Occupy Wallstreet vs Middle East protests

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

11/04/2011 09:13:30 AM · #176

Originally posted by mike_311:

-I know plenty of people who had no trouble paying their mortgage until they got canned because they markets got sent down the shitter. I suppose that was their fault too.

So who fault is that? Its corporate america? they have one job. to make money, to appease stockholders. if cutting costs and jobs gets them there so be it. it sucks if it happens to you but blaming the companies for your bad luck is not right.

Who fucked the system and tanked the economy? The government? The Bank? Corporations? or the guy who got shitcanned when the whole thing went south. My money's on the first three.

-The bailouts were supposed to be used to help people, instead they were used to pay excessive salaries and huge bonuses to the same people who caused the need for a bailout. If I fuck up at work so bad that the entire industry needs to borrow huge amounts from the government, I'm probably not going to be there tomorrow let alone expect a generous raise and record bonus.

Hey i agree with you, i would have rather seen what happens had we let these banks go under, i was never in favor of a government bailout, but it was OFFERED and they took it and paid it back. Blame the government. but im sure you are going to tell me that the government is in bed with the companies, yes i agree, so who is accountable? your representation lets it happen, pressure them for laws to get rid of it.

It was offered because the banks cried "We MUST have this money or we'll go out of business and we're too big to fail". The government didn't offer the money without being asked for it, they offered it because the future the banks were predicting without it was "worse". The banks said they were taking it to keep from going under, to remain able to lend to businesses and consumers. Guess what? They instead used it to pay record bonuses and salaries.

-Think hormones in meat and milk. Genetically engineered produce, patents on plants.

and im sure that the massive population had nothing to do with it right? people are complaining about high food prices now, imagine if all this food needed to be produced naturally? Yeah, but patenting a tomato?

-So, that makes it OK? Management bargains collectively, why shouldn't workers?

no it doesn't make it ok but lets not act like unions are the savior of the workplace, in fact i'd argue that collective bargaining is part of the big problem, look at all the states they are going broke trying to pay for pensions that were collectively bargained, now those pensions cant be cut. we know what the problem is and we cant fix it. do you want to know why GM and Ford are struggling and toyota and honda not? yep. pensions, two have worker unions and two do not.

What do you suggest as an alternative? How do you make sure the company doesn't just fuck their workers without unionizing or the potential for unionizing? I guarantee that Toyota and Honda treat their employees well because they know that if they don't, the UAW will get into their plants.

-A university education is pretty much a necessity for any decent paying job. Tuition required to get that degree is more and more expensive. I paid under $1200/year in tuition and fees to go to one of the top public universities in my home state. Now, that same education will cost $12000/year because the government has had to cut education while taxes on the wealthiest stay at record low rates and taxes on corporations are lower still.

how does any of that affect the college tuition? and i'll argue that paying $48,000 for a well paying job is a bargain. its less than one year salary you will make coming out of school. oh and you dont need a college education to have a good paying job, you needed to have a college education to have a cushy easy job, go talk to an iron worker making $100 an hour how much he paid for college education, or a carpenter, or an electrician or welder or.. those are hard jobs and nobody wants them becuase they are hard.

Where do you see ironworkers making $100/hr? maybe $40/hr, but $100/hr? Show me. Oh yeah and they're union workers too.

-I'm not in a union and I've seen my jobs go overseas, twice. Of course, when it happens, my boss just tells me I'm fucked and asks me to stay around until my foreign replacement is "up to speed" if I want my "severance package".

my wife just went through the same thing, they voluntarily stayed till the end to get there severance. she she is currently going back to school while the government picks up the full bill and pays her unemployment since her job went oversees. if opportunities are available, you take advantage of them That's a big "if".

-No, you can't always buy your own insurance. That's just bullshit. I went to get coverage on my own for my family. I looked at lots of plans, companies etc. They all asked lots of questions about health history for each member of the family. My son had a health issue when he was 3, it was and has remained in remission. Every single company rejected us based on that.

im not going to disagree that the pre-existing condition system, whole system for that matter doesn't need to be overhauled, but again having the company provide healthcare is a BENEFIT, like vacation, sick time, etc, its not required that they give it to you.

