aimed at all the morons who are just saying "get a job"





> Hey idiots, stop telling the protesters to stop smoking dope and playing video games and to get jobs.
> 
> There are only so many jobs in each field and the new right out of school people are competing for jobs with laid off people with 20 years of experience, the companies will snatch up the experienced people first, making the college grads wait a long time.
> 
> There are only so many positions coming available every day, maybe five resumes can get sent out a day, that takes what? an hour? Most of "getting a job" is waiting around waiting to hear back about resumes. Why do you care if they spend that time waiting smoking marijuana and watching tv, isn't that the exact same thing that your generation did while you were waiting to hear back from you first job, while your economy was more stable?

----------


## ninja9578

> 



Are the news reports by you still reporting that it's a drum circle hippie music festival?  Because they still are a lot up here even though our group is the same as yours.  Nice to see a mix of all ages in Dallas too.

----------


## tommo

Picture from a friend of a friend
click it to enlarge
esgbre.jpg

----------


## AURON

I just wanted to vent on something right quick.  If it's already been said, sorry.  I'm getting sick of how the all of the AP media is spinning it like no one knows what they're protesting for.  The thing is, (in my opinion) there are so many things messed up with the economy that you would have to address it all if you wanted to see a change in the positive directive. When the tea party got organized, it was all good.  When these people got organized, they don't know what they're doing.

----------


## Original Poster

The media's reaction has been absolutely disgusting. You expect Fox to spin it, but CNN has stooped to an all new low with their coverage of this protest. Fucking 1984.

----------


## Laughing Man

> I just wanted to vent on something right quick.  If it's already been said, sorry.  I'm getting sick of how the all of the AP media is spinning it like no one knows what they're protesting for.  The thing is, (in my opinion) there are so many things messed up with the economy that you would have to address it all if you wanted to see a change in the positive directive. When the tea party got organized, it was all good.  When these people got organized, they don't know what they're doing.



Because there is no "demands" that people are actually getting behind. To me it just seems like a sea of people all shouting different things. Even spontaneous action has some kind of order to it and yet this protest seems to have none or it is purposely being withheld almost like they don't want to make a demand because if they do then they know a portion of the group might leave out of spite.

----------


## Original Poster

Then you should turn off CNN because that could not be farther from the truth.

----------


## ninja9578

> The media's reaction has been absolutely disgusting. You expect Fox to spin it, but CNN has stooped to an all new low with their coverage of this protest. Fucking 1984.



Yeah, it's weird.  Even NBC is doing that, and NBC is literally where the protesters are.

----------


## Original Poster

Let's look at these so called demandless protests

----------


## ThePreserver

> The media's reaction has been absolutely disgusting. You expect Fox to spin it, but CNN has stooped to an all new low with their coverage of this protest. Fucking 1984.



I'm surprised that people honestly believe CNN and MSNBC are "better" sources than Fox.  CNN is just better at covering their backs.  They are all corporately-owned sell outs, but it takes something like THIS to make it widely known.  Who do you think OWNS these companies?  the 1%.  Why is Romney backed by Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley as his top contributors?  Why is Obama backed by Comcast and Microsoft as his top contributors (Owners of MSNBC)?  Because their owners like propping up the status quo.  They pat the candidate's backs, the candidates pat their backs.  It's Crony Capitalism, folks.

----------


## Laughing Man

> Let's look at these so called demandless protests




Yea the Occupy Wall Street movement said that those demands were just the ideas of a select individual, not the movement itself. I never said that individuals don't have demands. In fact I said that a whole bunch of people have been sharing their beliefs with has caused such confusion. The Occupy Wall Street MOVEMENT has made no demands.

----------


## IndieAnthias

> Yea the Occupy Wall Street movement said that those demands were just the ideas of a select individual, not the movement itself. I never said that individuals don't have demands. In fact I said that a whole bunch of people have been sharing their beliefs with has caused such confusion. The Occupy Wall Street MOVEMENT has made no demands.



Who is it that is speaking on behalf of the whole movement? I don't think that their ability to do so would be acknowledge by everyone. I mean, I've heard of some higher organizers, and even of a national delegation to hang on into the election cycle, but it seems like many are still calling this a leaderless movement.

It looks to me like the confusion is fading, actually. These "individual views" are getting more and more consistent.

----------


## Original Poster

> Yea the Occupy Wall Street movement said that those demands were just the ideas of a select individual, not the movement itself. I never said that individuals don't have demands. In fact I said that a whole bunch of people have been sharing their beliefs with has caused such confusion. The Occupy Wall Street MOVEMENT has made no demands.



Try to understand this is not a movement organized by individuals with the agenda of getting their view across to the world. This event was organized to allow the people to get their voice across. The 99%. And these views may differ slightly but they orbit around a central thesis: A healthy economic system and a healthy, accountable government to regulate it.

----------


## Oneironaut Zero

The initial protests (and revolutions) overseas didn't have a single, 'unified' message, either. In the end, it was a common discontent that consisted of different, individual grievances...

...and they were justified. 

Not much of a difference, here.

----------


## tommo

> The initial protests (and revolutions) overseas didn't have a single, 'unified' message, either. In the end, it was a common discontent that consisted of different, individual grievances...
> 
> ...and they were justified. 
> 
> Not much of a difference, here.



Agreed.  The only difference is their countries were already shit, and America is just in the process of turning in to shit.

----------


## juroara

hi guys, update

I had my first run in with negative authority today. So we decided to rally while people were exiting a convention just to spread more awareness. Most of the people at the convention were foreigners and they looked really confused, others thought we were a tourist attraction and took lots of photos, lol. Anyways, here comes the security! They tell us if we take a step forward we will be arrested for trespassing private property. Which was a load of bull, because the sidewalk along the convention center is public.

We refuse to leave so the security call the cops. The cops explain to the security that the sidewalk is public so they have no grounds to stop us. Yay, so we rally along, constitutional rights win! Then we decided to turn back and do it all over again. The moment we turn around the security is there. And again they tell us we can't take a step forward or they'll arrest us. 

We just came from there! Literally! 

They had to call the cops again, and again the cops have a chat with the security. Apparently the "public" park isn't so public. Owned by the convention center, they felt they had a right to dictate who or who cannot walk on their sidewalks. We had with us someone who knew her laws - and she explains - even if you own the sidewalk, a sidewalk is still public access.

After a long while the security drive off, they seemed pretty annoyed, constitutional rights triumph and we rally along.

Its good to know your laws! Remember a sidewalk even if owned is still public access unless there is a sign clearly written stating otherwise!

Oh yeah and I forgot to mention, half the group flipped out the cops showed up and left to eat dinner instead! Wah!

----------


## ninja9578

Nice juroara, nice to see that the cops around you actually know the law and protect it.

----------


## louie54

This is really sad.

Edit: It looks like tommo already posted it. Whatever, it needed a bump.

----------


## ninja9578

Take a look at the breakdown of the Occupy Wallstreet people
http://occupywallst.org/media/pdf/OW...nt-v2-HRCG.pdf

----------


## Spartiate

> This is really sad.
> 
> Edit: It looks like tommo already posted it. Whatever, it needed a bump.



What are those people being charged with?

----------


## tommo

Hehe, most of them are employed full-time, and earn less than $25,000 a year.
Kinda backs up their whole point hey?  And destroys the media's BS while it's at it.





> What are those people being charged with?



We already said - "Being inside".

----------


## louie54

> We already said - "Being inside".



I think they are going to call it "trespassing", but as you can see, they forced that lady into the Citibank building. I mean what's that all about? Fight back with false imprisonment and kidnapping.

I believe part of the story is that some of these people took out a loan for college and are having trouble paying it back, which would normally lead me to believe that they're just being retards that don't want to take responsibility for their debt. But why are the being locked up inside the building? It's not right.

----------


## Ne-yo

> What are those people being charged with?



I'm pretty sure they were charged with trespassing and disorderly conduct considering they went in there lecturing the employees instead of keeping their mouths shut and simply closing their accounts and going on about their business.

The woman outside the bank was in violation and charged with obstruction.

----------


## juroara

"lecturing" would fall under freedom of speech  ::?: 

the most they could do if they were "lecturing" was to be kicked out of the business place, as managers have that right. but to arrest? its still against constitutional rights

----------


## Original Poster

They were arrested because they refused to leave. I support the collective bank closing protests but you have to expect this.

I closed my account today. I just told the teller I was closing my account. When he asked why, I said because Wells Fargo practiced predatory lending and I didn't agree with the ethics of the bank. He said pretty much all banks do that and I said that's why I'm switching to a credit union, and by the way, that's no excuse. Then I took my money and left.

----------


## Ne-yo

> "lecturing" would fall under freedom of speech



I agree, however the lecturing included being disruptive and disorderly and when requested to leave by management they became belligerent, thus breaking the law. It's unfortunate how it all went down but they were rightfully arrested under law.

My thing is this, if any bank is charging fee's that you do not want why keep banking there? Why did they wait until Occupy Wall Street to close their account? I attended a University and received student loans, I  commuted to save money. After graduating I worked crap jobs until something in my field of expertise became available to pay the loans back. Most of these people are probably living well beyond their means. The logical steps would be to not take more than half your expected first years salary out in student loans. For some strange reason some people think that their take home income right after college is going to be 6 figures plus.

----------


## tommo

> I believe part of the story is that some of these people took out a loan for college and are having trouble paying it back, which would normally lead me to believe that they're just being retards that don't want to take responsibility for their debt. But why are the being locked up inside the building? It's not right.



 Retards for getting pushed in to paying hundreds of thousands for basic education?
Education should be free in the first place.  Which is one of the main things they're protesting.

----------


## cmind

> Education should be free in the first place.  Which is one of the main things they're protesting.



You want free education? You'll get what you pay for.

----------


## ninja9578

I don't think very many people support free education, it's the unfair cost and interest rates that are being protested.  A good education in the USA costs about $30,000.  A good education in England is set at about 4000 pounds, and there is a government cap on how much they can charge.  The schools aren't necessarily any better here, Oxford is considered one of the top schools in the world.

----------


## Ne-yo

*Corporate America Explained through Calvin and Hobbes panel.*

----------


## Original Poster

> I don't think very many people support free education, it's the unfair cost and interest rates that are being protested.  A good education in the USA costs about $30,000.  A good education in England is set at about 4000 pounds, and there is a government cap on how much they can charge.  The schools aren't necessarily any better here, Oxford is considered one of the top schools in the world.



I support free education. To scare off the "no free lunchers" I'll call it 100% subsidized education. It think its integral to the ladder of success (and the competitive edge of the society) that absolutely anyone has access to a complete education. I think it's irresponsible to consider any other option.

----------


## juroara

Money does not equal quality.

Plenty of students will tell you that their courses at a community college ($500 a semester avg.) was the same quality as a university ($2000 - $5000 a semester right?). I've heard this in san antonio, and now I'm hearing it in arlington. Unfortunately several degrees just aren't offered at the community college, though it would save students thousands.





> My thing is this, if any bank is charging fee's that you do not want why keep banking there? Why did they wait until Occupy Wall Street to close their account? I attended a University and received student loans, I commuted to save money. After graduating I worked crap jobs until something in my field of expertise became available to pay the loans back. Most of these people are probably living well beyond their means. The logical steps would be to not take more than half your expected first years salary out in student loans. For some strange reason some people think that their take home income right after college is going to be 6 figures plus.



1. Americans are asleep. Most are not aware of half the things we talk about here on this forum. Occupy wallstreet is waking people up, making them realize that what they once excepted as normal is completely unacceptable
2. *Crap jobs are one of those unacceptable things.* If you work full time, why should you be in poverty? Min. wage is a crime. Every job should provide a *living wage.* 
3. You are lucky to get a job that you studied for. Part of the reason why students and graduates are outraged is because their field of expertise has been taken over seas, or is simply not hiring anymore. This happened to my moms best friend. She got her bachelor in computer science, thousands in debt, and the job went to india. 
4. No one is angry because of the short term situation of their life. Why should it take more than a mortal life time to pay back student loans? My sister is forced to take private loans with up to 20% interest to continue her architecture degree. Why? Because she ran out of federal loans. She is estimated to be in at least 70k debt when she gets her bachelor. And that's the nicer number figure, it might even go up to 100k because her private loans are going to kick in while she is in school!! And that figure doesn't even account for her masters, which she needs to be a certified architect. With interest rates, its virtually impossible for her to ever pay off her student loans. She asked certified architects how do they do it.

They said they just pay the interest, and will never actually pay off their student loans!

We've accepted this as the status quo. Do you?

It seems to me a moral crime to have students indebted to banks for decades. The same strategy was used to create slaves in rome. Why should banks profit off education? Why should any student be in debt for education? The thousands of dollars isn't even going into the teachers pockets. No, teachers salaries are being cut. Others are just being fired. Even more, are not being hired.

How is it that education gets more expensive every year, but more and more professors are fired? It doesn't add up. Where is the money going? (NOT INTO EDUCATION THATS FOR SURE!)

Students and teachers are both being taken advantage off.

----------


## juroara

> I support free education. To scare off the "no free lunchers" I'll call it 100% subsidized education. It think its integral to the ladder of success (and the competitive edge of the society) that absolutely anyone has access to a complete education. I think it's irresponsible to consider any other option.



I have an idea!

Rather than banks charging interest and punishing human beings for wanting education and a better quality of life - banks should INVEST into the future careers of students. They pay for the education, and get a tiny percentage of the profit once the student actually lands a job. Student doesn't land a job - banks lose. This would create the incentive to keep jobs in america. Just an idea.

----------


## ninja9578

> I agree, however the lecturing included being disruptive and disorderly and when requested to leave by management they became belligerent, thus breaking the law. It's unfortunate how it all went down but they were rightfully arrested under law.



No, they didn't refuse to leave, they were locked inside: The NYC Citibank Arrests, According To the OWS Videographer  The woman in the video wasn't even inside, the cops dragged her inside.

And the students have no control over how much they take out, how can you suggest they don't take out more than half their expected salary in loans?  The price of college is fixed.  My friend got a masters degree to be a teacher, she currently makes about $35,000/yr.  She has $50,000 in loans.  That's how much a masters degree costs, and a masters is required by law to do her job.  You can't haggle the cost of college, it's not a used car.  She did commute to save money.

And aren't you a cop?  Don't you make like $30,000 a year?  Aren't you one round of layoffs away form being on the street with no pension?  The last round of budget cuts in NYC let 3,500 honest, blue collar policemen go, while increasing the wage of Tony Bolonga and those who let him off the hook with just a loss of some vacation time.

----------


## Descensus

I feel like I've stepped into the "History of Economic Thought" time machine and ended up in 1920s Europe.

----------


## louie54

> Education should be free in the first place.  Which is one of the main things they're protesting.



I can't argue with you there. 


*Spoiler* for _off topic_: 




But I was just saying that in some situations, these people aren't always 100% innocent. I've seen this a couple of times on TV: on one of our local stations they run this program where this average middle-class person tells their story of how they've been fucked over recently by the city or some company and I remember this one lady was on that was being threatened with foreclosure or something (I can't really remember) because she wouldn't pay some bill. Her story just wasn't adding up and it seemed like she was trying to avoid taking responsibility for her own fuck up.

This is a different story though which is why I said "would normally lead me to believe" in my last post. I do stand by these people.

----------


## Laughing Man

> I can't argue with you there. 
> 
> 
> *Spoiler* for _off topic_: 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I was just saying that in some situations, these people aren't always 100% innocent. I've seen this a couple of times on TV: on one of our local stations they run this program where this average middle-class person tells their story of how they've been fucked over recently by the city or some company and I remember this one lady was on that was being threatened with foreclosure or something (I can't really remember) because she wouldn't pay some bill. Her story just wasn't adding up and it seemed like she was trying to avoid taking responsibility for her own fuck up.
> ...



Firstly, I think people are equating an education with formalized schooling which is a misnomer. I think you learn more outside of school then in it especially when you witness the zombie students who show up to class but don't participate or include themselves in the discussion. They treat it like survival, they are just there to get a degree. I see a point in going to school for something like physics, biology, fields of the natural science that take formalized training for but I don't see a point for some of the softer sciences. I am a graduate student for history and I will be the first to admit that you don't need to go to college for a bachelor's in history. It is something you can learn by yourself. The only reason I am in the program is because I need to have formal credentials to be a PhD candidate which is something I just have to do. I think what we are really missing is the ability to apprentice. Apart from general education classes (which are useless) that is really what college is, you apprenticing. Businesses themselves can do that if you are in the commercial market. You don't need to go 30k into debt to do that either.  

Juroara, concerning your sister that is just ridiculous. 70k for a bachelor's degree? What college is it? And why they hell is she taking loans out at a 20% rate? That is just stupidity. 

Ninja, what state does your friend live in because to my knowledge, all you need to do in many of the states is have a bachelor's degree unless you are trying to be an adjunct professor at a community college? People who are in secondary education usually get master degree's because it PAYS more not because they necessarily need it.

----------


## tommo

> You want free education? You'll get what you pay for.



You know what I mean.  Tax funded education.  Tax funded schools.





> I don't think very many people support free education, it's the unfair cost and interest rates that are being protested.  A good education in the USA costs about $30,000.  A good education in England is set at about 4000 pounds, and there is a government cap on how much they can charge.  The schools aren't necessarily any better here, Oxford is considered one of the top schools in the world.



First, I've seen heaps of people at the protests talking about education and the fact that the cost is too high because it's privatised, and it should be free.
Second, it depends on what kind of education you want to have.  Some courses cost well over a hundred thousands dollars.
These are mostly the science courses, which are the most important ones of pretty much any course available (in terms of benefit to society).  But also things like architecture (yep, wtf? right).

----------


## Ne-yo

> No, they didn't refuse to leave, they were locked inside: The NYC Citibank Arrests, According To the OWS Videographer  The woman in the video wasn't even inside, the cops dragged her inside.



It doesn't matter, what you fail to understand is that the crowd put the employees, customers and non-customers at a security risk. Remember this is not your ordinary everyday type business establishment. It's a freaking bank! The branch manager's number one responsibility from the time he/she opens the branch until the evening when the branch closes is the security of everyone within the bank. Anybody can walk into a branch and say they are customers. Thats why you have non-loitering laws, especially for bank branches. At some point the branch manager had a responsibility to end the nonsense and contact the authorities. He/She doesn't know these people personally and cannot downplay what anyone would be capable of. No matter how you try and twist it, you can't justify belligerence in an establishment like a bank. Now, I'm in no way saying that their intentions are wrong, what I am saying is that, the execution was wrong and they were arrested when arrest could have been completely avoided had they actually thought it out completely.





> And the students have no control over how much they take out, how can you suggest they don't take out more than half their expected salary in loans?  The price of college is fixed.



The tuition for college is fixed but the loan isn't, was the point I was making.





> And aren't you a cop?  Don't you make like $30,000 a year?  Aren't you one round of layoffs away form being on the street with no pension?



I'm not in that branch of law enforcement.

----------


## juroara

> Juroara, concerning your sister that is just ridiculous. 70k for a bachelor's degree? What college is it? And why they hell is she taking loans out at a 20% rate? That is just stupidity.



she was going to UTSA and at the time it was one of the most expensive colleges *architecture*. Its also one of the most stressful on students, second only to those studying to be doctors. Its not uncommon for students to be at the studio working until 6am. Not only were the classes expensive, but so were the books, and the models and projects. I know because I worked at the art supply store! The higher years would spend easily $300 on a single project. Because of the expensive projects, many students have to take out extra loans not to pay for their class, but to pay for supplies for the class. These are private loans.

The other problem my sister had was that she was an unconventional student. She didn't enter college right after highschool, she worked for several years at first. When she decided it was time to pursue her passion, the government decided her income was too high so she had to take out private loans again to finish off the year. Its really retarded because the government goes by your income LAST YEAR, rather than your current income. Her current income at the time, could not afford school. Thus - take out loans.

As for the interest, she didnt have a choice. That was all that was offered to her probably because they knew they could do that to architect students. Some of those loans have kicked in even though shes still going to school *which is why its so high*. 

On top of that, the graduating rate for architect students at UTSA at the time was something only like...1/4. You had to compete to enter into your third year, and they only took a certain number of students. This meant several students never got in, and gave up after trying numerous times - leaving them with debt they couldn't pay off.

Frustrated with how UTSA handled its architect students she went to UTA instead because they accept anyone, first come first serve. But they did not accept all of her classes - which is bull - so she had to spend even more money to catch up - even though she didnt need to. Its a long complicated story and there is more to it. But really, the univeristy system has made it more challenging than necessary and has lots of hidden fees.

I call architect students racoons because their eyes are black!

----------


## Ne-yo

> The woman in the video wasn't even inside, the cops dragged her inside.



Forgotten about this bit. The woman was inside bank. If you listen to the video, the undercover cop is clearly stating to her that "_you were inside_" she said "_I'm a customer_". She didn't deny it because she was in there. The undercover more than likely witnessed her in there and it was clearly obvious that she was one of the members of that group.

----------


## Original Poster

Here's a video of a marine sergeant telling off the cops


And here's a video of two soldiers responding to Hannity's claims that the protesters are unamerican


Love the sign: 2nd time fighting for country, 1st time I knew my enemy

----------


## Ne-yo

Interesting on the first video. I've never seen anyone wear service commendations on MCCUU's before.  ::wtf:: ? Let's give it a few days and see what information comes to the surface about this man.

----------


## tommo

love those marines lol

----------


## Original Poster

> Interesting on the first video. I've never seen anyone wear service commendations on MCCUU's before. ? Let's give it a few days and see what information comes to the surface about this man.



His name is Sergeant Sharam Thomas. I didn't find his myspace though so he must be faking it.

----------


## Ne-yo

What if OWS was well-organized psychological operation? I'm just throwing that out there, take it how you want to. 






You don't need to be completely convinced regarding the information in this video but it's very interesting nevertheless.

----------


## tommo

I don't get it.  Why would they fake his chipped tooth?  And why would they put "fake people" there?

----------


## ninja9578

> You know what I mean.  Tax funded education.  Tax funded schools.
> 
> 
> First, I've seen heaps of people at the protests talking about education and the fact that the cost is too high because it's privatised, and it should be free.
> Second, it depends on what kind of education you want to have.  Some courses cost well over a hundred thousands dollars.
> These are mostly the science courses, which are the most important ones of pretty much any course available (in terms of benefit to society).  But also things like architecture (yep, wtf? right).



I've not seem much of that at all.  I think most people like the European model.  The cost of a degree should be relative to the starting salary.  I have a nice cheap bachelor's degree, but fresh out of school, I made twice what a teacher with a master's degree makes.

----------


## ninja9578

And in response to the marine yelling "these people don't have guns' why are you hurting them?"  Cacophony pasted this on her FB, thought it was fitting

----------


## ninja9578

> Forgotten about this bit. The woman was inside bank. If you listen to the video, the undercover cop is clearly stating to her that "_you were inside_" she said "_I'm a customer_". She didn't deny it because she was in there. The undercover more than likely witnessed her in there and it was clearly obvious that she was one of the members of that group.



So you do think that being inside a bank to close your account is illegal?  She obviously wasn't in there for very long seeing that she was outside, and that the bank doors had been locked before the police showed up.  If the Citi manager told her to leave, and she did, what is the charge?  If Citi really thought they did something wrong, they would obligee the demands for the security tapes, that they seem so unwilling to give up.  The entire bank is wired with security cameras as all banks are, if Citi shows them, I'll say you were right, but since they are hiding them, you are in the wrong.  Regardless of what you think, in America, citizens are innocent until proven guilty, there is a video of police dragging her into the bank, Citi is yet to show the video that shows they were being disruptive.

This isn't a case of a cops word vs a protesters word, its a cops word vs a video.  I heard no where in there that she was under arrest, they simply picked her up and dragged her into the building, that's not an arrest, that's kidnapping.

----------


## Ne-yo

No but trespassing, being disruptive and  staging a demonstration private property is illegal.





> If Citi really thought they did something wrong, they would obligee the demands for the security tapes, that they seem so unwilling to give up.  The entire bank is wired with security cameras as all banks are, if Citi shows them, I'll say you were right, but since they are hiding them, you are in the wrong.



There is online footage of what happened inside. Why didn't you bother to search for it? This video declares a different story where OWS protesters are disruptive and belligerent, are asked to get the hell off the banks private property, are asked to turn off video recordings, where they refused and then of course treated like the common trespasser and arrested by local authorities.





I'm sorry but these clowns are completely out of life. This is a place where people work You do not stage a protest inside of a bank, have they lost their minds?? The bank is private property they have every right to have them thrown out and/or arrested. 

Here's Citibank's Statement





> Regardless of what you think, in America, citizens are innocent until proven guilty, there is a video of police dragging her into the bank, Citi is yet to show the video that shows they were being disruptive.



Everyone is innocent until proven guilty that doesn't mean you cannot get arrested and detained by authorities. If you are suspect to a crime, authorities are granted power to arrest and question you under oath. The "presumption of innocence" is a legal right to citizens where the burden of proof lies completely on the prosecution who's duty is to retrieve enough compelling evidence to convince the trier of fact, who is ordered and restrained by law to cogitate only substantive evidence and testimony that is legally admissible in a court of law and in most cases lawfully obtained where the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.





> I heard no where in there that she was under arrest, they simply picked her up and dragged her into the building, that's not an arrest, that's kidnapping.



No, that's called detainment. She was suspect to a crime and was *RIGHTFULLY* detained.

Dude I believe you don't really think before you type and you talk just to be in disagreement with someone.

----------


## Original Poster

> What if OWS was well-organized psychological operation? I'm just throwing that out there, take it how you want to. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't need to be completely convinced regarding the information in this video but it's very interesting nevertheless.



LMAO

Does this guy have that condition where he can't recognize faces?

----------


## Ne-yo

Either that or he thinks all African Americans look alike  :tongue2: 





> love those marines lol



Thanks!

----------


## Original Poster

And white people.

You can tell he's got a strong bias when he calls the protesters protecting HIS future a bunch of idiots. And he concludes they're going to cause a false flag operation...

My conclusion? He's a fucking crackpot.

----------


## ninja9578

> 



Thanks for finding that, yes, if the manager told them to leave, then they were tresspassing.  Where is the part where they were asked to leave and refused?  I saw a bunch of employees watching, no one telling them to leave.  You said they refused to turn off the cameras, where is the rest of the video?  Even if the part where they were told to leave was cut out, why was the woman who actually did leave get dragged back inside to be arrested?  Can you find a video of the woman who was dragged inside participating in the protest, and refusing to leave after being told to?  

I'm sure a lot of them did do exactly that, but what about the one who was manhandled by the thug cop?  She obviously left when she was asked to, or else she would have been locked inside.  If the bank manager asked them to leave, it is implied that those who obliged will not be charged, with that implication, how is it legal to drag her back inside.  That's a trap, there was no way for them to have been inside the bank (part of the protest or not) and not be arrested.  You said she was being detained, isn't it more common practice to ask her to place her hands behind her back, instead of picking her up and dragging her inside?

To me, you just seem unwilling to admit that there is a small percentage of cops who are just plain assholes and get a kick out of asserting their authority.  I'm sure you and the cops you work with are all honest, but do you really think all of you are?  I notice you haven't made a peep in the thread where NYPD cops admitted to planting drugs on innocent people.  I would think a cop, would have something to say there.

----------


## ninja9578

> And white people.
> 
> You can tell he's got a strong bias when he calls the protesters protecting HIS future a bunch of idiots. And he concludes they're going to cause a false flag operation...
> 
> My conclusion? He's a fucking crackpot.



I have no doubt that some of the faces were in fact real.  Talking to cops who were there, lots of them support the protest.  I wouldn't be surprised if a handful of them joined the protest while they were off duty.

----------


## Ne-yo

> Thanks for finding that, yes, if the manager told them to leave, then they were tresspassing.  Where is the part where they were asked to leave and refused?  I saw a bunch of employees watching, no one telling them to leave.



*@3:29*





> You said they refused to turn off the cameras, where is the rest of the video?



 The branch manager is clearly stating. "_no cameras inside the branch_" *@ 2:53* into the video. During the time when the Asian girl is talking. Noticed how when the branch manager was making this request, the others in the group were telling the Asian girl to "_keep going_" as if they had no care for the branch managers request. (the rest of the video is at the end of this post).





> Even if the part where they were told to leave was cut out,



Also take notice at the beginning of this video, that the woman with the red hair was actually inside the bank.  ::shock:: 

It wasn't cut out *@3:29* another employee or security states "_I kindly ask you, if you could do this outside and not inside the branch_". Notice he Asian girl looks directly at the guy but continues to demonstrate.





> why was the woman who actually did leave get dragged back inside to be arrested?



They actually didn't drag her inside the bank if you look closely at the first video. They were subduing her because she was obstructing the officers who were trying to arrest the guy who is seen inside the bank recording, on the video I posted. Here's the rest of the footage from inside, after authorities arrived and take a close look at the end and see who is being dragged back inside the bank. Here's a hint: It's not the woman. 









> I'm sure a lot of them did do exactly that, but what about the one who was manhandled by the thug cop? She obviously left when she was asked to, or else she would have been locked inside.



Well she didn't leave because if you notice in this video the woman is INSIDE the bank at the beginning of the footage. She's allowed to leave because she shows the officer her receipt.

----------


## tommo

IMO, if the bank has been kept afloat with tax payers money, it is public land.

----------


## ninja9578

> IMO, if the bank has been kept afloat with tax payers money, it is public land.



No, the bailout was bullshit, that's part of what the protest is about.  The government gave taxpayer money to private companies.





> Well she didn't leave because if you notice in this video the woman is INSIDE the bank at the beginning of the footage. She's allowed to leave because she shows the officer her receipt.



Oh, is that what was being said?  If I didn't hear it in the video the first time, I'm sure lots of the protesters didn't hear it too.  The ones who did were trespassing, the one's who didn't, or the ones who had business at the bank were not.  The lady who was assaulted by the cops obviously had business there AND left.

I never said she wasn't inside the bank, I knew she was in the bank, she had a receipt from her transaction.  Okay, so she was allowed to leave, then arrested outside for "being inside?"  You said she was obstructing the police officers, I once again call bullshit.  Find the part of the clip where she was told to move out of the way.  What I heard over and over again is "you were inside."

----------


## tommo

> No, the bailout was bullshit, that's part of what the protest is about.  The government gave taxpayer money to private companies.



Um.... ok?

I know that.  I said since it is for all intents and purposes, funded by the taxpayers, i.e public, then as far as I'm concerned, their premises are public land.

Read ninja.



Also, Occupy Melbourne apparently overstayed their welcome.  They were supposed to move out today, based on some bullshit law or something.  They stayed and the riot police came in on horses and full riot gear, pepper sprayed a bunch of people and arrested a bunch more.













Fucken bullshit.  Trespassing on public land.... how the fuck is that even possible?

----------


## Ne-yo

> Oh, is that what was being said?  If I didn't hear it in the video the first time, I'm sure lots of the protesters didn't hear it too.



Dude, now you're just being loony. It's very clear in the video what the woman says and the guy off camera says later. I heard it the first time, besides they are not obligated to tell them anything. The manager is no way at liberty whatsoever to let them know anything she's doing. She could have easily contacted the authorities without letting the protesters know a damn thing. They are clearly misguided and obviously had a lack of respect for employees at that establishment. There is no excuse whatsoever for these people to stage a demonstration on private property, disrupt a business, be boisterous and belligerent while disrupting business, cause a scene and put the employees, customers and non-customers at a security risk during this entire fiasco. So they were rightfully arrested, enough said.

----------


## Original Poster

> I have no doubt that some of the faces were in fact real.  Talking to cops who were there, lots of them support the protest.  I wouldn't be surprised if a handful of them joined the protest while they were off duty.



While I agree many police support the protests, none of those faces matched. They looked kind of similar but they were not at all the same person in any of the comparisons.

----------


## tommo

Yeah and I like how he said "See they've been told to cover up their ears!"  LMFAO.  Like ears are a 100% defining feature.... massive fail lol

----------


## Ne-yo

However, it is quite strange that these guys are wearing hoodies and the temperature the 2nd week in NY was hovering between 65 and 68 degrees F. 18 - 20 C. Doesn't seem cold enough to cover ears especially for New Yorkers considering these temperatures is a heat wave for them.

----------


## tommo

> However, it is quite strange that these guys are wearing hoodies and the temperature the 2nd week in NY was hovering between 65 and 68 degrees F. 18 - 20 C. Doesn't seem cold enough to cover ears especially for New Yorkers considering these temperatures is a heat wave for them.



 LOL 18-20 is hot in NY?   Jeez....
It's about that here right now and I'm freezing my arse off! haha

----------


## juroara

we should rename this thread Occupy the world!

don't know if someone posted these pictures, don't really care, because we shouldn't forget that this movement is more than just america!

germany!


spain!


italy!


portugal!


south korea!


chile!


....college interns...and many many more


snow not give them money!

----------


## Ne-yo

Occupy Tokyo





Their issues are mostly with government not being transparent regarding the true results of the nuclear facilities from the last earthquake.

----------


## tommo

LMAO Occupy Antarctica FTW!!!!

Hilarious.

did you see my post last page too juroara?

----------


## ThePreserver

You'd THINK it would be a big deal in the Eurozone, what with all of the bankruptcies of entire nations and devalued Euro and whatnot... all relying on Germany to bail them out while their economies crumble.  Occupy the world?  Maybe it should be UnCorrupt the World?

----------


## LucidFlanders

> Um.... ok?
> 
> I know that.  I said since it is for all intents and purposes, funded by the taxpayers, i.e public, then as far as I'm concerned, their premises are public land.
> 
> Read ninja.
> 
> 
> 
> Also, Occupy Melbourne apparently overstayed their welcome.  They were supposed to move out today, based on some bullshit law or something.  They stayed and the riot police came in on horses and full riot gear, pepper sprayed a bunch of people and arrested a bunch more.
> ...



So that's how this will end, police will drag protesters 1 by 1 till no more are left.

----------


## Original Poster

That's not how it will end, but how it will begin.

Blowback is a bitch

----------


## LucidFlanders

> That's not how it will end, but how it will begin.
> 
> Blowback is a bitch



I was kidding, you can't silence this protest this way.

----------


## LucidFlanders

> That's not how it will end, but how it will begin.
> 
> Blowback is a bitch



I was kidding, you can't silence this protest this way.

----------


## tommo

> That's not how it will end, but how it will begin.
> 
> Blowback is a bitch



Yeah, exactly.  They just started protesting again today, protesting against the police brutality committed against them yesterday! HA!





> I was kidding, you can't silence this protest this way.



This is true.  Our police actually had a better tactic to remove them than the American police did though lol
American cops were basically trying to push everyone back and out of the way, while ours set up fences and just pulled people out one by one lol
Gotta admire that, in a sick way.

----------


## ninja9578

Holy Crap at Spain.  There look like there are as many people there as in NYC.  Where is that?  Madrid?

It's not surprising that Europeans joined the cause.  Goldman Sachs royally fucked their economy.  The Greek government hired them to help them hide their debt which is a major player in the current European problem.  Some european economies are still stable, but they don't have the resources to bail out the rest of them.

Tommo, wtf.  It is good to see the protesters not stooping to the level of the police and fighting back, but how can the police do that while the media reports?  In the USA the presence of a camera will usually stop police from brutalizing people except in rare instances like the tony bologna incident, both are usually met with pretty big backlashes (from the public, not their superiors.)  The police force can be sued in Australia right?  By the end of Occupy Wall Street, I wouldn't be surprised if the NYPD end up with 50 million in lawsuits.  Does Australia have something similar to the ACLU (it's a powerful legal organization who take on civil rights cases like police brutality, usually for free)?  Ours is very involved in the protests.

----------


## tommo

> Holy Crap at Spain.  There look like there are as many people there as in NYC.  Where is that?  Madrid?
> 
> It's not surprising that Europeans joined the cause.  Goldman Sachs royally fucked their economy.  The Greek government hired them to help them hide their debt which is a major player in the current European problem.  Some european economies are still stable, but they don't have the resources to bail out the rest of them.



Speaking of which, this reminds me of Iceland.  They got fucked really hard in the financial crisis.  Their economy was *booming* and then they basically lost all their progress instantly.  I was looking to see if they have an Occupy Iceland.  I'm not sure, but I did find this.  I suppose it fits the bill -
Daily Kos: Occupy Iceland: Ex-PM may be indicted, and first lady joins protesters





> Tommo, wtf.  It is good to see the protesters not stooping to the level of the police and fighting back, but how can the police do that while the media reports?  In the USA the presence of a camera will usually stop police from brutalizing people except in rare instances like the tony bologna incident, both are usually met with pretty big backlashes (from the public, not their superiors.)  The police force can be sued in Australia right?  By the end of Occupy Wall Street, I wouldn't be surprised if the NYPD end up with 50 million in lawsuits.  Does Australia have something similar to the ACLU (it's a powerful legal organization who take on civil rights cases like police brutality, usually for free)?  Ours is very involved in the protests.



I'm not sure if we have an ACLU.  But basically if the Victorian (not sure about other states, but probably the same) police get hit with a lawsuit, they will just pay the accuser so they don't get wound up in legal battles.  Especially in these cases since footage is everywhere, they'll end up paying out to so many people lol

Video from Iceland
Pretty funny lol  Throwing eggs and yoghurt at them  ::lol::

----------


## Xaqaria

Spain didn't exactly join the cause; they've been protesting in large numbers for several months now.

----------


## StonedApe

> What if OWS was well-organized psychological operation? I'm just throwing that out there, take it how you want to. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't need to be completely convinced regarding the information in this video but it's very interesting nevertheless.



That video is total garbage, not a single person he showed was the same.

I could see OWS having some elements which are fabricated, but this guy seems real.

----------


## Original Poster

I like the strategy of purposely getting arrested and demanding jury trials.

----------


## ninja9578

They don't even need to get arrested on purpose, seems 800 of the already falsely arrested people's lawyer's have demanded them.  That is brilliant.  The NYPD's misconduct is going to end up costing them 50 million, Chase's bribe was only 4.5 million.  I love this tactic, it's basically a real life DDoS of the court system.  The threat of the gridlock of the court system should make the NYPD be more selective and arrest only those who actually are committing crimes.  Seeing that the movement has about a 75% approval rating in the city and the video cameras every five feet, most will be found not guilty.

----------


## Original Poster

I think we should take advantage of this and start protesting inside the banks. As long as we can keep the system too clogged up to prosecute, we need to start working for real change. Much like MLK did, we need to start breaking laws in solidarity that will change the system. If 1000 people occupied inside BoA headquarters and then demanded jury trials after being arrested, we could get something accomplished.

----------


## juroara

occupy dallas members were arrested for locking arms and having a sit in outside chase bank. these are the first arrests for occupy dallas

now people are attacking the website saying "you disrupted our lives by sitting outside of chase bank!"











..................................................  ...........oh no your life was disrupted and you don't why. frustrating isnt it?

----------


## Original Poster

That's the point. These people man... they don't have any idea what's going on do they?

----------


## knight31

This movement is pretty interesting. I don't think we have seen anything like it before. It's almost as if the blinders are starting to come off.

----------


## LucidFlanders

> This movement is pretty interesting. I don't think we have seen anything like it before. It's almost as if the blinders are starting to come off.



Has been for years, just more people are starting to wake up.

----------


## tommo

> I think we should take advantage of this and start protesting inside the banks. As long as we can keep the system too clogged up to prosecute, we need to start working for real change. Much like MLK did, we need to start breaking laws in solidarity that will change the system. If 1000 people occupied inside BoA headquarters and then demanded jury trials after being arrested, we could get something accomplished.



I think the point is to clog up the court system WITHOUT anybody actually going to jail.  You could actually get time for occupying the bank, given the stupid laws.