----

my complaint with these protests is not that they are protesting, they are off base, they are too scattered in their "demands" as evident from the list we have been referring to. We need a real protest, one that focuses on closing the corporate takeover of America, we need a constitutional amendment to get rid of corporate contributions to campaigns, we need to get our representatives to represent those that elect them, not those who fund them.

Its misguided to be blaming companies for doing what they are supposed to do and not blaming the government and elected officials for what they supposed to do.

if government did its job and served the people we wouldn't need these protests.

From what I can see, the protests aren't simply targeting banks, they're upset with the "good ol' boy" relationship between Banks, Corporations and the Government that means money and/or power for all three while screwing the rest of us.

Message edited by author 2011-11-04 10:56:43.

o2bskating

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

11/04/2011 10:22:20 AM · #177

Originally posted by mike_311:

[quote=Spork99]

Hey i agree with you, i would have rather seen what happens had we let these banks go under, i was never in favor of a government bailout, but it was OFFERED and they took it and paid it back. Blame the government. but im sure you are going to tell me that the government is in bed with the companies, yes i agree, so who is accountable? your representation lets it happen, pressure them for laws to get rid of it.

-Think hormones in meat and milk. Genetically engineered produce, patents on plants.

and im sure that the massive population had nothing to do with it right? people are complaining about high food prices now, imagine if all this food needed to be produced naturally?

i don't think they could sit back and not bail out the banks there are too many old people with pensions in those banks. they would have lost those and been on the streets.

so far as the genetically engineered produce that has been going on since well forever. that's not really a problem the problem is that the ASCS office here pays farmers to not grow crops. that keeps the prices up for other farmers. it's ridiculous.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

11/04/2011 10:35:29 AM · #178

I'm not arguing that the banks and corporations are perfect, my thing is the solution simple, we need to get the politicians back to representing us.

hollering, bitching and moaning about corporate America is not going to help matters and it may even make things worse as politicians try to deflect the negative energy or worse create policy that continues to fuck things up thinking it will make us happy, all while continuing the ways things are.

the OWS movement is clearly a liberal movement and im convinced its direction is to be used as an attack on the republicans and tea partiers in the next election.

focus the effort on where change needs to come is all i'm saying.

o2bskating

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

11/04/2011 10:41:49 AM · #179

problem is to politicians now money talks and bullshit walks corporations are the money the rest of us are bullshit.

11/04/2011 01:01:32 PM · #180

Originally posted by o2bskating:

problem is to politicians now money talks and bullshit walks corporations are the money the rest of us are bullshit.

One heartening thing is when we see extremely rich candidates lose elections. It isn't uncommon at all. Money can't automatically buy you an election. Also, have you ever talked to your representative? Sat down and talked? I have. (Ron Wyden, in this case) They at least come off as very approachable and willing to listen. Last time I checked I'm not a CEO or lobbyist for a large corporation.

It's easy to be completely cynical and just give up, but then you have nobody to blame but yourself. Use the phone. Call your representative. Believe me, they pay attention to the calls that come in on their phoneline.

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

11/04/2011 01:41:23 PM · #181

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by o2bskating:
problem is to politicians now money talks and bullshit walks corporations are the money the rest of us are bullshit.

One heartening thing is when we see extremely rich candidates lose elections. It isn't uncommon at all. Money can't automatically buy you an election. Also, have you ever talked to your representative? Sat down and talked? I have. (Ron Wyden, in this case) They at least come off as very approachable and willing to listen. Last time I checked I'm not a CEO or lobbyist for a large corporation.

It's easy to be completely cynical and just give up, but then you have nobody to blame but yourself. Use the phone. Call your representative. Believe me, they pay attention to the calls that come in on their phoneline.

i write mine all the time. they realize that lots the voters that elect them, however its the corporations that fund their campaigns and that who they owe favors to, unfortunately i feel that they are just giving folks like me and you the smooth talk to keeps those voting coming and counting on the advertisements and propaganda to sway those that dont pay attention.

This is one reason why i dot like OWS. I voted for Obama in the last election and he hasn't done enough to deserve a second term. yet the OWS, if you look closely with their current stance is attacking the republican platform, in the hopes of getting Obama reelected even though his approval ratings abysmal.