----------


## LucidFlanders

> I think the point is to clog up the court system WITHOUT anybody actually going to jail.  You could actually get time for occupying the bank, given the stupid laws.



Stupid laws are meant to be broken. :Cheeky:

----------


## Original Poster

> I think the point is to clog up the court system WITHOUT anybody actually going to jail.  You could actually get time for occupying the bank, given the stupid laws.



"The only way to change bad laws are to break them."

Martin Luther King Jr

These banks have defrauded the world and got rewarded with our tax dollars. I speak lightly when I say we should be occupying their buildings.

----------


## Carôusoul

I stopped by Occupy London and talked to some people and got depressed at how practically noone seemed to know shit about anything besides having a naive wide eyed and green dislike of some vague thing called capitalism done by those silly old men in suits who arent humans

----------


## tommo

Unfortunately, that is necessary.  Most people have no fucking idea about any of their beliefs.  That's why people hated Socrates.

----------


## Carôusoul

> Unfortunately, that is necessary.  Most people have no fucking idea about any of their beliefs.  That's why people hated Socrates.



The unexamined life is not worth living.

----------


## Ne-yo



----------


## StonedApe

> I stopped by Occupy London and talked to some people and got depressed at how practically noone seemed to know shit about anything besides having a naive wide eyed and green dislike of some vague thing called capitalism done by those silly old men in suits who arent humans



I felt the same way about occupy Toledo. But there was at least one intelligent person there. It wasn't really that bad but people there still didn't seem to know what they were there about. But I think these protests are still good. At least people are getting together, it's a start.

----------


## Original Poster

I'd rather someone be apart of the movement but not know why they're there than someone insult the movement as a whole because they dont know why its there

----------


## tommo

> 



As funny as these things are, I'm very afraid that it's going to help downplay the whole movement.  Like Pastafarianism PRAISE HIS NOODLYNESS! does for other religions.

----------


## ninja9578

> As funny as these things are, I'm very afraid that it's going to help downplay the whole movement.  Like Pastafarianism PRAISE HIS NOODLYNESS! does for other religions.



I disagree, this is the generation of the internet and trolling.  All movements have these kind of spoofs.  It's why John Stewart has a job.

----------


## Ne-yo

> I disagree, this is the generation of the internet and trolling.



Dude, I hope you are not accusing me of an attempt to troll this thread because of my image, if so, you're clearly mistaken. 

Anyway..

I was sent an email from a devildog who is a good friend of mine from the sandbox (back in the day). They've initiated a Occupy Marines movement that is receiving support from active personnel overseas. The numbers of vets are currently small, however, this should increase by the years end once active members arrive home.





> OccupyMARINES Asks Supporters To Express Support Of The Brave Men And Women Of The New York Police Department And The Fire Department Of New York By Providing Hot Coffee And Food To Eat; These Honorable Men And Women Are Out There Along Side Us And Deserve To Be Remembered For Their Roles In ‘Occupy’ America.
> 
> OccupyMARINES Ask Supporters To Create And Express Signs In Support Of NYPD And FDNY.
> 
> OccupyMARINES Extend Our Eternal Gratitude To New York’s Finest Out There Ensuring A Peaceful Occupation.
> 
> Keep Pushing Forward America We Support You
> 
> OccupyMARINES
> ...



I like the execution of this idea and it shows a great sense of appreciation for those in uniform actually doing their jobs.

----------


## ninja9578

No, I'm just saying that the picture you posted is a meme, memes are most popular among the internet generation.

----------


## Ne-yo

Yea, but you said internet and trolls. So I was just confirming that you were not intentionally trying to single me out as an attempt to troll.

----------


## tommo

> Yea, but you said internet and trolls. So I was just confirming that you were not intentionally trying to single me out as an attempt to troll.



 :Picard face palm:  He was responding to me.  Coz I was saying that.... just read my post.

I agree with that tactic giving them coffee and food.  It has been proven that giving someone a hot drink to hold will make them more kind and honest toward others.

----------


## Ne-yo

Right, I understand that and I also understand that you two are very tight with one another. Ninja insinuated that the image was an attempt to troll. I just wanted to make it clear that I wasn't trolling by posting the image. So since it's clear I'll leave it to rest now.

----------


## cmind

Occupy Wall Street is one giant troll...

----------


## Original Poster

> cmind is one giant troll...



Fixed

----------


## IndieAnthias

What the shit is going on in Oakland? 





Occupy Oakland protests - live coverage | World news | guardian.co.uk

https://rt.com/news/google-report-police-brutality-767/

----------


## tommo

> What the shit is going on in Oakland? 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Occupy Oakland protests - live coverage | World news | guardian.co.uk
> 
> https://rt.com/news/google-report-police-brutality-767/



I remember seeing those stats from googles reports a couple of years ago.  There is a section on Google where you can see where the requests have come from.  I don't know why they comply with most of the requests for info, and only 27% of the requests for removal.  Is there some law stating they have to?

That would be hypocritical considering the U.S gov doesn't have to give out information under the FOIA.  They want it all but don't want to give anything back.

----------


## IndieAnthias

I'm a little unsure about how to feel about Oakland. On one hand, they're saying the police only went ballistic after people were throwing bottles at them. If that's true, I'm a little sad because this whole thing seems to be predicated (to some) on the idea of this staying non-violent. After all the hard work they've done in NY to keep the image clean, the aggression strictly 1-directional... they even cleaned the shit out of the park when it became an issue. With this spreading into so many cities, it's kind of dumb to think everyone would follow the shining example, especially in Oakland, lol.

But on the other hand, fuck all that. The cops fractured a dude's skull, they're using flash-bangs, rubber bullets, etc,.... there's that clip where the one dude is knocked out cold on the street, possibly seriously injured, a crowd gathers around to help him, and the fucking cop SEES all this (the injured guy was right in front of the line of cops before the crowd came) and throws a gas canister right in the middle of the crowd he DAMN WELL KNOWS is there to render aid to an badly injured person... what the fuck!!

So all this is in response to some people allegedly throwing bottles, and in all likely hood everyone who was actually assaulted by the police were being peaceful, out exercising their first amendment rights (which is the only "permit" they should need). All this "collateral damage" should start to seem familiar to anyone who's been paying attention to Iraq. Except each individual protester doesn't represent a potential death threat.

----------


## tommo

I think this deserves to go here, possible I think it deserves a new thread.





This guy needs way more views too.  I've been watching him for quite a while and he's never got more than a few thousand.

----------


## juroara

I watched the oakland videos the night that went down. In those videos I didn't see any violent protesters :/ .But I did hear a lot of "OUR STREET! OUR STREET!". Would you know where the claims of violent protesters are coming from?

I find it shocking that this is happening here in America, and even more shocking that the average American has no idea! Occupy needs online social media. I want to find videos of all the cities and share them. If we don't make ourselves aware of whats going on, who will?

----------


## tommo

I agree, they need one site, not sure if there is one, with all the police brutality videos.  And just spread that as much as possible.
I've been posting things to my facebook wall, but only one person out of like 90 or something I have on there actually cares.

----------


## Supernova

> Holy Crap at Spain.  There look like there are as many people there as in NYC.  Where is that?  Madrid?



Puerta del Sol, Madrid, supposedly the exact center of the country.  I remember being there when they won the world cup, when it was almost that crowded.

----------


## ninja9578

> Occupy needs online social media



 ::wtf::   They have several.  Youtube, twitter, Facebook.  Almost all of the coverage of the Occupy movement has come from viral videos.

Anonymous attacked Oakland yesterday.  Looks like they broke into their database, stole a bunch of contact info, then crashed their site.  Here is some of the contact info that they stole oakland police #info - Pastebin.com and seems there is more to come.  There is a $1000 reward for the name of the office who shot the veteran, probably not going to happen though, since in the video, I can't even tell who took the shot or who threw the bombs at the people who went to help him  :Sad:

----------


## Xei

Mass releasing private details of police offers... what a fucking stupid thing to do.

----------


## ninja9578

Look at the names.  They are the senior officers, ie the ones who would have given the orders to arm the police with weapons to assault a peaceful demonstration.  Everyone knows they will not be dealt with by their own police department.  When public officials do wrong, and their superiors won't address it, it's up to the public to retaliate.  The police should know that and remember that before shooting unarmed peaceful protesters with rubber bullets and flash bombing people who rush to help someone they hurt.  They've been warned about that misconduct at these protests will be met with retaliation from the public.

They haven't released any info on the low level people who were just following orders, they released the info on the people who gave the orders.  Seems fair to me.  The only blue collar cop who needs to be exposed is the one who took the shot.

----------


## greenhavoc

There is something wrong with you, ninja. You're one of the most negative people I've come across, and I genuinely feel sorry for you. You're? warped sense of justice is pathetic, and I'm shocked no one here has told you this.

I don't like/dislike you, I just don't understand why your constant need for attention has to come with such a vile/dirty aura attached to it. Get laid, bud.  :smiley:

----------


## ninja9578

Huh?  I think that throwing flash bombs at people rushing to the aid of someone injured is not just, you find that warped?  I know that the police investigation will be a joke and the worst that will happen to a cop is missing a few vacation days and think it's up to the tax payers they are supposed to be protecting to call them on it.  I'm quiet sure the only people who would find that warped have something wrong with their sense of society.  

I'm quiet the opposite of negative, come talk to us sometime and see.  If you only interact with me in ED, then you only see a debating me, because that's what this forum is meant for.  And I get laid plenty, kthnx  :tongue2:

----------


## tommo

> Look at the names.  They are the senior officers, ie the ones who would have given the orders to arm the police with weapons to assault a peaceful demonstration.  Everyone knows they will not be dealt with by their own police department.  When public officials do wrong, and their superiors won't address it, it's up to the public to retaliate.  The police should know that and remember that before shooting unarmed peaceful protesters with rubber bullets and flash bombing people who rush to help someone they hurt.  They've been warned about that misconduct at these protests will be met with retaliation from the public.
> 
> They haven't released any info on the low level people who were just following orders, they released the info on the people who gave the orders.  Seems fair to me.  The only blue collar cop who needs to be exposed is the one who took the shot.



 Amen to that.

Why is it fucking stupid Xei?

Also, I think the cop who did it will almost certainly be found.  There are other video tapers there, so they should eventually upload their videos as well.

----------


## greenhavoc

> I'm quiet the opposite of negative, come talk to us sometime and see.



Come talk to us; what does come talk to us mean, who's us?
Post a link to something positive about you, in here. I'm interested.

----------


## juroara

add something to the conversation about occupy wallstreet and the movement or you are trolling

----------


## juroara

"Mayor Quan fenced off the entire lawn, only allowing Oakland protesters to occupy the concrete area in the park. Occupy Oakland thought the fence would look better if it was put up like this..."



 ::D: 

thats a nice fence

In other news, occupy denver is having a rough day

----------


## Original Poster

Yeah I heard Denver was having it rough.

I wish Anonymous could go after day trading and take down the stock network, and then the Occupiers could block the buildings and disrupt the physical trading.

----------


## IndieAnthias

Just because I'm a little shit-stirrer... Here's another "let them eat cake" story:

Top Foreclosure Firm Threw Homeless-Themed Halloween Bash

----------


## Kuhnada29

I had no idea the Occupy Wall Street  movement is getting this big...it's exciting. Liberals vs Conservatives, I read this would happen

----------


## DeeryTheDeer

I got an e-mail of an Occupy protest happening downtown near my city on Saturday, in front of the main banks, and I'm thinking of going. Probably won't also be able to move my money to a different bank/credit union though.

----------


## cmind

> Probably won't also be able to move my money to a different bank/credit union though.



Why not?

----------


## Xei

∅

----------


## crazydude007

To quote Mr. Brando, "oh the horror". Or in this case, 'oh the hippies!'. Both being the same though.

----------


## Laughing Man

> Yeah I heard Denver was having it rough.
> 
> I wish Anonymous could go after day trading and take down the stock network, and then the Occupiers could block the buildings and disrupt the physical trading.



You can't block off people from entering and exiting their own property.

----------


## Spartiate

What's wrong with day trading?  Lets close casinos and lotteries while we're at it.

This whole fiasco is making less and less sense.  Reminds me of the Children's Crusade.

----------


## Xei

Because day traders are actually an exclusive, secretive cult who want to see the world burn. Not just members of the public who invest their own money in what they think are worthwhile businesses.

No you're right, the rhetoric is often so fucking incoherent and inane that Omnis Dei even came out with the 'act first, think later' line to defend some of it.

----------


## cmind

> No you're right, the rhetoric is often so fucking incoherent and inane that Omnis Dei even came out with the 'act first, think later' line to defend some of it.



Hey, nothing bad ever came from large mobs acting first and thinking later!

----------


## Original Poster

> Because day traders are actually an exclusive, secretive cult who want to see the world burn. Not just members of the public who invest their own money in what they think are worthwhile businesses.
> 
> No you're right, the rhetoric is often so fucking incoherent and inane that Omnis Dei even came out with the 'act first, think later' line to defend some of it.



Wrong, I'm defending people that prefer taking action when they don't understand what's going on rather than ridicule what they do not understand. We're at war for our economic future. Interrupting people from entering the buildings would free the stock market, holding it hostage.

----------


## cmind

> Interrupting people from entering the buildings would free the stock market, holding it hostage.



Are you aware of the massive doublethink you just spouted?

----------


## IndieAnthias

Here's a great presentation.. though not directly linked to OWS or any other movement, it seems very relevant in a fundamental way. Why should inequity just at face value be protested? Here's one answer:

Richard Wilkinson: How economic inequality harms societies | Video on TED.com

Root causes of said inequities are still left to be determined, but the video here addresses some of the Rush Limbaugh-type thinking that people should be free to make as much money as they possibly can by any means necessary, as well as the view that 'redistributionists' are only trying to grab more benefits for their own selfish reasons.

----------


## cmind

> Root causes of said inequities are still left to be determined, but the video here addresses some of the Rush Limbaugh-type thinking that people should be free to make as much money as they possibly can *by any means necessary,*



wat

----------


## IndieAnthias

Must we always split hairs?

----------


## cmind

> Must we always split hairs?



You seem to be implying that conservatives think it would be okay to make money by means of fraud or theft or some other criminal means. Please clarify your position.

----------


## juroara

Seven people were arrested at OccupyDallas. The crime? They were protesting and took a step off the public sidewalk because they couldn't fit. So the cops snatched them up. The seventh however was simply arrested on the spot simply because he showed up. The cops, believing he is somehow the leader, spotted him, isolated him and took him away. Another man was pushed off a four foot rise and pepper sprayed. At least two people were smacked by batons. 

The group literally didn't do anything except show up at 1pm like they promised at Bank of America. I was running ten minutes late, and by the time I got there everything already took place. 

Two weeks ago, when our group was somewhere around 350 people, we marched in the streets. But after seeing our friends arrested just for having one foot outside the sidewalk, we knew the game has completely changed. We continued the protest to the rest of the local banks. But we strictly followed the street signs to tell us when to cross the street. No jaywalking else the cops would arrest us. Though as someone said, they could have sworn jaywalking was a fine and not an arrest...........

By far today was the largest group of cops I've seen yet, it felt like they outnumbered us. I've never been so intimidated by the cops before. And its ridiculous really, what do they think were gonna do? Two weeks ago I protested right next to cop cars, even right next to the cop driving. Today I was scared to be in arms reach or to leave the safety of the group.

----------


## DeeryTheDeer

> Seven people were arrested at OccupyDallas. The crime? They were protesting and took a step off the public sidewalk because they couldn't fit. So the cops snatched them up. The seventh however was simply arrested on the spot simply because he showed up. The cops, believing he is somehow the leader, spotted him, isolated him and took him away. Another man was pushed off a four foot rise and pepper sprayed. At least two people were smacked by batons. 
> 
> The group literally didn't do anything except show up at 1pm like they promised at Bank of America. I was running ten minutes late, and by the time I got there everything already took place. 
> 
> Two weeks ago, when our group was somewhere around 350 people, we marched in the streets. But after seeing our friends arrested just for having one foot outside the sidewalk, we knew the game has completely changed. We continued the protest to the rest of the local banks. But we strictly followed the street signs to tell us when to cross the street. No jaywalking else the cops would arrest us. Though as someone said, they could have sworn jaywalking was a fine and not an arrest...........
> 
> By far today was the largest group of cops I've seen yet, it felt like they outnumbered us. I've never been so intimidated by the cops before. And its ridiculous really, what do they think were gonna do? Two weeks ago I protested right next to cop cars, even right next to the cop driving. Today I was scared to be in arms reach or to leave the safety of the group.



That's just fucking depressing. We don't live in a "free country" or even a democracy at all, do we? When is some action gonna be taken about these cops? When/how will this crap change?

Makes me wish I showed up downtown today.

----------


## Original Poster

> You seem to be implying that conservatives think it would be okay to make money by means of fraud or theft or some other criminal means. Please clarify your position.



I would assert this about anyone criticizing occupy wallstreet.

----------


## Spartiate

> I would assert this about anyone criticizing occupy wallstreet.

----------


## Original Poster

Let me make things simple so you'll understand.

People have made money in this country through fraud and theft. OWS is about stopping these people. Is that clear enough?

----------


## juroara

"i dont understand"

So my sister just told me that the reason why Occupy isn't catching on like Egypt, is because we are protesting about too many things. _According to NPR_, it was a bad idea for Occupy members to protest concerning environmental issues. 

Apparently all these different reasons, according to some, are _confusing_ Americans. An Egyptian revolutionary even argued, that the occupy movement will be much stronger if we simplify our reasons for protesting to one reason. That we should focus and rally people on one problem - and only one problem.

Sis also argued we don't have numbers because we are not offering a solution. And that apparently you shouldn't protest over what you think is a crime against humanity unless you have a clearly written out resolution. Sis claims she understands the Occupy movement and that it is we who don't understand. Yet sis had never even heard of our number one slogan - We are the 99%. Neither did she know that we have already made _demands_.

_But this is what I don't understand._

*How are we not projecting that we have ONE problem?*

Hasn't the occupy movement since day one named who the ONE problem is? The 1% right? That is why the slogan is we are the 99%, because we are fighting the greed of the 1%. *That is the ONE problem. And its a problem creating a multitude of problems.* From homes being illegally taken away, to crippling student debt, to a corrupt banking system, to regulators regulating themselves, which in turn creates an environmental problem. (FDA and EPA)

I don't understand how anyone can ask the Occupy movement to be fools and rally behind only one issue, as if only solving one issue will solve anything in this web of lies. People don't want to join us because its all so complicated? Tough. It is complicated. Its a fucked up system and its a complicated mess. Its not simple and its not easy. No one ever said it was. 

To that Egyptian Revolutionary, are you going to tell me, that you opposed Mubarak - for one reason? And one reason only? I'm not Egyptian so I can be over stepping my voice, but last I remember people were fed up with Mubarak for a MULTITUDE of reasons.

And we in the Occupy movement recognize a multitude of problems created by merely the 1%. All of these different problems are not so different and they are all tied and interconnected. The environmental issues are tied back to *corporate greed and corrupt government officials*. Just as the economic issues are tied back to *corporate greed and corrupt government officials*.  And guess what, ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ARE TIED TO ECONOMIC ISSUES! Whether someone is out there for environmental or economic issues they both MUTUALLY understand they are fighting the SAME enemy.

So I don't understand..........................

*WHAT IS NOT TO UNDERSTAND!!!*

So please explain to me DV members who for some insane reason oppose occupy, why do you not understand how all of these problems are interconnected? What did you think, that the problems Americans face are - unrelated?

No, lets take this a step further.

Did you think the reason why Occupy is happening across the Globe - is for _unrelated_ issues?

----------


## Original Poster



----------


## tommo

I think I need to restrict my "likes", lest I come across as putting the other posts I liked on the same level as yours juroara.

That really was great.

I do agree with your sister too.  That is the reason it's not catching on so much, as well as most mainstream news stations.
People just aren't smart enough, or don't care enough.  Probably both.

And I was listening to an Alan Watts talk (I think it was him, I wish I could find it right now to type it exactly right) recently and he said "This is why children don't care anymore, because there are so many problems:  War, famine, disease, greed, corruption, environmental destruction, the a-bomb.... and any one of those problems taken alone is insurmountable".

I think that is why people just.... give up.  And why people don't want to think about it when you're showing them everything at once.  Even though it NEEDS to be done.  Not everything is pleasant.

----------


## IndieAnthias

> You seem to be implying that conservatives think it would be okay to make money by means of fraud or theft or some other criminal means. Please clarify your position.



My position is unaffected, strengthened even, if you remove the line you highlighted. I'll retract it, but only in the context of this particular argument. I argued that economic inequality _at face value_ (so, regardless of the causes of said inequality, legal or otherwise) is reason enough to take action. This _at face value_ condemnation of economic inequality is supported by evidence presented in the video I linked. Have I been clarified?

----------


## cmind

> My position is unaffected, strengthened even, if you remove the line you highlighted. I'll retract it, but only in the context of this particular argument. I argued that economic inequality _at face value_ (so, regardless of the causes of said inequality, legal or otherwise) is reason enough to take action. This _at face value_ condemnation of economic inequality is supported by evidence presented in the video I linked. Have I been clarified?



Why is it bad for some people to have more money than others, given the assumption that you apparently agreed to, which is that they got that money by providing goods and services that others found valuable?

----------


## IndieAnthias

> Why is it bad for some people to have more money than others,



Watch the TED video.. that question is exactly what it's about. One of the points demonstrated (with evidence) is that quality of life for _both ends of the economic spectrum_ is higher when there's less difference between them.





> given the assumption that you apparently agreed to, which is that they got that money by providing goods and services that others found valuable?



That's irrelevant to the scope of the presentation: that's what I keep getting at by saying _at face value_. "economic inequality at face value regardless of the causes of said inequality".

Dispute the arguments put forth in the presentation if you want but stick with what has actually been presented.

----------


## cmind

> Watch the TED video.. that question is exactly what it's about. One of the points demonstrated (with evidence) is that quality of life for _both ends of the economic spectrum_ is higher when there's less difference between them.



That's an assertion. And it's clearly a correlation/causation fallacy. Also, I think any notions of using force (which you seem to tacitly advocate) to "equalize" the distribution of wealth will both fail (who watches the watchers?) and make everyone less happy because of the nature of the solution, ie. violence. If you were trying to convince the rich to voluntarily give to charity, which some do, then I'd be on your side. But you clearly want to point guns at them and force them to give to charity. And not just any charity, YOUR charity. 

I'm waiting for an intelligent thought from you.






> That's irrelevant to the scope of the presentation: that's what I keep getting at by saying _at face value_. "economic inequality at face value regardless of the causes of said inequality".



I will keep asking this until you answer: Is there anything wrong with some people being richer than others, assuming they got rich through voluntary trade interactions with other people?

----------


## Original Poster

There is something wrong when the wealthiest people use tax refunds to get all their money back.

----------


## IndieAnthias

> That's an assertion. And it's clearly a correlation/causation fallacy. Also, I think any notions of using force (which you seem to tacitly advocate) to "equalize" the distribution of wealth will both fail (who watches the watchers?) and make everyone less happy because of the nature of the solution, ie. violence. If you were trying to convince the rich to voluntarily give to charity, which some do, then I'd be on your side. But you clearly want to point guns at them and force them to give to charity. And not just any charity, YOUR charity. 
> 
> I'm waiting for an intelligent thought from you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will keep asking this until you answer: Is there anything wrong with some people being richer than others, assuming they got rich through voluntary trade interactions with other people?




Ask as many times as you want, but I already answered that question. I answered it directly in my last post when I said 'here's what's wrong with it...watch this presentation'. Yes, there is something wrong with economic inequality, even if through voluntary trade interactions with other people. The problematic aspects are magnified by the degree of the inequality. I really can't tell if you've even watched the presentation yet because you are not addressing it's argument.

In fact there is a part where he compares Sweden to Japan, two countries with low margins between the wealth of the richest and the poorest... but Sweden uses redistributive tax programs, whereas in Japan, people simply make more equal earnings to begin with. The point is that it redistributive or not, it doesn't matter. Countries with low economic inequality have higher overall quality of living for everyone (so your accusing me of simply advocating "violent" redistribution is simplistic.) And it's not just a single correlation presented... he draws a whole range or correlations of many kinds ways of measuring living standards from a rich body of data. A single correlation does not imply causation but when enough of them are pulled together that corroborate each other, a picture starts to get painted.

...still working on that intelligent thought I apparently owe you, but I can't force such things.

----------


## snoop

> I will keep asking this until you answer: Is there anything wrong with some people being richer than others, assuming they got rich through voluntary trade interactions with other people?



The problem with your question is that it is irrelevant to the topic at hand.  What you are asking is akin to me asking, "is there anything wrong with some people killing others, assuming the others were trying to kill them?" in regards to a Ted Bundy case, and using the answer to justify his actions. The answer might be yes, but it doesn't really prove anything because it doesn't apply (I realize the question itself is not similar but it's irrelevance is). Ignoring that, such a simple question is grossly limited in scope and does not adequately cover the specificities of the situation. What are you getting at here? No one here is mad because the 1% are richer than themselves, they are mad because of the way they acquired the wealth and how, through corruption backed by the government, they continually have the money they lose placed right back into their hands.

----------


## Laughing Man

> Ask as many times as you want, but I already answered that question. I answered it directly in my last post when I said 'here's what's wrong with it...watch this presentation'. Yes, there is something wrong with economic inequality, even if through voluntary trade interactions with other people. The problematic aspects are magnified by the degree of the inequality. I really can't tell if you've even watched the presentation yet because you are not addressing it's argument.



What is wrong with getting rich off voluntary trade? The more profit, the more people you satisfy in voluntary exchanges. The more people you help that in some manner show by that very trade that their lives are now better. That is the whole point of trade. Giving up something you desire less for what you desire more. Improving your state of being or environment. Removing a felt unease. I just do not get this. You are mad at an institution that states that the more people you help, the better off you are. Is that not a just system? Is that not a system to promotes abundance?  Would you not applaud a system that promotes the general welfare of the masses?

On the topic of the correlation/causation fallacy, it does not matter if you continually increase the fallacy. Committing the fallacy more and more does not make the fallacy go away.

----------


## Laughing Man

> The problem with your question is that it is irrelevant to the topic at hand.  What you are asking is akin to me asking, "is there anything wrong with some people killing others, assuming the others were trying to kill them?" in regards to a Ted Bundy case, and using the answer to justify his actions. The answer might be yes, but it doesn't really prove anything because it doesn't apply (I realize the question itself is not similar but it's irrelevance is). Ignoring that, such a simple question is grossly limited in scope and does not adequately cover the specificities of the situation. What are you getting at here? No one here is mad because the 1% are richer than themselves, they are mad because of the way they acquired the wealth and how, through corruption backed by the government, they continually have the money they lose placed right back into their hands.



The question is very relevant because there is a section the OWS movement that believes that all 1%'ers are culpable and should be taxed into oblivion. So differentiating between those who achieved their revenue by helping others in voluntary exchanges and those who achieved their revenue through corporate welfarism/subsidies is a distinction worth pursuing. That is what cmind  is trying to show and I think you start to pick up on it in your last sentence.

----------


## Malac Reborn

Protesters = haters :Shades wink:

----------


## IndieAnthias

> What is wrong with getting rich off voluntary trade? The more profit, the more people you satisfy in voluntary exchanges. The more people you help that in some manner show by that very trade that their lives are now better. That is the whole point of trade. Giving up something you desire less for what you desire more. Improving your state of being or environment. Removing a felt unease. I just do not get this. You are mad at an institution that states that the more people you help, the better off you are. Is that not a just system? Is that not a system to promotes abundance?  Would you not applaud a system that promotes the general welfare of the masses?



Again... that's irrelevant. I'm talking about the actual *end state itself* of wealth inequality. The line in my post "even if through voluntary trade interactions with other people" was a derivative of what I said to begin with, "regardless of cause", because cmind needed it spelled out for him. So... REGARDLESS OF CAUSE. In this argument I don't care if every single transaction that's taken place in the last century was abject robbery, or if every transaction was so honest and fair that god could come down and say, 'yep, I saw it all, and everything meets my holy righteous standards of weights and measures'. It doesn't matter, that's not what I'm talking about.





> On the topic of the correlation/causation fallacy, it does not matter if you continually increase the fallacy. Committing the fallacy more and more does not make the fallacy go away.



So all correlations are useless? Are you saying that it's a fallacy to compile a large amount of blindly-selected data, look for trends, consider all possible interpretations, and then use the results to draw tentative conclusions? Because if you've seen the presentation and read my posts since I posted the TED link, I've suggested nothing more than that. I've asked cmind once and I'll ask you now... if you care to dispute the presentation itself, please do.

----------


## tommo

> And I was listening to an Alan Watts talk (I think it was him, I wish I could find it right now to type it exactly right) recently and he said "This is why children don't care anymore, because there are so many problems:  War, famine, disease, greed, corruption, environmental destruction, the a-bomb.... and any one of those problems taken alone is insurmountable".
> 
> I think that is why people just.... give up.  And why people don't want to think about it when you're showing them everything at once.  Even though it NEEDS to be done.  Not everything is pleasant.



Just found where I heard it and typed up the correct quote.
"A young person who is in the least bit thoughtful or sensitive today, sees no future.
Look at all the pile up of problems, any one of which taken alone would be appalling.  There's population, famine, the bomb, pollution, destruction of the environment, deterioration of products. you know. we're basically eating plastic, wonder bread is undoubtedly plastic."

----------


## Xei

> we're basically eating plastic, wonder bread is undoubtedly plastic."



Glad to hear you picked a sane person.

----------


## tommo

Picked a sane person for what?

----------


## Xei

For listening to...

----------


## IndieAnthias

> For listening to...



Who Alan Watts? I've always found him very insightful...

----------


## tommo

Yes, he is.  Xei just has a little trouble with lateral thinking.

----------


## Xei

I don't know who he is, I just know that he thinks bread has deteriorated into plastic and that the current level of warfare isn't historically low.

----------


## Original Poster

> The question is very relevant because there is a section the OWS movement that believes that all 1%'ers are culpable and should be taxed into oblivion. So differentiating between those who achieved their revenue by helping others in voluntary exchanges and those who achieved their revenue through corporate welfarism/subsidies is a distinction worth pursuing. That is what cmind  is trying to show and I think you start to pick up on it in your last sentence.



One more time it must be repeated. All we want from the % is that they pay their fair share, not that they get taxed into Oblivion. Tax refunds enable them to make most of their money back.

And what a surprise Xei doesn't know what he's talking about...

----------


## cmind

> All we want from the % is that they pay their fair share,



You jelly?

----------


## DeeryTheDeer

> You jelly?



This is such a typical Republican attitude, that somehow, no matter what, the rich in this country deserve to be rich and the poor deserve to be poor. As if everything works perfectly and everyone gets what they deserve. The fact is, there is no middle class anymore. The 1% are doing everything they can to make it impossible to move up, and keeping all the money to themselves, whether or not they earned it or worked at all for it (more likely stole through everyone else through fraud, tax cuts to the rich and bailouts). Most veterans and 9/11 firefighters are struggling to get by, that should tell you about who deserves to be poor/rich for their real work. It's a 1% brainwashing that they have earned what they have rightfully.

----------


## Xei

> And what a surprise Xei doesn't know that bread is made of plastic



Yes we are all shocked.





> This is such a typical Republican attitude, that somehow, no matter what, the rich in this country deserve to be rich and the poor deserve to be poor. As if everything works perfectly and everyone gets what they deserve. The fact is, there is no middle class anymore. The 1% are doing everything they can to make it impossible to move up, and keeping all the money to themselves, whether or not they earned it or worked at all for it (more likely stole through everyone else through fraud, tax cuts to the rich and bailouts).



Like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet?

I tried to think of rich people more famous than those two but couldn't.

----------


## DeeryTheDeer

Not all of them, obviously.

----------


## Xei

Well then you've contradicted yourself. You just made a blanket statement about 'the 1%' but then said it doesn't apply to arguably 2 of its most prominent members. So perhaps you want to clarify?

----------


## DeeryTheDeer

Okay, the people who screwed up the economy for their own selfish gain, like certain politicians, lobbyists, corporate bankers etc, who are all part of the 1% of wealthy elites.

----------


## knight31

> 



ROFL. Classic.

----------


## Original Poster



----------


## cmind

> Okay, the people who screwed up the economy for their own selfish gain, like certain politicians, lobbyists, corporate bankers etc, who are all part of the 1% of wealthy elites.



Then you've departed from what your compadres were saying. They say that it's inherently bad to be rich, even if you got that way totally legitimately. I would agree that corporations getting special privileges, regulations that favor big businesses, bailouts, etc. are bad. But it sounds like your solution to the problem of big government is bigger government. Am I wrong? For example, people say the government needs to "regulate" Wall Street. But even ignoring the fact that the financial sector is, in terms of number of regulations and regulators, the MOST regulated sector of the economy, what makes you think any new regulations won't be shaped to favor those same institutions? 

As long as there's power to be had, the rich will buy it. This is a fact, not a judgment. The only solution is to reduce the power the government has.

----------


## Supernova

What the fuck are you on about?

What you're describing is exactly what we're trying to fight.

----------


## tommo

> Well then you've contradicted yourself. You just made a blanket statement about 'the 1%' but then said it doesn't apply to arguably 2 of its most prominent members. So perhaps you want to clarify?



Why do you think those two ARE famous?

Because they're not complete fucking dicks.
It's not like you picked a completely random 2 insanely rich people and they just happened to be pretty good guys.





> Then you've departed from what your compadres were saying. They say that it's inherently bad to be rich, even if you got that way totally legitimately. I would agree that corporations getting special privileges, regulations that favor big businesses, bailouts, etc. are bad. But it sounds like your solution to the problem of big government is bigger government. Am I wrong? For example, people say the government needs to "regulate" Wall Street. But even ignoring the fact that the financial sector is, in terms of number of regulations and regulators, the MOST regulated sector of the economy, what makes you think any new regulations won't be shaped to favor those same institutions? 
> 
> As long as there's power to be had, the rich will buy it. This is a fact, not a judgment. The only solution is to reduce the power the government has.



cmind going off on a tangent based on nothing again.

I don't think regulations would help at all.  What needs to be done is the entire monetary system to change.  So that it isn't exploitable in these extremes.  There is NO FUCKING POINT, WHATSOEVER, of half the shit in our economy.  It's just ridiculous when you read up about how it all works.

Inflation - ???? Why is this even a thing?
Interest - ???? Who thought this shit up?
Different countries have different strengths for their currency, even though they do the same amount of work for that money.

All these things are only there so certain people can exploit it.  And I'm probably only scratching the surface, as I haven't learned everything there is to know about how ti all works.

What we need is an clear and obvious money system:
You work, you get money.
You keep that money, it doesn't change in value for no reason.
Your money is worth the same amount anywhere (even though some products may be cheaper in other countries, just due to shipping, demand etc.).

----------


## Quantiq

> Why do you think those two ARE famous?
> 
> Because they're not complete fucking dicks.
> It's not like you picked a completely random 2 insanely rich people and they just happened to be pretty good guys.



Xei has a point. How does "the 1%" not apply to these people? So, does this mean that you assume that every other insanely wealthy person is a complete fucking dick? Thus, this logic can apply in a situation like this:

I'm some kid who make shoes in India for 3 cents an hour. So, I basically have no money. Now there's that guy from the Red Cross that helped me go to school so he's a good guy. But all other people who live in Western cultures are complete fucking dicks because they have more money than me. Thus, you are the "_complete fucking dick_" in this situation.  ::|:

----------


## juroara

> But even ignoring the fact that the financial sector is, in terms of number of regulations and regulators, the MOST regulated sector of the economy, what makes you think any new regulations won't be shaped to favor those same institutions?



The regulators are regulating themselves, both in the financial industry, EPA and FDA. This makes our government institution bought out.

----------


## tommo

> Xei has a point. How does "the 1%" not apply to these people? So, does this mean that you assume that every other insanely wealthy person is a complete fucking dick? Thus, this logic can apply in a situation like this:
> 
> I'm some kid who make shoes in India for 3 cents an hour. So, I basically have no money. Now there's that guy from the Red Cross that helped me go to school so he's a good guy. But all other people who live in Western cultures are complete fucking dicks because they have more money than me. Thus, you are the "_complete fucking dick_" in this situation.



They're not dicks because they have more money than me.  They're dicks because of how they got it.
And no, not all.  That's been established.  A lot though.

----------


## Descensus

> This is such a typical Republican attitude, that somehow, no matter what, the rich in this country deserve to be rich and the poor deserve to be poor.



Odd, I didn't see this at all in cmind's post. What I saw was him asking, albeit in a trollish manner (not surprising), if Omnis was jealous of their wealth by asking them to pay their "fair share."

What that "fair share" is, however, I don't know. I just hope he doesn't start quoting that crank Elizabeth Warren. The fact that he posted a video by Thom Hartmann, who is probably the most hilarious failure of intellect on the Earth, is a good indication that he like absolute crazies so who knows.

----------


## Xei

> Why do you think those two ARE famous?
> 
> Because they're not complete fucking dicks.
> It's not like you picked a completely random 2 insanely rich people and they just happened to be pretty good guys.



I really don't know how you manage to keep your derphertz so consistently high.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbes_...onaires_(2009)

Maybe they're famous because _they are at the very top of the richest people in the world_. But of course no, this is a biased sample specifically chosen to not be representative. And Bill Gates and Warren Buffet weren't ubiquitous household bywords for immense wealth until the Bill and Melinda Foundation was set up. Brilliant thinking.

----------


## IndieAnthias

> As long as there's power to be had, the rich will buy it. This is a fact, not a judgment. The only solution is to reduce the power the government has.



Power is an interesting problem. Don't misinterpret me, I'm generally very anti-authority. But I don't see reducing government as reducing power. It just becomes that much easier to concentrate.

----------


## Quantiq

> They're not dicks because they have more money than me.  They're dicks because of how they got it.
> And no, not all.  That's been established.  A lot though.



Ah, I see your point. But do you truly believe that ONE guy is behind an entire corporate operation rather than a system of people and ideas put into place for the goals of making as much profit as possible? You should watch "The Corporation". It's an interesting film quite relevant to your arguments and interests.  :smiley:

----------


## Xei

By lucky chance, the NWO conspiracists are actually correct that there is just one figure controlling recent world events, through the Freemasons. What they do not realise is that for archaic historical reasons the Freemasons have a very convoluted election procedure, and that this single figure is in fact a mentally retarded ostrich.

The world starts to make a lot more sense when you open your eyes to The Truth.

----------


## StonedApe

> Okay, the people who screwed up the economy for their own selfish gain, like certain politicians, lobbyists, corporate bankers etc, who are all part of the 1% of wealthy elites.



I actually doubt that half of the people responsible are in the "1%". It's mostly people in the top 30% who are making it possible for some of the 1% to do what they do. But even some of the 1% are doing good things.

----------


## cmind

> I actually doubt that half of the people responsible are in the "1%". It's mostly people in the top 30% who are making it possible for some of the 1% to do what they do. But even some of the 1% are doing good things.



Yeah apparently the US federal government would do a better job of improving the world with Bill Gates' money than him.

----------


## StonedApe

The good thing about this movement is that not everyone in it thinks that, that taxes are the solution. Though far too many do. Hopefully this can do something about corporations basically rigging elections through marketing.

----------


## DeeryTheDeer

> Then you've departed from what your compadres were saying. They say that it's inherently bad to be rich, even if you got that way totally legitimately. I would agree that corporations getting special privileges, regulations that favor big businesses, bailouts, etc. are bad. But it sounds like your solution to the problem of big government is bigger government. Am I wrong?



No, not really. There needs to be checks and balances so that nobody gets too much power. Corporations want less and less government control so that they can do whatever they want, like eliminate minimum wage and benefits, which is definitely not good. Just an example of what I mean.

Although politicians have gotten us into this mess by allowing wall street to have too much power, and giving corporations the right to vote. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like politicians are bought by lobbyists, banks and corporations, not actually voted on by the people. The media's bought and tries to feed America a bought view on which bought politicians to pretend to vote for...

----------


## tommo

> No, not really. There needs to be checks and balances so that nobody gets too much power.



Wouldn't that be, like, the ultimate power?  Deciding who gets to have power?

----------


## Laughing Man

> Again... that's irrelevant. I'm talking about the actual *end state itself* of wealth inequality. The line in my post "even if through voluntary trade interactions with other people" was a derivative of what I said to begin with, "regardless of cause", because cmind needed it spelled out for him. So... REGARDLESS OF CAUSE. In this argument I don't care if every single transaction that's taken place in the last century was abject robbery, or if every transaction was so honest and fair that god could come down and say, 'yep, I saw it all, and everything meets my holy righteous standards of weights and measures'. It doesn't matter, that's not what I'm talking about.



See and this is what I do not get. Libertarians are trying to establish a system in which certain behavior benefits as many as possible and you do not even care. You are mad that one person has 5 apples and another person has 1. You are mad that there is actual diversity, something inherent in nature itself. So...you are mad at the state of nature? That the 99% can not all be the top 1% of income earners? 

Well at the very least, I hope I do not see you going around saying "Libertarians are such greedy egoists, they only care about themselves" because here I am trying to show you a system embraced by libertarians that is a net positive for both parties and you could really careless about it. 







> So all correlations are useless? Are you saying that it's a fallacy to compile a large amount of blindly-selected data, look for trends, consider all possible interpretations, and then use the results to draw tentative conclusions? Because if you've seen the presentation and read my posts since I posted the TED link, I've suggested nothing more than that. I've asked cmind once and I'll ask you now... if you care to dispute the presentation itself, please do.



In making a casual chain, yes. Correlations do not infer causation. It is a logical fallacy dating back to Greek civilization. If your link actually does such a thing (I haven't watched it because I am merely addressing the premise you espoused that correlation means causation), then they are incorrect also. It is a logical fallacy. It is not as if logical fallacies are validated by there being a mass of them.

----------


## Laughing Man

> One more time it must be repeated. All we want from the % is that they pay their fair share, not that they get taxed into Oblivion. Tax refunds enable them to make most of their money back.
> 
> And what a surprise Xei doesn't know what he's talking about...



But it is not a fair share by its very existence of being a progressive tax. The more money you make the more you pay. How is that "fair?" If you were talking about a flat tax then you would have something but I think people not paying taxes is a step in the right direction. No one should be paying taxes.

----------


## Original Poster

> But it is not a fair share by its very existence of being a progressive tax. The more money you make the more you pay. How is that "fair?" If you were talking about a flat tax then you would have something but I think people not paying taxes is a step in the right direction. No one should be paying taxes.



A Progressive Tax System is simply a ladder between the top and the bottom and there's nothing wrong with it. The problem that has occurred is loopholes allowing refunds to unbalance the tax system effectively starting a war with the middle class.

----------


## tommo

> No one should be paying taxes.



....











?

----------


## Jeff777

I support the 1%.  I really do.

----------


## IndieAnthias

...and you reply as if I had not just gone to excruciating lengths to say I'm not talking about causes of the income gap.





> See and this is what I do not get. Libertarians are trying to establish a system in which certain behavior benefits as many as possible and you do not even care. You are mad that one person has 5 apples and another person has 1. You are mad that there is actual diversity, something inherent in nature itself. So...you are mad at the state of nature? That the 99% can not all be the top 1% of income earners? 
> 
> Well at the very least, I hope I do not see you going around saying "Libertarians are such greedy egoists, they only care about themselves" because here I am trying to show you a system embraced by libertarians that is a net positive for both parties and you could really careless about it.



I'm simply isolating for effects of the income gap. "Regardless of cause" does not mean "cause is irrelevant", it just means it's been isolated, for a particular demonstration about effect. I'm surprised you can draw such conclusions about what I think from such an intentionally limited statement (actually not, you've done it before...) We might actually agree on a more than you are knee-jerk-guessing we do.





> In making a casual chain, yes. Correlations do not infer causation. It is a logical fallacy dating back to Greek civilization. If your link actually does such a thing (I haven't watched it because I am merely addressing the premise you espoused that correlation means causation), then they are incorrect also. It is a logical fallacy. It is not as if logical fallacies are validated by there being a mass of them.



..which is why I said 'tentative conclusion'. Seriously if people would just read my words this would go a lot smoother. I'm studying primate behavior right now, and a progressively more and more sophisticated accumulation of corroborating corollaries are really all we have to go by to make any type of claim. Absolute causal claims are virtually non-existent in the social sciences (which includes economics and politics), as such we can't rely on them. That doesn't mean progress is at a stand-still. I understand the importance of all conclusions from correlation remaining  open to re-examinable for any time a contradiction appears, even if it means modifying decades of progress (which happens in social science from time to time.)





> I haven't watched it...



for fucks sake.

----------


## tommo

> I support the 1%.  I really do.



I have a feeling you're not trolling.
Care to explain?

----------


## IndieAnthias

> I have a feeling you're not trolling.
> Care to explain?



involuntarily, maybe?

----------


## Quantiq

*Fact:* If you're family's income is over $60 000 USD a year, then *you are within the top 10% wealthiest people in the world.* Most people on DV I would expect, would fit into this category. How about we start working on solutions to global wealth inequality than try to "occupy wall street".

Just some Food For Thought.  ::|:

----------


## Xei

I wonder what percentage of their earnings those who earn $60,000 give to foreign aid. As this small proportion of the population hold so much concentrated wealth, I imagine they are happy to give away 20, 30%..?

----------


## tommo

> *Fact:* If you're family's income is over $60 000 USD a year, then *you are within the top 10% wealthiest people in the world.* Most people on DV I would expect, would fit into this category. How about we start working on solutions to global wealth inequality than try to "occupy wall street".
> 
> Just some Food For Thought.



Ummmm.... source?

Also, you don't think this wealth inequality has something to do with the richest people?
Namely slave labour and therefore a need for people to be poor?

----------


## Xei

Stop making excuses and lame scapegoats. If only a small fraction of you top 10%ers paid your fair share, the world would be a far better place. But no, you just going on living in luxury as if you own everything in the world just because you forcibly displaced indigenous peoples and took their resources. You all sicken me.



I think it's high time the 90% united against these decadent Western capitalist scum.

----------


## Malac Reborn

> Stop making excuses and lame scapegoats. If only a small fraction of you top 10%ers paid your fair share, the world would be a far better place. But no, you just going on living in luxury as if you own everything in the world just because you forcibly displaced indigenous peoples and took their resources. You all sicken me.
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's high time the 90% united against these decadent Western capitalist scum.



Not yet. I want to become apart of these scum.

----------


## Wayfaerer

"I think it's high time the 90% united against these decadent Western capitalist scum."

I agree, but I don't think we can do it through laws or a forceful attitude, they will only fight back with a more ingrained stance. I think the only way these people will decide to use their money for serious projects devoted to making the whole of humanity a better place is if we convince them philosophically, or back them into a corner where most people will seriously see them as a repulsive and philosophically retarded minority. Our media, our culture, the average person's philosophy needs to take the fact we are a fleeting part of one whole seriously, as a priority of gratifying action, and not some naive hippy dream.

----------


## crazydude007

Too lazy to read through all the whining hippies' posts, got better things to do. Simple solution (to the hippies): if you don't like what the 1% is doing, become part of the 1% and try and change it from there. Not hard to do, just don't be lazy. It's like people who don't vote but complain about politics.

----------


## tommo

> Stop making excuses and lame scapegoats. If only a small fraction of you top 10%ers paid your fair share, the world would be a far better place. But no, you just going on living in luxury as if you own everything in the world just because you forcibly displaced indigenous peoples and took their resources. You all sicken me.
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's high time the 90% united against these decadent Western capitalist scum.



You love old data don't you?
There's 7 billion people now.
Also, I work part time now and still give money to charity.

----------


## juroara

Why would I want to be a millionaire who purchases votes undermining democracy?

Occupy members are not complaining that they aren't rich. No, thats not the issue. The issue is the lack of financial security and freedom, overwhelming institutionalized debt, and the lack of job opportunities that pay a living wage. This is why there is so much frustration at these greedy corporations and banks who buy out our politicians and hold back economic reform.

Laziness has nothing to do with it.

The economic model can NOT support everyone having a degree oriented career. 

What happens when all the youth go to college - get a degree- and try to find work in their field? What happens when this model continues year after year after year? _You have too many people graduating than there are available career orientated jobs._  There is nothing a politician can do about this. Its the nature of the economy and higher education in a capitalistic model - _to create an upper class_. An upper class doesn't exist if there is no middle class or lower class. 

Who will flip your burgers? Who will wait your tables? Who will be clerks at the register? Who will clean? Our economy would collapse if we lost these labor and unskilled work. We literally can not afford for everyone to be in the "upper class"

What you end up with instead is - are educated graduates who couldn't find work in their fields and end up in lower paying jobs that can't afford all their bills - including their education. How is this an issue of laziness? This is an issue of the American Dream gone wrong.

This is why we need a living wage - not a min. wage. I guarantee you, had we a living wage to begin with Occupy wouldn't exist. 

So much of the frustration of occupiers stems from a LACK OF FINANCIAL SECURITY, coupled with the fact that America is ABUNDANT in profits. So why is there so much disparity? With the abundance of profit that America creates - no one should have to work more than 30 hours a week to have a modest American life. Instead, the power of the dollar decreases and the number of hours needed to support a living increases.

And now the number of hours to support a living has increased so much you need on average two incomes to support a living. Very few young adults can afford their own apartment these days. Most need roommates. I only point this out because this reality only increases as the years go by. If it continues you will need THREE incomes to support the same apartment.

These are three major sources of frustration for occupy members - which encompass all fields of work in the 99% from teenagers at mc donalds to lawyers

*UNEMPLOYMENT:* the number of unemployed is much larger than what the US admits to having, as not everyone who is unemployed is actually registered as unemployed. Unemployment is easily twice as high than what the statistics say it is. Many have simply given up because of _underemployment_ 

*UNDEREMPLOYMENT:* Many jobs refuse to offer full time hours so that they can deny benefits. Underemployment is also concerned with low wages and the large amount of educated graduates working at unskilled jobs that a teenager could have. Underemployment is on the rise 

*OVER-EMPLOYMENT*: The flip side of underemployment is companies are consolidating by laying off their employees - and asking a _single employee to do the work of two or more_ - demanding 60 to 80+ hours a week - demanding increased productivity - less time off - and usually all for the same SAME PAY. 

The working class has been voicing for a living wage for years. Instead politicians give us the excuse they can't give it to us because corporations won't allow it. Corporations will just higher their prices and decrease the power of the dollar all over again. Economic reform is being held hostage by corporations and the politicians that give them service.

We need to get money out of politics - Occupy's number one goal - and have people be the voice and power behind the government as was originally intended by our constitution.

----------


## Xei

> You love old data don't you?
> There's 7 billion people now.



And tommo elevates the thread into untold levels of absolute inanity.

Seriously, that was the worst post I've ever read. Self-contradictory, utterly irrelevant, downright bizarre.

----------


## tommo

> Laziness has nothing to do with it.
> 
> The economic model can NOT support everyone having a degree oriented career. 
> 
> What happens when all the youth go to college - get a degree- and try to find work in their field? What happens when this model continues year after year after year? _You have too many people graduating than there are available career orientated jobs._  There is nothing a politician can do about this. Its the nature of the economy and higher education in a capitalistic model - _to create an upper class_. An upper class doesn't exist if there is no middle class or lower class.



This is exactly what people don't see.
I just looked around my class last year and thought "Does EVERYONE here really think they're gonna make it in this field?"
"There's 20 people in this class, there's probably not even enough jobs for these 20, and next year there's gonna be another 20 or 30".

Yet every single one of them wanted to get a job in that field.  Because they didn't just look at the numbers.

Xei - Your posts aren't even mildly intelligent anymore.  I have no interest in anything you say now.

----------


## juroara

> This is exactly what people don't see.
> I just looked around my class last year and thought "Does EVERYONE here really think they're gonna make it in this field?"
> "There's 20 people in this class, there's probably not even enough jobs for these 20, and next year there's gonna be another 20 or 30".
> 
> Yet every single one of them wanted to get a job in that field.  Because they didn't just look at the numbers.




In my sisters school they recognized the economy doesnt need thousands of new architects everywhere =/ (when most of the professors admit they teach becuase they themselves couldn't find work!)

So they solved the issue by having students compete to enter in their last year, where only a fixed amount can win entry. From the start, only 1/4 of the students were going to be given the opportunity to graduate. Which makes "economic" sense - except that it leaves the majority of students in financial debt with an education they couldn't finish.

It kinda makes me think of idiocracy where you have to win healthcare - win an education!

----------


## Xei

> Xei - Your posts aren't even mildly intelligent anymore.  I have no interest in anything you say now.



What on Earth was the point you were even trying to make? Your post is literally absolute nonsense, it's terrible. What did it have to do with the point I'm making if the data is a few years old? Do you think the global wealth distribution has undergone a dramatic shift in the last decade? Of course not, it's exactly the same situation you plank, except likely even more exaggerated. And you're on the side of the people who were complaining about inequitable wealth distribution in the first place. Incredible.

----------


## crazydude007

To juroara, why would you want to be another millionaire who purchases votes? I can see what you mean with your first statement. It would be absolutely terrible to be a millionaire and having a voice! I guess you're right, be poor and not heard!

I'm not even going to bother spending the time arguing the importance of hard work in achieving success.

The ironic thing is, Occupy, at least in Toronto, wants more political interaction in regards to "the problem". But wait, you said "There is nothing a politician can do about this". Am I missing something? Because all the smelly hippies downtown say the government can fix this, but you just said the government can't! 

You're right, start handing out money to everyone. Start throwing around money we don't have. Question, where would this money to throw around come from?

----------


## Kuhnada29

> This is exactly what people don't see.
> I just looked around my class last year and thought "Does EVERYONE here really think they're gonna make it in this field?"
> "There's 20 people in this class, there's probably not even enough jobs for these 20, and next year there's gonna be another 20 or 30".
> 
> Yet every single one of them wanted to get a job in that field.  Because they didn't just look at the numbers.



I've read a lot of the "left-brain", "logical" jobs are being replaced by machines/automated or moving overseas

Hopefully Pink is right and we're entering a conceptual age, this would create a boom in creative jobs like art, music, design, inventions, storytelling, etc.  something a machine can't do or is difficult to outsource

Right-brain jobs are getting higher in demand because they tap into artistry, empathy, creativity and big-picture thinking. This provides value to employers. This provides value for _customers_  Hiring managers want people who are intrinsically motivated, because they know that employees doing what they love are good at what they do. 

Think about this, 95% of purchasing decisions come from the subconscious and we all know the subconscious deals with creativity, art, emotion, imagination, etc.

----------


## crazydude007

> I think it's high time the 90% united against these decadent Western capitalist scum.



 ::holyshit::  O.K there comrade! I should refer you to the 74 glorious poverty stricken years of the USSR, which started with that exact mind set in 1917.

----------


## cmind

> O.K there comrade! I should refer you to the 74 glorious poverty stricken years of the USSR, which started with that exact mind set in 1917.



I think Xei was being sarcastic.

----------


## crazydude007

I'd sure hope so. Hard to tell sarcasm, or even to think when as tired as I am.

----------


## tommo

> I've read a lot of the "left-brain", "logical" jobs are being replaced by machines/automated or moving overseas
> 
> Hopefully Pink is right and we're entering a conceptual age, this would create a boom in creative jobs like art, music, design, inventions, storytelling, etc.  something a machine can't do or is difficult to outsource
> 
> Right-brain jobs are getting higher in demand because they tap into artistry, empathy, creativity and big-picture thinking. This provides value to employers. This provides value for _customers_  Hiring managers want people who are intrinsically motivated, because they know that employees doing what they love are good at what they do. 
> 
> Think about this, 95% of purchasing decisions come from the subconscious and we all know the subconscious deals with creativity, art, emotion, imagination, etc.



hehe, I dunno.  Maybe....
On the other hand, most right brain jobs are being replaced by left brain ideas and people; following trends and obvious marketing strategies which aren't creative etc.

----------


## juroara

> You're right, start handing out money to everyone. Start throwing around money we don't have. Question, where would this money to throw around come from?



Since you've made a false assumption that I think the solution is to start handing out money - I have no reason to further this conversation with you. Please re-read my posts and try again.

----------


## Original Poster

*Please stop the propaganda. We are not trying to redistribute wealth. We are trying to end corruption that impedes our system from doing its job.*

----------


## Spartiate

> O.K there comrade! I should refer you to the 74 glorious poverty stricken years of the USSR, which started with that exact mind set in 1917.



Not sure what relevance this has to the rest of the thread, but it must be pointed out that the USSR had _vastly_ improved quality of life over the previous Russian Empire...  In a few decades, the Soviet Union went from a third world nation of peasants to a superpower.

----------


## Seroquel

> Not sure what relevance this has to the rest of the thread, but it must be pointed out that the USSR had _vastly_ improved quality of life over the previous Russian Empire...  In a few decades, the Soviet Union went from a third world nation of peasants to a superpower.



Holodomor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

7.5 million peasants starved to death in a *man made* famine. That's far more than the Holocaust.

----------


## Never

...and that is just the beginning of course; untold numbers of Europeans were sent to their deaths in slave labor or killed outright for siding with Germany; or more accurately, for repelling invaders. FDR's "uncle Joe" was much worse than any monarch.

----------


## Seroquel

I think only Mao was responsible for more deaths.

----------


## Never

True, I think he holds the record. 80 million or so.

----------


## tommo

> True, I think he holds the record. 80 million or so.



Although you could argue that number is still rising now.  Since he is probably responsible for what it still happening.

Also, I had never heard of Holodomor before.  What the hell?

----------


## cmind

> Although you could argue that number is still rising now.  Since he is probably responsible for what it still happening.
> 
> Also, I had never heard of Holodomor before.  What the hell?



That's what happens when you only listen to the cultural marxists.

There was also a famine in the first few years after the revolution when they tried to go without money entirely. After that, they decided to use a weird partial monetary system, which allowed them to advance economically enough to actually have some food. Congrats, Russia.

----------


## Descensus

> That's what happens when you only listen to the cultural marxists.
> 
> There was also a famine in the first few years after the revolution when they tried to go without money entirely. After that, they decided to use a weird partial monetary system, which allowed them to advance economically enough to actually have some food. Congrats, Russia.



They eventually just started using global market prices. It allowed them to retain some semblance of an economy but otherwise it was pretty awful.

----------


## Never

> Although you could argue that number is still rising now.  Since he is probably responsible for what it still happening.
> 
> Also, I had never heard of Holodomor before.  What the hell?



There are many genocides/massacres throughout history that you will probably never hear about, even on the internet without specifically searching, as they are not politically advantageous to the establishment.

In the west the Ukrainian genocide was denied by many in the mainstream; notably the Pulitzer winner Walter Duranty.

----------


## Kuhnada29

> *Fact:* If you're family's income is over $60 000 USD a year, then *you are within the top 10% wealthiest people in the world.* Most people on DV I would expect, would fit into this category. How about we start working on solutions to global wealth inequality than try to "occupy wall street".
> 
> Just some Food For Thought.



Right. Most on this website _are_ apart of that top 10% like you said. The middle class has basically disappeared. Instead of raises, jobs are now taking away holiday bonuses , doing layoffs ( even TEMP services are doing layoffs ) or paycuts , more home foreclosures,  there's more hiring freezes, the price of food has went up. Seems like their is only a rich class and a poor class

Even if you did graduate college with a degree if you didn't find a job in the field you went to school for, your basically part of the poor class now because your stuck paying off student loans and depending on what your major was that could be anywhere from $30,000 to $120,000. On top of that they add interest to it. Working a $9 an hour job you could be paying this off until you die.

I believe this system needs to be done away with period cause it doesn't work. Away with paying taxes, away with using credit, away with paying off student loans, MORE with saving and buying with straight cash. Living within your means. When you don't have any payments, you have money to spend..money to save.  This would probably make the death rate from street related diseases and the need for blood pressure and heart medication to go down even. It would also cause banks to shut-down because they make money from overdraft fees and interest rates. So i agree completely with the OWS protestors of taking your money out of the banks.

If you went to school and learned something and can't find a job in the field, work for yourself using that knowledge. You don't need government to survive, I know people with different trades and live off those trades. Also The internet has made it so a lot of things can be outsourced now, programming, art, design, repairs, etc. 

This is the way to be self-sufficient without the government. I think people with money should invest money into or help fund small Indie businesses.

----------


## Laughing Man

> A Progressive Tax System is simply a ladder between the top and the bottom and there's nothing wrong with it. The problem that has occurred is loopholes allowing refunds to unbalance the tax system effectively starting a war with the middle class.



Progressive tax that differentiates by a person's income : Fair and good
Loopholes that allow for a difference in paying taxes: unfair and bad 

^ This totally makes sense when you think about it.

----------


## Laughing Man

> ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What confuses you about that statement? I believe that no one should involuntarily pay for services that they might not need or want. If they want such services they can enter into agreement with the agency that is providing these services and voluntarily pay for them.

Does that clear up your confusion?

----------


## tommo

No.  Thar's ridiculous.  People don't want to pay for a lot of things, but we're ALL better off if they do.
Some people do not have foresight nor enough intelligence to see the bigger picture.   So people who _do_, have to think for them, in a way.
Taxes are a good thing, most of the time.  Obviously they can be used for bad things, like war.  With healthcare for example, even though you might not need it right away, you will eventually.
Everyone does.  Most people don't think about that though, so they wouldn't pay for that.

Then the entire healthcare system goes to shit and people who had enough intelligence get screwed over.  Good system bro.

----------


## Laughing Man

> ...and you reply as if I had not just gone to excruciating lengths to say I'm not talking about causes of the income gap.



Yea I'm not talking about the causes of the income gap either persay. I mean I did say that there are people who do make money because they are providing a service for a mass of people and the people are paying for this service thus making the person rich but this is the cause for wealth accumulation, not a cause for the gap of income. 








> I'm simply isolating for effects of the income gap. "Regardless of cause" does not mean "cause is irrelevant", it just means it's been isolated, for a particular demonstration about effect. I'm surprised you can draw such conclusions about what I think from such an intentionally limited statement (actually not, you've done it before...) We might actually agree on a more than you are knee-jerk-guessing we do.



Saying regardless of the cause is making the cause irrelevant in the overall theme. No matter what the cause is like saying "even if the cause is A, B or C, no matter which of these it is X is still true" If it does not matter if it is A B or C then the cause because irrelevant because in the end X is true none the less. That is why I can draw such conclusions, because you actually use words that insinuate meaning. Also if you will noticed, I put questions marks in my statement. The asking of questions in a non-rhetorical/sarcastic manner infers that I do not know the answer and those questions were not rhetorical...but maybe sardonic which is different then sarcastic. 







> ..which is why I said 'tentative conclusion'. Seriously if people would just read my words this would go a lot smoother. I'm studying primate behavior right now, and a progressively more and more sophisticated accumulation of corroborating corollaries are really all we have to go by to make any type of claim. Absolute causal claims are virtually non-existent in the social sciences (which includes economics and politics), as such we can't rely on them. That doesn't mean progress is at a stand-still. I understand the importance of all conclusions from correlation remaining  open to re-examinable for any time a contradiction appears, even if it means modifying decades of progress (which happens in social science from time to time.)



First you say I read too much into your words now you say I don't read into them enough. Honestly, which is it with you? Since you are having such trouble with casual chains then let me enlighten you and perhaps you can greater excel your work in primitive behavior. Speculating on causes is different then trying to prove correlation is causation. On the one you are, well, speculating. You are judging from a place in which total information is not achieved therefore disallowing you to make an affirmative casual chain. Now saying correlations equal causation is trying to establish an affirmative casual chain from a place of speculation. Also I do not understand this claim that since absolute casual chains are few..that means they can not be relied upon. That is not coherent and it does not follow. 







> for fucks sake.



Yes I do not read your words yet you purposely cut off one of my sentences in a quote. Great stuff Scooter. 

"(I haven't watched it because I am merely addressing the premise you espoused that correlation means causation)"

----------


## Xei

> No.  Thar's ridiculous.  People don't want to pay for a lot of things, but we're ALL better off if they do.



He knows, he's saying that if we're all better off then people won't have a problem paying for them.





> Some people do not have foresight nor enough intelligence to see the bigger picture.   So people who _do_, have to think for them, in a way.



Wait... you mean politicians?? LOL.

Don't you think that saying 'you are too stupid to agree with me that this is a good idea so I'll just force you to pay for it' is a bit concerning?

If your idea is so good, convince whoever you're talking to, and then they'll pay for it.

If they don't agree, that's none of your business; go talk to somebody else.

And why have you tried to portray the intelligentsia as a benevolent and unified whole? People with intelligence can have vastly different opinions on what to do about something.

And why do you think people who vote are especially intelligent anyway?

There are so many problems with what you are saying...

----------


## Laughing Man

> No.  Thar's ridiculous.  People don't want to pay for a lot of things, but we're ALL better off if they do.
> Some people do not have foresight nor enough intelligence to see the bigger picture.   So people who _do_, have to think for them, in a way.
> Taxes are a good thing, most of the time.  Obviously they can be used for bad things, like war.  With healthcare for example, even though you might not need it right away, you will eventually.
> Everyone does.  Most people don't think about that though, so they wouldn't pay for that.
> 
> Then the entire healthcare system goes to shit and people who had enough intelligence get screwed over.  Good system bro.



Well who's "big picture?" Why should we allow say someone like you to tell us what is good for us? Why is theft justifiable if it is the government but not if it is a common thug? What you are basically espousing is 

I need my agents to steal from you because you do not know what is best for you and my agents do. In order to subsidize my agents in doing these good deeds for you, they are also required to steal from others. 



Truely this is the great fiction that Bastiat was discussing when it comes to people trying to live at the expense of other people. 

And yes the healthcare system is certainly failing because people are not stealing quickly enough from one another

----------


## Spartiate

> Holodomor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 7.5 million peasants starved to death in a *man made* famine. That's far more than the Holocaust.



Guess I was talking mostly post-Stalin  :tongue2: .

People who paint the USSR as a joke are ignoring that it was once the most powerful nation in the world, and it didn't take hundreds of years to get there like the USA.  I'm not saying that the USSR should in any way be a model of how to run a country, but elements of their approach were certainly effective.

----------


## tommo

> Well who's "big picture?" Why should we allow say someone like you to tell us what is good for us? Why is theft justifiable if it is the government but not if it is a common thug? What you are basically espousing is 
> 
> I need my agents to steal from you because you do not know what is best for you and my agents do. In order to subsidize my agents in doing these good deeds for you, they are also required to steal from others. 
> 
> Truely this is the great fiction that Bastiat was discussing when it comes to people trying to live at the expense of other people. 
> 
> And yes the healthcare system is certainly failing because people are not stealing quickly enough from one another



Yeah, providing healthcare for people who can't afford thousands per year is so *BAAAAAAD*....  ::whyohwhy:: 

All you have to do is look at US healthcare vs, any nation which has public healthcare.  Then apply that to anything else 99.9% of people use.
You have no good argument.  Just admit it.
It is best for the majority, if not every single person in that country.  That is how I know my opinion is right.  Not everything is subjective.

----------


## Xei

> Yeah, providing healthcare for people who can't afford thousands per year is so *BAAAAAAD*.... 
> 
> All you have to do is look at US healthcare vs, any nation which has public healthcare.  Then apply that to anything else 99.9% of people use.
> You have no good argument.  Just admit it.
> It is best for the majority, if not every single person in that country.  That is how I know my opinion is right.  Not everything is subjective.



You didn't address a single thing he said.

I would imagine he thinks providing healthcare is a very good thing, and thus would spend a lot of his own money on such a cause.

Also, your strawman fails to even be consistent because it implies that virtually everything people use should be provided by the state, yet you are not a communist. In fact it doesn't even make sense in the basic case, US healthcare is superior to the healthcare in many countries with public healthcare, this is obvious.

----------


## tommo

US healthcare is better? ok....  Tell that to the people who go bankrupt paying their bills.

Also, I agree with communism.

----------


## Xei

So you're saying look at US housing,



compare it to state, for example Soviet, housing,



and thus conclude that people should not have the choice to decide what services they want to pay for?

----------


## crazydude007

> This is why we need a living wage - not a min. wage. I guarantee you, had we a living wage to begin with Occupy wouldn't exist.



I never made any false assumption. Your suggesting increasing the minimum wage. Or, sorry, to keep to your original wording, getting rid of the minimum wage and putting a minimum on wage 'suitable for living'. Please do, cease conversation with me here, and preferably on this topic with anyone else.

----------


## juroara

that picture kinda reminds me of downtown

----------


## Xei

Basic amenities should not be a possible argument for minimum wage.





> that picture kinda reminds me of downtown



The very poorest people have housing of the same quality as the standard in Soviet Russia.

Solution to this problem: give everybody housing of the same quality as the standard in Soviet Russia.

I like your style.

----------


## juroara

> I never made any false assumption. Your suggesting increasing the minimum wage. Or, sorry, to keep to your original wording, getting rid of the minimum wage and putting a minimum on wage 'suitable for living'. Please do, cease conversation with me here, and preferably on this topic with anyone else.



Yes you did make a false assumption 

The term redistribution of wealth generally applies to taxes. This is not a tax argument. I am not talking about talking money from the rich and giving it to the poor. I am talking about _employers_ paying their own employees what they are rightfully due. Its NOT the _employers_ money, it is the employees money. Its a humanitarian argument. The original purpose of a minimum wage was to ensure workers are not living in poverty. Were it not for the government to enforce a min.wage to begin with, America would have mass city wide bread lines. Minimum wage increased the quality of life for Americans.

Well, we have workers living in poverty again - make min. wage into a living wage - its not rocket science.

----------


## juroara

> Basic amenities should not be a possible argument for minimum wage.
> 
> 
> The very poorest people have housing of the same quality as the standard in Soviet Russia.
> 
> Solution to this problem: give everybody housing of the same quality as the standard in Soviet Russia.
> 
> I like your style.



You act like a standard in living is some how a communist agenda

All American cities have housing codes already - these are standards in living. They include how many people you can lawfully cram into a living space. How low a ceiling can be. Windows that can open and close. Secure electrical wiring. Running water and a host of other codes.

But poverty has no power to abide by code.

And since you seem so happy to post a single knee jerk image and ignore disparity between the rich and poor across the globe - I think this traditional russian house is kinda of cute

----------


## Descensus

> Yes you did make a false assumption 
> 
> The term redistribution of wealth generally applies to taxes. This is not a tax argument. I am not talking about talking money from the rich and giving it to the poor. I am talking about _employers_ paying their own employees what they are rightfully due. Its NOT the _employers_ money, it is the employees money. Its a humanitarian argument. The original purpose of a minimum wage was to ensure workers are not living in poverty. Were it not for the government to enforce a min.wage to begin with, America would have mass city wide bread lines. Minimum wage increased the quality of life for Americans.
> 
> Well, we have workers living in poverty again - make min. wage into a living wage - its not rocket science.



Wrong on three accounts:

1) What an employee is "rightfully due" is an awfully subjective argument; one that cannot stand up to any objective measure. Everyone's productivity is not the same.
2) It _is_ the employer's money until the money is given to the employees for their labor. What would be the point of running a business if every cent you earned went directly and only to the people you employed? How would such a model be sustainable? 
3) The minimum wage increased the quality of life only for Americans who were lucky enough to hold a job despite possessing levels of productivity below the wages paid. Not only have businesses suffered by paying those who aren't worth the wages they're being paid, but it's one of the causes of unemployment. Good luck running a business with 20 employees when you can only afford to hire 10 due to the min. wage.

----------


## Wayfaerer

I don't think that's what she was saying, housing like that shouldn't exist at all, it's a shame for the whole country. 

"and thus conclude that people should not have the choice to decide what services they want to pay for?"

They can vote can't they? If these people loose, their taxes go another way, maybe toward a higher minimal standard of the health, education, and quality of living for every citizen of the country, boo hoo, that's the cost of living in a democracy. I just don't understand how rich people with more than the means to do this don't feel responsibility for the whole, innocently in need, they are only a part of.

----------


## juroara

I seriously can't take most of your post seriously - you're just arguing over things no one even mentioned.

Small business are suffering because their customers are growing poorer and would rather buy cheap at walmart. Cheap labor creates people who can only buy cheap. And cheap products are created by - cheap labor. Therefore the cheap system feeds itself infinitely into cheapness. We need to lift the system not squash it!

The goal is to increase all wages to living wages - or to increase the purchasing power. This doesn't mean we have to kill small business in the act. It just means the solution must be creative. This is why Occupy focuses on the goal and not the means of the goal - we can accomplish a goal in many different ways.  How about institutionalizing a maximum wage for corporations that are not qualified as small business?

This maximum wage means the CEO and other top members in the business can only give themselves a wage increase - _by first increasing everyone elses wages_. This idea "I make money when you make money" works very well in the creative industry. It makes agents work harder to promote their artists and authors - they have to! How much more dedicated would a CEO be to their employees and to the business when their bonus is proportionate to everyone's bonus? _Very dedicated - as now the CEO serves the business and their employees and not the other way around!!_

This is also the relationship we need with our politicians

Oh yeah and, in my years of making min. wage - the min. wage has increased by two dollars. Last I check, the economy didn't explode because of that. It did however give me more purchasing power.

Oh yeah and another thing - my mom is now working in a business place where her boss' paycheck is proportional to her sales (and her paycheck). Therefore the boss has every incentive to make her work experience positive.

----------


## Wayfaerer

"The minimum wage increased the quality of life only for Americans who were lucky enough to hold a job despite possessing levels of productivity below the wages paid. Not only have businesses suffered by paying those who aren't worth the wages they're being paid, but it's one of the causes of unemployment. Good luck running a business with 20 employees when you can only afford to hire 10 due to the min."

If everyone has more money, you'll sell more... if your product is good. If you go out of business, good, your product sucks, get creative and make a product people with nice minimal wages can and will buy.

----------


## juroara

> They can vote can't they? If these people loose, their taxes go another way, maybe toward a higher minimal standard of the health, education, and quality of living for every citizen of the country, boo hoo, that's the cost of living in a democracy. I just don't understand how rich people with more than the means to do this don't feel responsibility for the whole, innocently in need, they are only a part of.



I agree

Some people are afraid of democracy. Theyre afraid of what we will choose and that we will fail. But still I believe earnestly that the people must decide - even if they decide wrong. Our societies evolve like any other creature. We make mistakes. We suffer, we learn. We make better choices.

----------


## Wayfaerer

I don't understand why we even elect politicians who have the freedom to make important decisions by themselves. Why isn't every important decision subjected to the citizens vote? It might force everyone to actually think for themselves...

----------


## Descensus

> I seriously can't take most of your post seriously - you're just arguing over things no one even mentioned.



The fuck are you talking about? My post was completely related to what you said.





> Small business are suffering because their customers are growing poorer and would rather buy cheap at walmart. Cheap labor creates people who can only buy cheap. And cheap products are created by - cheap labor. Therefore the cheap system feeds itself infinitely into cheapness. We need to lift the system not squash it!



Sure, economic development is always great. But let's not ruin our plans to lift it by squashing it with some sort of nonsensical living wage.





> The goal is to increase all wages to living wages - or to increase the purchasing power. This doesn't mean we have to kill small business in the act. It just means the solution must be creative. This is why Occupy focuses on the goal and not the means of the goal - we can accomplish a goal in many different ways.  How about institutionalizing a maximum wage for corporations that are not qualified as small business?
> 
> This maximum wage means the CEO and other top members in the business can only give themselves a wage increase - _by first increasing everyone elses wages_. This idea "I make money when you make money" works very well in the creative industry. It makes agents work harder to promote their artists and authors - they have to! How much more dedicated would a CEO be to their employees and to the business when their bonus is proportionate to everyone's bonus? _Very dedicated - as now the CEO serves the business and their employees and not the other way around!!_
> 
> This is also the relationship we need with our politicians



This living wage stuff is just the minimum wage argument but with greater sums of money. The consequences are still the same. You're not going to avoid them by throwing more money into the equation. 





> Oh yeah and, in my years of making min. wage - the min. wage has increased by two dollars. Last I check, the economy didn't explode because of that. It did however give me more purchasing power.



I said it's a cause of unemployment, not that it makes economies to explode. And you were presumably one of the lucky ones; one whose productivity matched min. wage levels or one who quite literally got lucky and managed to hold a job despite productivity.





> Oh yeah and another thing - my mom is now working in a business place where her boss' paycheck is proportional to her sales (and her paycheck). Therefore the boss has every incentive to make her work experience positive.



Okay?

----------


## Descensus

> "The minimum wage increased the quality of life only for Americans who were lucky enough to hold a job despite possessing levels of productivity below the wages paid. Not only have businesses suffered by paying those who aren't worth the wages they're being paid, but it's one of the causes of unemployment. Good luck running a business with 20 employees when you can only afford to hire 10 due to the min."
> 
> If everyone has more money, you'll sell more... if your product is good. If you go out of business, good, your product sucks, get creative and make a product people with nice minimal wages can and will buy.



But _everyone_ won't have more money. Only those privileged few who are being paid higher than what they're worth. In a way, it's Bastiat all over again

----------


## Never

Thank the gods for the second and tenth amendments.

----------


## juroara

nonsensical living wage?

----------


## Descensus

> nonsensical living wage?



Meaning installing a living wage in order to spur economic development would be nonsensical.

----------


## Wayfaerer

I don't think we can do things like this with mere taxes, I think there should be "projects" where people who are stupidly rich can be honored for being a philosophically wise person by putting their name on a plaque or something and seriously bring some positive stimulus to the foundation of the country, creating a sort of "strong foundation effect", you know, like the rest of nature works.

----------


## juroara

> But _everyone_ won't have more money. Only those privileged few who are being paid higher than what they're worth. In a way, it's Bastiat all over again



This is why occupy isn't a single issue movement and talks about a systemic problem

You're right that having more money doesn't equal purchasing power. There is a legitimate concern that increasing wages will land us in the same spot because corporations will want to sustain the status quo - and just increase the price of everything. This is further complicated that our American dollar is being issued out by a private bank - for profit. Which is then even further complicated that everything runs on oil - and oil companies happily name their price and directly influence the purchasing power of the dollar.

Increasing the purchasing power in wages is a secondary goal. First, we gotta end the fed.





> Meaning installing a living wage in order to spur economic development would be nonsensical.



Its for humanitarian purposes first. No worker should live in poverty.

----------


## Wayfaerer

"There is a legitimate concern that increasing wages will land us in the same spot because corporations will want to sustain the status quo - and just increase the price of everything."

Those businesses should then be replaced by genuinely good and original businesses who aren't arrogant enough to demand unfair prices.

----------


## IndieAnthias

> Seriously if people would just *read* my words this would go a lot smoother.







> First you say I read too much into your words now you say I don't *read into* them enough. Honestly, which is it with you?



Case in point, bolded. You have to read the lines before you can read between them. I'm willing to allow certain people to interpret unspoken meaning in my words if they demonstrate an ability to do so with fairness to my intended message. In your case... no, just stick with what I literally say only please.


So Laughing Man, do you have anything to say about my overall argument? Can you connect your piecemeal criticism in a way that relates to the whole?

----------


## tommo

> Case in point, bolded. You have to read the lines before you can read between them. I'm willing to allow certain people to interpret unspoken meaning in my words if they demonstrate an ability to do so with fairness to my intended message. In your case... no, just stick with what I literally say only please.
> 
> 
> So Laughing Man, do you have anything to say about my overall argument? Can you connect your piecemeal criticism in a way that relates to the whole?



hahahaha oh god.... I was a laughing man after reading that LMAO

----------


## cmind

> Its for humanitarian purposes first. No worker should live in poverty.



Try to get this through your skull: most low skilled workers would be laid off and would therefore be making *zero* dollars if the minimum wage was drastically increased. Businesses aren't charities, and no sane employer would hire someone for more money than that person brings in extra profit. This is an extremely simple idea, why can't you get it?

----------


## Wayfaerer

Why can't the government give money to businesses to accommodate the higher minimum wage?

----------


## StonedApe

> Why can't the government give money to businesses to accommodate the higher minimum wage?



Where are they gonna get the money to do that from? You can't just make money without devaluing currency. So the only way they could do that would be to tax people, which takes more money away from the people. It solves no problems. The government doesn't provide much of anything so they can't create wealth. They can't create wealth, products or (useful)jobs, they just move money around.

----------


## Wayfaerer

I guess it could only come from people who have the money.

----------


## cmind

> I guess it could only come from people who have the money.



False. The poor and middle class pay all taxes. Inflation is paid mostly by the poor, and income taxes are paid mostly by the middle class. The rich don't pay taxes, and even if you somehow concocted a foolproof way to tax them personally, guess what? They'll just move their businesses to some other country. And who gets the shaft? The poor and middle class again, having less jobs.

----------


## Original Poster

The US shouldn't even trade with countries that have exploitative labor laws.

----------


## Wayfaerer

I don't think taxes are gonna do much. I think these problems need to be solved on a whole different realm apart from law and politics. There are people out there with billions of dollars, sitting there, century after century, just so they can have the comfort in knowing that they can always live a life of sickeningly excessive luxury if they wanted to, just to be inherited by their children who can do the same. What these people  should be convinced to realize is that they are analogous to tumors, blocking off the flow of energy to the rest of the brain they refuse to accept they are in the most literal sense a part of, one with. If the philosophy of our culture can rise up more strongly to this concept, and make these people in power realize it as well, they might convert their latent billions to energy for the whole of the country. They can set up projects they all agree upon, providing money for higher minimal standards of living for their whole country they often so identify with, providing promising new and original small businesses with the means to compete with big corporations or suppressing them from increasing their prices. I'm sure one of these people will be no less happy or fulfilled if they choose not to buy a second yacht and instead use the few million for such a cause, they might even feel more fulfilled.

----------


## cmind

^ Who spends a greater portion of their wealth on personal luxury, the rich or the poor? Take a moment to think about it.

----------


## Spartiate

> So you're saying look at US housing,
> 
> 
> 
> compare it to state, for example Soviet, housing,
> 
> 
> 
> and thus conclude that people should not have the choice to decide what services they want to pay for?



That's a pretty crummy post coming from you.  You could just as easily compare public housing in Canada...




... to private housing in South Africa:




This is not an accurate way of portraying either system.

----------


## cmind

> That's a pretty crummy post coming from you.  You could just as easily compare public housing in Canada...
> 
> 
> ... to private housing in South Africa:



http://www.heritage.org/Index/

Indices of Economic Freedom:

Canada - 6th
South Africa - 74th

So you're portraying the 6th most economically free country in the world as socialist, and the 74th as capitalist? No wonder you're confused.

By the way, on the subject of Canadian "socialism", it's funny that the low taxes and regulations we now have up here would be considered extreme right-wing tea party stuff down south. Although Canada leaves much to be desired, calling it socialist compared to the US is not in tune with reality.

----------


## Spartiate

> Index of Economic Freedom: Promoting Economic Opportunity and Prosperity | The Heritage Foundation
> 
> Indices of Economic Freedom:
> 
> Canada - 6th
> South Africa - 74th
> 
> So you're portraying the 6th most economically free country in the world as socialist, and the 74th as capitalist? No wonder you're confused.
> 
> By the way, on the subject of Canadian "socialism", it's funny that the low taxes and regulations we now have up here would be considered extreme right-wing tea party stuff down south. Although Canada leaves much to be desired, calling it socialist compared to the US is not in tune with reality.



Xei put a picture of a rather nice private dwelling next to a rather crummy public dwelling in what I felt was more of an appeal to emotions than logic.  I put a picture of a rather nice public dwelling next to a rather crummy private dwelling to make a point.  Not sure what's confusing about that or what it has to do with that list you posted (which is a poor indicator or "socialism" if Switzerland is at the top  ::lol:: ).

Canada is well known for its left-wing politics, even under Conservative rule (which hasn't been all that conservative).  As a toddler I went to a state-run daycare.  I attended public school and got free post-secondary education.  I went to the hospital a   few weeks ago for some tests and didn't pay a cent (didn't wait in line either).  Hell when I first started my current job I even got money from both the federal and provincial governments because my income "was too low".

I'd like to see any of that fly south of the border.

HST, "Green taxes", crown corporations, state media (CBC), liquor commissions, Bombardier-style subsidizing, etc. etc.  We stand on the left wing.

----------


## tommo

^ Americans would prefer "Busting their ass" to just barely get by.  Because that's what real men do.



( ::roll:: )

----------


## juroara

> Businesses aren't charities, and no sane employer would hire someone for more money than that person brings in extra profit. This is an extremely simple idea, why can't you get it?



Dude, seriously

A single Mc Donalds employee can reaps in THOUSANDS of dollars in profit in a single day - If not even in a single hour. How is asking they make a bigger portion of the pie unfair and unrealistic?

----------


## Xaqaria

My home town:

Veteran shoots self at Vermont encampment, protesters say; hospital spokesman says he has died

----------


## Xei

> That's a pretty crummy post coming from you.  You could just as easily compare public housing in Canada...



I know. It wasn't my argument.

----------


## Spartiate

> I know. It wasn't my argument.



Enlighten me then.

----------


## crazydude007

> that picture kinda reminds me of downtown



Downtown near where I live looks like this: (and ironically, Canada is very socialist for North American standards)

----------


## crazydude007

@Spartiate: Our government is very left. The current running party is the Conservative Party, which is not really conservative. And some of the current policies are very left. Just look at all the government handouts that are handed out, and all the lower class accommodations that are given (lower tax brackets, welfare which is insane), and "free" universal health care".

You said you didn't wait in line at the hospital? Either that isn't a hospital in Canada or that is one really empty hospital, because every time I go to even a doctor's office I'm waiting at least 30 minutes. Don't get me started on the hospital waits. And the not paying a cent part, look at your taxes. I would kill for the low American taxes. Also, the only people I hear about getting subsidized for post secondary are the people who get scholarships. 

Oh god, the CBC, how much of a waste of money that is. And liquor commissions, I don't drink but the taxes on it (and things like tobacco) are ridiculous. Green taxes, directly cost the consumer. How will a company make for lost revenue going to these tree hugging taxes? Cut wages, downsize, lay-offs, or, the most common, increase prices. HST, the biggest government b.s. Instead of paying only GST on an item, now I have to pay both GST and PST on it, but it's OK, its "harmonized". Also, the HST compounds tax on tax on already taxed items (gasoline, alcohol, tobacco, certain foods, etc...). But hey! At least I don't have the inconvenience of bringing my check book to the hospital!

----------


## Spartiate

> @Spartiate: Our government is very left. The current running party is the Conservative Party, which is not really conservative. And some of the current policies are very left. Just look at all the government handouts that are handed out, and all the lower class accommodations that are given (lower tax brackets, welfare which is insane), and "free" universal health care".



Uhhh... are you sure you're addressing the right person?

----------


## crazydude007

I'd hope. I didn't read through all the posts, and all I saw was Canada, so I figured I'd comment.

----------


## Spartiate

I'm Canadian and I lean on the left.

----------


## crazydude007

I'm Canadian and l am on the Right.

----------


## Spartiate

You must be terribly uncomfortable here.

----------


## crazydude007

> By the way, on the subject of Canadian "socialism", it's funny that the low taxes and regulations we now have up here would be considered extreme right-wing tea party stuff down south. Although Canada leaves much to be desired, calling it socialist compared to the US is not in tune with reality.



It's socialist up here. It is. Two was to tell, first go to your doctor and ask for a flu shot. Look at how much you just payed up front. Now, go home and look at your tax documents, look at how much you just payed for the flu shot.





> You must be terribly uncomfortable here.



Not old enough to really feel the effects of it all, but I can tell its going to be a lovely shit storm in the near future.

----------


## Spartiate

> Not old enough to really feel the effects of it all, but I can tell its going to be a lovely shit storm in the near future.



How old are you?  Canada has been this way for a very long time and we are one of the most prosperous nations on the planet, it's no coincidence.

----------


## IndieAnthias

interesting read.

The mathematical law that shows why wealth flows to the 1% | Alok Jha | Comment is free | The Guardian

----------


## Original Poster

So they're saying because things like words follow an 80/20 rule therefore so does prosperity?

----------


## crazydude007

> How old are you?  Canada has been this way for a very long time and we are one of the most prosperous nations on the planet, it's no coincidence.



No doubt it's prosperous, which is why I love it so much, but there are a few kinks which can be ironed out. I am 17, almost 18.

----------


## IndieAnthias

> So they're saying because things like words follow an 80/20 rule therefore so does prosperity?



Possibly, but it's not that cut-and-dry. Obviously the "80/20 split" in prosperity is not to be found in many countries. They could be way off base, I just thought it was good food for thought, particularly the last paragraph.

----------


## Original Poster

> Possibly, but it's not that cut-and-dry. Obviously the "80/20 split" in prosperity is not to be found in many countries. They could be way off base, I just thought it was good food for thought, particularly the last paragraph.



Yeah I went back and finished the article and read up on the theories it was referring to. I like the article a lot though because it favors a progressive tax system and it reminds you the rule falls into so many categories, for instance 80% of WOW hours are logged by 20% of WOW owners. It's like a law of holonic fifths and extremes, but it's not perfectly predictable as it must compromise with Complexity. Still, this more or less creates a system of hierarchy for everything. For WOW, for instance, you have Wow Players (bottom 80%), Basement Trolls (Top 20%), No Lifers (Top 4%) and Utterly Pathetic (Top 1%)

For fat people you have chubby (bottom 80%), husky (top 20%), fluffy (top 5%) and DAMN (top 1%)

----------


## Spartiate

> No doubt it's prosperous, which is why I love it so much, but there are a few kinks which can be ironed out. I am 17, almost 18.



So I assume you're looking at post-secondary education.  How do you feel about getting heavily indebted before even getting a job?  In Canada, university tuition is heavily subsidized to make it more affordable to the common man.  Just compare tuition costs between Canada and the US.  Are you saying that you'd rather be paying 5 figure tuitions towards a degree that is essential in the job market?  Is that reasonable, fair?

Say you're one of the lucky few that has a mommy and daddy with deep pockets and you don't have to worry about this.  Do you want to live in a country where proper education is unaffordable?  How would that impact society in general, how would that impact you?

----------


## knight31

> ... to private housing in South Africa:
> 
> 
> .



I'm impressed they manage to build anything with that tin material. I even see windows. How did they know that when they didn't go to school or anything, and where did they get the tin from? Pretty resourceful.

----------


## knight31

god that is depressing isn't it. Knowing that people are forced to live like that.

----------


## tommo

> I'm impressed they manage to build anything with that tin material. I even see windows. How did they know that when they didn't go to school or anything, and where did they get the tin from? Pretty resourceful.



Necessity is the other of invention.  And yes it is depressing.  Their literally living in the rich people's rubbish.
I watched a documentary a while ago where this Brazillian artist was working with the poor people in Rio doing portraits.
These people work in the tips, separating rubbish from recyclable materials.  Instead of just having recycling bins, they have poor people do it.
They actually find food in the rubbish and cook up meals with it.  They say sometimes they find babies thrown out and stuff like that.
They make jokes about the rich people being civilised.

----------


## Laughing Man

> Are you saying that you'd rather be paying 5 figure tuitions towards a degree that is essential in the job market?  Is that reasonable, fair?




What....?

Not even Harvard is a 5 figure tuition
Harvard College Admissions § Financial Aid: Cost of Attendance

Check your facts.

----------


## Spartiate

> What....?
> 
> Not even Harvard is a 5 figure tuition
> Harvard College Admissions § Financial Aid: Cost of Attendance
> 
> Check your facts.



You just linked me to a page that clearly shows a five figure tuition ($36,305)...

----------


## Laughing Man

> You just linked me to a page that clearly shows a five figure tuition ($36,305)...



Derp, I thought you meant 6 figures. My mistake.

----------


## DeletePlease

> I thought you meant 6 figures.



 How did you mistake 5 for 6 when you quoted "5 figures," and then typed it out again...  :tongue2:

----------


## tommo

> How did you mistake 5 for 6 when you quoted "5 figures," and then typed it out again...



 And anyway, there are many courses which cost over $100,000.  Or if you want to include courses where you would need more than one degree to even have a chance at a job in that field, there are even more.

----------


## juroara

I think the riot police are jealous because they just wanna chill >:/

----------


## tommo

lol seriously wtf?  Are they honestly arresting them for meditating?

----------


## DeletePlease

The guy on the right looks exactly like my ninth grade Social Studies teacher.  ._.

----------


## DeeryTheDeer

So, any updates, thoughts from you guys? I hear the police are "cracking down" and getting even more aggressive... where do you think this is heading? Also, congress is killing more jobs and not listening to the demands of the movement at all, which pisses me off. The good news I guess is that lots of people are pissed and calling NYPD to express their outrage about the raids.

----------


## tommo

I'm not sure about everywhere else, but the Occupy here in Melbourne has pretty much dwindled to a small group of people.  Probably only 20 or so max, from what I've seen.

How's it goin' for your area?  (Directed to anyone who wishes to answer).

Thankfully we have a relatively unbiased news station here and they had some person on saying that they interviewed people from Occupy Melbourne and found that "they pretty much all have very clear and concise views on what they're protesting about, despite how they're being portrayed in the media", and that "most of them are not school/college kids or typical anti-establishment types".

Found this good video, RussiaToday is the best!
Apparently major things planned for the 17th

----------


## Xaqaria

I was in San Francisco and there were about 30 or 40 tents in two seperate locations. In oakland there looked to be 50 or more tents. There were a lot of people there that night because there had been a shooting in the area and the cops were using it as an excuse to intimidate the encampment; there were about 15 cops cars, 2 or 3 hovering helicopters and 2 circling planes. The number of people who participated in the general assembly looked to be about 30 or a little more but some were just people who came because of all of the police activity. I haven't been down to the San Diego encampment yet but I'm going to check it out maybe today or tomorrow.

In New York, the occupiers were granted a restraining order against the police and the city so that they can return to the park after they were forcefully evicted by riot cops and bulldozers at 1am tuesday morning.

----------


## knight31

this video I think sums it all up

----------


## tommo

Even better 


5 minutes 30 just.... MASSIVE facepalm....

----------


## Original Poster

Well it is Batman

----------


## Supernova

I just hope the there are enough people who can keep everyone together, make them realize that the occupations are not a movement, but signify the START of a movement.

The occupy movement has thus far created an effective framework for getting people together for organized action, it has had enough impact to become a common term on most mainstream media outlets, and it has brought together a large number of people.  The occupations themselves are bound to end.  From here, we now need to use them as a springboard for a total political movement, to get as many people as possible behind the primary goals of the occupy movement, because only with a sufficiently large group moving together can we hope to rework our government and our ideas thereof in the ways that are necessary to protect our own best interests.

This movement must be modeled in a way that it can grow and continue indefinitely.

----------


## Original Poster

Pretty good video

----------


## Xei

Since when was there police brutality at the UK protests?

There's only 50 or so people there anyway, that's why they don't receive much media coverage, though there are things on the BBC website quite often and it's been in the papers plenty.

----------


## Xei

I wasn't talking about the riots, I was talking about the current protests. I thought you meant the situation was going from one extreme to the other in the UK.

----------


## ninja9578

The UC Davis info has been finally leaked.


Don't bother calling him, his voicemail is already full, I tried  ::lol::   I wanted to ask him if he could recite the first amendment  :Sad:

----------


## Original Poster

Lol yeah his dox got all over facebook last week

----------


## tommo

Didn't even hear about that one.  Video somewhere?

----------


## Original Poster

Warning: Disturbing Brutality

----------


## ninja9578

Whoever that was a while ago in another police brutality thread... still think cops shouldn't have some education on law?





> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; *or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.*



It's not even an obscure low, it's the first amendment.  A cop who knew the law, wouldn't have done that and his job/pension wouldn't be in jeopardy (I think he should loose both.)  The school has called for a review of police action on their campus due to it.  The president of the university claimed that it was called for because linking arms is not peaceful protesting  ::?:

----------


## tommo

EDIT:  Video, not you ninja  ::lol::

----------


## Supernova

Ninja,

This is the first time I've seen you change your avatar in any way since I came to DV.

SHIT JUST GOT REAL

----------


## ninja9578

I changed the colour of her shirt a month or two ago two blue.  I have not have the same avy the whole time I've been at DV, only the post two or three years  :tongue2:   From now on, it will always be the woman meditating, I'll just alter it slightly like that.   :tongue2:   Thought the guy faux mask was appropriate considering I'm probably one of the larger supporters of the protest  :tongue2:

----------


## juroara

Those UC Davis videos made me feel so sick, I really can't watch them again. That stuff they sprayed looks so toxic!

And, nice avatar ninja XD

----------


## ninja9578

It is toxic if you are allergic to it, 2 of them had to go to the hospital, the rest were treated on site.  It's illegal in a lot of countries due to an increase in lethal reactions to it ,including a few US states for everyone other than police officers.  And thanks, I think it'll be relevant for a while.

----------


## Original Poster



----------


## Laughing Man

> 



Why does it always come back to "the Founders?" Honestly people need to stop deifying them. (Not saying that you are, just the person who made that picture)

----------


## Original Poster

They wrote the bill of rights and the constitution which gives us the protection against this kind of unlawful abuse by authority. The picture isn't deifying them either. I'm sure if they were closing the panama canal instead of violating our rights the artist would have gone with a picture of Theodore Roosevelt.

----------


## Xei

Your bill of rights was vague enough for segregation to be considered lawful.

----------


## Original Poster

> Your bill of rights was vague enough for segregation to be considered lawful.



While I would love to agree with you about how hypocritical the founders of the US were, what did the bill of rights say about segregation?

----------


## Xei

"the bill of rights and the constitution which gives us the protection against this kind of unlawful abuse by authority"

I doubt it said anything specifically. That was my point. The documents weren't adequate to give protection against various kinds of abuse; segregation was one example which I came up with to highlight a facet of what I think Laughing Man was probably referring to.

----------


## Never

Seriously, anyone who thinks they were gods is an idiot, and I doubt anyone does. However, facts are facts, and they did quite a bit of good; some more so than others. Were it not for their work, and the work of others before them such as John Locke, my understanding of the subject would not be nearly on the level it is; therefore, one could say that most any discussion of liberty would involve such people, insofar as history and certain credit is concerned.

Perhaps the Bill of Rights is not perfect. I would suggest however that no document attempting such a feat would be. Documents do not grant rights anyway, they may merely enumerate them. The ninth amendment actually covers this issue; basically saying that no document could list every right one has, but that such rights are still reserved by the people.

----------


## cmind

> Perhaps the Bill of Rights is not perfect. I would suggest however that no document attempting such a feat would be. Documents do not grant rights anyway, they may merely enumerate them. The ninth amendment actually covers this issue; basically saying that no document could list every right one has, but that such rights are still reserved by the people.



If I may add something,

That may be so, but I see Bills of Rights, Constitutions, and other such documents as little more than lawyer trickery perpetrated on a mass scale. Once you get the population to believe in a piece of paper, you can use words and fancy interpretations of that paper to strip them of their natural born rights. The issue gets purposefully shifted from the truth to the words on a document, and then it's whatever side with the best lawyers and most money that wins. Who has more lawyers and money than the government itself?

----------


## Never

> If I may add something,
> 
> That may be so, but I see Bills of Rights, Constitutions, and other such documents as little more than lawyer trickery perpetrated on a mass scale. Once you get the population to believe in a piece of paper, you can use words and fancy interpretations of that paper to strip them of their natural born rights. The issue gets purposefully shifted from the truth to the words on a document, and then it's whatever side with the best lawyers and most money that wins. Who has more lawyers and money than the government itself?



Indeed.

We can insist on a strict interpretation of the constitution (as it was intended), but this would only work for so long as well. This is why Jefferson and originally Madison insisted on states' rights so strongly; as it is the best check on central power, especially the more states or districts one sets up to keep it in check. This understanding was not shared by all of the framers however, and so it was not passed on to all the states' consciousness, even though it was included under the tenth amendment, allowing for the supreme court abuses you speak of once again. The war between the states ended up settling the matter and concentrating all power for the federal government.

Not perfect, but still we must keep trying. If we can get states their power back, they can experiment with whatever systems they choose without throwing away all of our progress on a new idea _for a whole country_. Other countries could do a similar thing, but it would have to be done differently. The federal government would remain small as we progressed in our understanding and improved; perhaps doing away with government altogether in certain areas.

...oh and yes, some of our constitution was indeed trickery; namely much of what Hamilton had a part in. Again, though, this is why the power to "interpret" must be divided up as much as possible; this way if you hate one area you can just move, taking your resources with you.

----------


## Laughing Man

> They wrote the bill of rights and the constitution which gives us the protection against this kind of unlawful abuse by authority. The picture isn't deifying them either. I'm sure if they were closing the panama canal instead of violating our rights the artist would have gone with a picture of Theodore Roosevelt.



Well even the founding fathers violated the constitution, they are not saints upon high that we should turn to for divine knowledge or inspiration. They are just as crooked as the politicians we have today, it is just a difference in what they are crooked about.

----------


## Laughing Man

> Indeed.
> 
> We can insist on a strict interpretation of the constitution (as it was intended), but this would only work for so long as well.



And this is why Constitutionalism is intellectually dead.

----------


## Never

poke, poke, run away...

----------


## Original Poster

First Amendment – Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause; *freedom of speech*, of the press, *and of assembly*; right to petition
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; *or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.*

Second Amendment – Militia (United States), Sovereign state, Right to keep and bear arms.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.[56]

Third Amendment – Protection from quartering of troops.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Fifth Amendment – due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Seventh Amendment – Civil trial by jury.
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Tenth Amendment – Powers of States and people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

----------


## Never

It is due to guys like George Mason and Patrick Henry that we even have a bill of rights; Hamilton and other "federalists" as they deceptively called themselves said the constitution was enough.

Good thing some people did not agree.

----------


## Original Poster

If it weren't for a handful of very stubborn men (get it cause one of the proponents had a stub for a hand?), we probably wouldn't

----------


## khh

> Who has more lawyers and money than the government itself?



Apple.

----------


## Laughing Man

> First Amendment – Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause; *freedom of speech*, of the press, *and of assembly*; right to petition
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; *or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.*
> 
> Second Amendment – Militia (United States), Sovereign state, Right to keep and bear arms.
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.[56]
> 
> Third Amendment – Protection from quartering of troops.
> No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
> 
> ...



So you are mad that the government is transgressing against a document that is meant to withhold their power and yet is interpreted by that very same institution?

----------


## Supernova

> If I may add something,
> 
> That may be so, but I see Bills of Rights, Constitutions, and other such documents as little more than lawyer trickery perpetrated on a mass scale. Once you get the population to believe in a piece of paper, you can use words and fancy interpretations of that paper to strip them of their natural born rights. The issue gets purposefully shifted from the truth to the words on a document, and then it's whatever side with the best lawyers and most money that wins. Who has more lawyers and money than the government itself?



Well, no, actually, we're being stripped of our rights by the bill of rights being violated (kinda makes sense if you think about that wording).  But go ahead, found a nation with no constitution, and see how that goes.

----------


## Never

Precisely why the bill is so important as an addition to the (arguably purposefully) flawed constitution. So I would say he is at least half right about the manipulation. The bill was a condition upon which the constitution was signed by the "stubborn extremists".

It is difficult to manipulate the bill of rights in interpretation. This is clear in the absurd way in which they try to twist the second amendment, arguing over a comma. So they simply give you the finger and just ignore it now, as there are no states willing to nullify; though that is changing slowly.

----------


## tommo

> Well, no, actually, we're being stripped of our rights by the bill of rights being violated (kinda makes sense if you think about that wording).  But go ahead, found a nation with no constitution, and see how that goes.



We don't have one and we're doing better than America.  In a way.

----------


## Original Poster

I think the Constitution could do with a lot of change to make for a more holistic system because our format of legislation has led to a lot of backwards laws. But I believe in having a document everyone can read and understand that details the conditions they are legitimizing through citizenship.

----------


## Seroquel

In London the occupy protestors are now terrorists. 

Police include Occupy movement on

LOL

----------


## Xei

One of my most hated and one of the most concerning things about modern society; the Orwellian plasticity of words like 'terrorist'.

Looking at the article, it seems the police didn't even understand what the issue was when asked to defend it. They just said 'our work against terrorism is accepted as a good thing'. They seriously could't distinguish between criminal activity and terrorism, or even plain political activism and terrorism.

----------


## Thatperson

> Your bill of rights was vague enough for segregation to be considered lawful.



And, whats wrong with that?

----------


## Spartiate

> And, whats wrong with that?



Sieg Heil brotha!

----------


## Original Poster



----------


## cmind

Get back to the bloody 20th century where evil socialists like you belong, OD.

----------


## Original Poster

Sorry your pictures failed to show up, so I can't see them. Also I'm not a socialist. Too much of any polarity is detrimental. I advocate balance. But you probably think any kind of federal government is socialism. Then when they remove that, you'll think any kind of state government is socialism.  Then, when they remove that, you'll think any kind of local government is socialism until finally the only rights you have left are the ones dictated to you by the banks.

----------


## Xei

> dictated to you by the banks.



You really need to break out of thinking that pretty much every event in the world can be made to conform to a single simplistic system of rationalisation.

----------


## Xaqaria

> Get back to the bloody 20th century where evil socialists like you belong, OD.



You sound like a bank lobbyist. It doesn't take a bolshevik "redistribution" to hold people and "legal persons" accountable. I cannot speak for anyone else but I for one want to see democratic justice through the trial of individuals who have perpetrated crimes against this country and its citizens. We already know what they have done, its public record. Jamie Dimon gave his own company a bailout while simultaneously working as NY Fed director. This type of shit is blatantly criminal and yet anyone who wants to see these people face justice is a "socialist/communist, terrorist, etc.".

----------


## cmind

> You sound like a bank lobbyist. It doesn't take a bolshevik "redistribution" to hold people and "legal persons" accountable. I cannot speak for anyone else but I for one want to see democratic justice through the trial of individuals who have perpetrated crimes against this country and its citizens. We already know what they have done, its public record. Jamie Dimon gave his own company a bailout while simultaneously working as NY Fed director. This type of shit is blatantly criminal and yet anyone who wants to see these people face justice is a "socialist/communist, terrorist, etc.".



Why aren't people calling for the trials of the politicians who started endless wars and enslaved the population in taxes and welfare schemes? They've committed far more heinous crimes, so to ignore them proves that you really don't get it.

----------


## Original Poster

> Why aren't people calling for the trials of the politicians who started endless wars and enslaved the population in taxes and welfare schemes? They've committed far more heinous crimes, so to ignore them proves that you really don't get it.



They are employees. That's what you don't get. You think the corruption starts and stops with government. Government is a tool being manipulated by the banks.

----------


## Loaf

I don't really like this whole Occupy thing. In my country at least, everyone doing it is either young and broke or a hippie, camping around on public grounds and causing mess. 

From what I gather the Occupy stuff is about the "1%" controlling the economy to benefit themselves (or at least that is the impression I got from reading the website). What exactly does anybody hope will happen? The "1%" will spread around their wealth and fix up the economy and stop being "corrupt"? Uh, reality check please. The economy will always go up and down, there will always be someone richer than you who wants more money, and the world won't work is everything is as financially "perfect" and "equal" as they want it to be.

I've observed this for a while and to me it just seems like most of the protesters just have it out for people who are better off then they are, or are getting involved for the sake of it via the ol' bandwagon.

I see this as a big, costly waste of time.

----------


## Xaqaria

> Why aren't people calling for the trials of the politicians who started endless wars and enslaved the population in taxes and welfare schemes? They've committed far more heinous crimes, so to ignore them proves that you really don't get it.



People are calling for their trials. George Bush jr. and Dick Cheney and others are wanted internationally for war crimes. There are places that they cannot go to because the locals have vowed to arrest on sight. There really isn't much of a difference between the "politicians" and "bankers/big business" anyway. So many of the key players are working for both of those teams that there is hardly any distinction.

----------


## Original Poster

> I don't really like this whole Occupy thing. In my country at least, everyone doing it is either young and broke or a hippie, camping around on public grounds and causing mess. 
> 
> From what I gather the Occupy stuff is about the "1%" controlling the economy to benefit themselves (or at least that is the impression I got from reading the website). What exactly does anybody hope will happen? The "1%" will spread around their wealth and fix up the economy and stop being "corrupt"? Uh, reality check please. The economy will always go up and down, there will always be someone richer than you who wants more money, and the world won't work is everything is as financially "perfect" and "equal" as they want it to be.
> 
> I've observed this for a while and to me it just seems like most of the protesters just have it out for people who are better off then they are, or are getting involved for the sake of it via the ol' bandwagon.
> 
> I see this as a big, costly waste of time.



The protests are because the 1% are not getting taxed properly. The tax breaks given to big companies like GE are equal to the entire income of the bottom 40%.

And the reason the economy fell is because lending gets deregulated in order to purposely crash the economy. Criminals which should go to prison for life for their crimes were bailed-out. And they managed to grab up a shitload of land and assets in the process due to foreclosure.

----------


## cmind

> People are calling for their trials. George Bush jr. and Dick Cheney and others are wanted internationally for war crimes. There are places that they cannot go to because the locals have vowed to arrest on sight. There really isn't much of a difference between the "politicians" and "bankers/big business" anyway. So many of the key players are working for both of those teams that there is hardly any distinction.



Now how about democrats who are guilty of war crimes, like Obama? Oh wait, the protesters vote democrat so they ignore those crimes.

----------


## Original Poster

Err... no we think he's guilty, too. Not sure if any official charges have been levied against him but since he did inherit the war you can expect people to be less motivated to call him a war criminal. But they started to after he murdered a US citizen.

But if we ended the persecution at politicians we'd be targeting the soldiers rather than the generals.

----------


## cmind

> Err... no we think he's guilty, too. Not sure if any official charges have been levied against him but since he did inherit the war



How do you "inherit" a war? He continued the war, which means he is a warmonger. It's like seeing Uncle Joe raping little Timmy, and then when Joe is finished, you proceed to rape Timmy.

----------


## Loaf

> The protests are because the 1% are not getting taxed properly. The tax breaks given to big companies like GE are equal to the entire income of the bottom 40%.



The problem for me is that now people in our country are trying to get less tax for the poor and unfairly add more tax on the rich just because they "have more money". Thats not to say the rich shouldn't pair their fair amount. But it just seems like the "99%" want it fair for them and unfair for the others.

This might not speak for the whole movement, but around the world the message is being changed and diluted by different branches of the protest. Its beginning to discredit the cause.

----------


## Xaqaria

> Now how about democrats who are guilty of war crimes, like Obama? Oh wait, the protesters vote democrat so they ignore those crimes.



You have no clue what the protesters want, do you? I can confidently make such a claim because anyone making such sweeping generalizations about the people who have become involved in the occupy movement must have no idea what is going on. It isn't a particular type of people this time; everyone is protesting. You cannot polarize this because there are just too many different people that any attempts to label becomes absurd. What about the democrats? What have you done to get Obama to stand trial for the murder of Anwar al-Aulaqi? I'd bet money that the answer is absolutely nothing. It's always about what "they" are doing or not doing and not about what you are or are not doing, isn't it? They are doing something. What are you doing?

----------


## Original Poster

> The problem for me is that now people in our country are trying to get less tax for the poor and unfairly add more tax on the rich just because they "have more money". Thats not to say the rich shouldn't pair their fair amount. But it just seems like the "99%" want it fair for them and unfair for the others.
> 
> This might not speak for the whole movement, but around the world the message is being changed and diluted by different branches of the protest. Its beginning to discredit the cause.







> General Electric's (GE) U.S. profits in 2010 came to $5.1 billion, while worldwide it earned $14.2 billion. It's tax bill for the year? $0.00. Over the last three years, GE's effective tax rate -- how much it actually pays the feds -- is a minuscule 3.6 percent. By the way, since 2002 the "imagination at work" company has put its thinking cap on and cut 20 percent of its domestic work force, while shipping thousands of jobs overseas.



GE's Scandalous Tax Breaks Are Rooted in Politics - CBS News

----------


## Loaf

Again, you are being sort of American specific here. Maybe this really is just a problem with your country.

----------


## tommo

> I don't really like this whole Occupy thing. In my country at least, everyone doing it is either young and broke or a hippie, camping around on public grounds and causing mess. 
> 
> From what I gather the Occupy stuff is about the "1%" controlling the economy to benefit themselves (or at least that is the impression I got from reading the website). What exactly does anybody hope will happen? The "1%" will spread around their wealth and fix up the economy and stop being "corrupt"? Uh, reality check please. The economy will always go up and down, there will always be someone richer than you who wants more money, and the world won't work is everything is as financially "perfect" and "equal" as they want it to be.
> 
> I've observed this for a while and to me it just seems like most of the protesters just have it out for people who are better off then they are, or are getting involved for the sake of it via the ol' bandwagon.
> 
> I see this as a big, costly waste of time.



It doesn't cost anything....
That's the whole point.  I talked to some people from the Aus "stem" of Occupy and they basically said they don't expect this to actually change a whole lot.  But they do expect that more and more people will eventually join them in their way of thinking, after Occupy.  And maybe they'll just have to create a new society.

Have you actually been to the protests, or are you basing your hippy remarks off the news?
Because, it's likely the former, and if I just go ahead and call you a sheep fucker....
Well, I'm sure that doesn't really represent you very well does it?  Even if you _do_ fuck sheep, that's not all there is to you.  And I know you do.  Since you live in New Zealand.

----------


## Original Poster

I see the Occupy Movement as a means to show the world we have an army. I believe the next step is to evolve our viral media complex into hardcore guerrilla journalism. We need to reverse the anti-socialism PR campaign.





> Again, you are being sort of American specific here. Maybe this really is just a problem with your country.



Sorry I get so focused on narrow minded Americans I forget to bring it back full circle.

Looking at New Zealand, it seems that your government's reaction to the protests is reason enough for them to exist. Also the same international banks that pushed the US into a depression have branches in NZ and they're towing your country down the same road.

----------


## tommo

Oh and Loaf, no it is not just America specific.  Even if you discount the companies and bankers which operate almost everywhere, there is still massive corruption in other countries in the police force and government.

I've heard people say "Oh, but it's really not that bad here".  The only reason they say that is because they aren't slaves and/or society has not collapsed.... yet.

----------


## Original Poster

When we've lost all control over food, water and power what reason will there remain to hold up the illusion that we live in a democracy?

----------


## Loaf

> Oh and Loaf, no it is not just America specific.  Even if you discount the companies and bankers which operate almost everywhere, there is still massive corruption in other countries in the police force and government.
> 
> I've heard people say "Oh, but it's really not that bad here".  The only reason they say that is because they aren't slaves and/or society has not collapsed.... yet.



The issue here is definitely not as bad as America. 






> It doesn't cost anything....



Actually the damage to public property, the litter, and the constant police intervention from all the drama sparking at the camps here is costing time and money. Its a nuisance and the focus from the protesters in New Zealand is all over the place. Its quite embarrassing actually.





> Have you actually been to the protests, or are you basing your hippy remarks off the news?



My opinions are formed after reading blogs, official websites, etc. Please, give me some credit; the media always needs to be taken with a grain of salt. 





> Because, it's likely the former, and if I just go ahead and call you a sheep fucker....
> Well, I'm sure that doesn't really represent you very well does it?  Even if you _do_ fuck sheep, that's not all there is to you.  And I know you do.  Since you live in New Zealand.



Please don't be racist. I'm not sure exactly what point you are trying to make, but that is quite offensive and does little else but discredit you further.






> Looking at New Zealand, it seems that your government's reaction to the protests is reason enough for them to exist. Also the same international banks that pushed the US into a depression have branches in NZ and they're towing your country down the same road.



The governments response? They offered protesters somewhere to go to continue their protest. What terrible people!

Also there are very few international banks in New Zealand. Most are New Zealand or Australia founded. Only one of them, Westpac, has operation that could be considered international.

----------


## cmind

> You have no clue what the protesters want, do you? I can confidently make such a claim because anyone making such sweeping generalizations about the people who have become involved in the occupy movement must have no idea what is going on. It isn't a particular type of people this time; everyone is protesting. You cannot polarize this because there are just too many different people that any attempts to label becomes absurd. What about the democrats? What have you done to get Obama to stand trial for the murder of Anwar al-Aulaqi? I'd bet money that the answer is absolutely nothing. It's always about what "they" are doing or not doing and not about what you are or are not doing, isn't it? They are doing something. What are you doing?



You're shifting goal posts. I'm making specific reference to the people who say that Bush and the "bankers" are criminals, yet completely ignore the democrats that theoretically are guilty of precisely the same crimes.

----------


## Original Poster

> The governments response? They offered protesters somewhere to go to continue their protest. What terrible people!
> 
> Also there are very few international banks in New Zealand. Most are New Zealand or Australia founded. Only one of them, Westpac, has operation that could be considered international.



OCCUPY NZ This is your nation's Occupy site so you can see what their purpose is first hand because all I'm doing is guessing.

Here's an article about your government's response to the protest Occupy Auckland protesters issued trespass notice | Stuff.co.nz

And here's some information on New Zealand's banking system. You were right that only one of your major banks (Westpac) is not owned by Australia. Still, it's interesting that 99% of the assets in your banking system is foreign owned. http://centre-banking-studies.massey...ofPayments.pdf

----------


## Loaf

The protesters were screwing over a public space. They were offered a place to go. They refused and stayed where they were, a choice that became more unpopular as there were fights and increasing crime in the area because of their camp. I do not support what they did, they deserved that notice.

Freedom of speech is fine. But they were wrecking a part of their city.

----------


## Original Poster

I suppose that's a valid opinion but another valid opinion would be that all the people not protesting are destroying society by enabling this widespread corruption to continue. It's called Occupy for a reason.

----------


## Xaqaria

> You're shifting goal posts. I'm making specific reference to the people who say that Bush and the "bankers" are criminals, yet completely ignore the democrats that theoretically are guilty of precisely the same crimes.



Shifting goal posts? You said "The protesters vote democrat". You aren't making specific reference to anything, you are lumping a huge group of people together and making sweeping and ignorant generalizations about them.

----------


## cmind

> Shifting goal posts? You said "The protesters vote democrat". You aren't making specific reference to anything, you are lumping a huge group of people together and making sweeping and ignorant generalizations about them.



I'm sorry, you've totally lost me in your web of 'he saids'.

----------


## Xaqaria

> Now how about democrats who are guilty of war crimes, like Obama? Oh wait, *the protesters vote democrat* so they ignore those crimes.







> You said "The protesters vote democrat".







> I'm sorry, you've totally lost me in your web of 'he saids'.



You aren't lost, I've vanquished you, troll. Be gone you foul creature.

----------