The OWS movement inst anti-corporate greed its anti-republican and people are getting sucked into it when they need to look at the big picture. A great pulpit has been created and no one is talking about what needs to be done, they just keep harping on the unfair. The tea partiers missed the boat and got swallowed up in the republican machine and now OWS is missing the mark and will get swallowed up in the democratic machine and we are right back where we started.

Strikeslip

Canon EOS-5D

11/04/2011 01:53:07 PM · #182

Originally posted by mike_311:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
[quote=o2bskating] problem is to politicians now money talks and bullshit walks corporations are the money the rest of us are bullshit.
...have you ever talked to your representative? Sat down and talked? I have. ...They at least come off as very approachable and willing to listen. Last time I checked I'm not a CEO or lobbyist for a large corporation.

What could be more valuable than having a doctor in your back pocket, just in case you get a rash on your tallywhacker?

11/04/2011 01:53:58 PM · #183

Originally posted by mike_311:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by o2bskating:
problem is to politicians now money talks and bullshit walks corporations are the money the rest of us are bullshit.

One heartening thing is when we see extremely rich candidates lose elections. It isn't uncommon at all. Money can't automatically buy you an election. Also, have you ever talked to your representative? Sat down and talked? I have. (Ron Wyden, in this case) They at least come off as very approachable and willing to listen. Last time I checked I'm not a CEO or lobbyist for a large corporation.

It's easy to be completely cynical and just give up, but then you have nobody to blame but yourself. Use the phone. Call your representative. Believe me, they pay attention to the calls that come in on their phoneline.

i write mine all the time. they realize that lots the voters that elect them, however its the corporations that fund their campaigns and that who they owe favors to, unfortunately i feel that they are just giving folks like me and you the smooth talk to keeps those voting coming and counting on the advertisements and propaganda to sway those that dont pay attention.

This is one reason why i dot like OWS. I voted for Obama in the last election and he hasn't done enough to deserve a second term. yet the OWS, if you look closely with their current stance is attacking the republican platform, in the hopes of getting Obama reelected even though his approval ratings abysmal.

The OWS movement inst anti-corporate greed its anti-republican and people are getting sucked into it when they need to look at the big picture. A great pulpit has been created and no one is talking about what needs to be done, they just keep harping on the unfair. The tea partiers missed the boat and got swallowed up in the republican machine and now OWS is missing the mark and will get swallowed up in the democratic machine and we are right back where we started.

The messages I've heard from OWS is anger and frustration with both Dems and Reps, perhaps even more anger with Obama from those who voted for him because of his inefectiveness and his pandering to corporate interests.

I don't think Obama has done anything to justify re-election, but none of the Republican candidates are appealing at all either. Once again, it will boil down to supporting the lesser of two evils. It's like choosing the highest of two numbers on a scale of 0-10, when one number is 0.0000000001 and the other is 0.00000000009. What we need is a few candidates who are 8's or 9's.

There's no doubt that politicians are charismatic and likable people. They have to be. Unfortunately, that doesn't address the problems. I don't care about the snake oil sales talk, I look at their actions. How have they voted, who are their supporters, donors etc. I write and call mine too. I have yet to speak with him personally.

Message edited by author 2011-11-04 14:04:34.

11/04/2011 02:09:34 PM · #184

Originally posted by Spork99:

its early, take a look at the list we were going over and its got democrat written all over it. just wait till the presidential campaigning heats up and Obama starts to echo all these sentiments and tying big business with the republicans. The setup has begun.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

11/04/2011 02:17:11 PM · #185

Originally posted by mike_311:

Originally posted by Spork99:

The messages I've heard from OWS is anger and frustration with both Dems and Reps, perhaps even more anger with Obama from those who voted for him because of his inefectiveness and his pandering to corporate interests.

its early, take a look at the list we were going over and its got democrat written all over it. just wait till the presidential campaigning heats up and Obama starts to echo all these sentiments and tying big business with the republicans. The setup has begun.

I don't doubt the possibility, but we'll see.

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

11/04/2011 02:26:50 PM · #186

Originally posted by mike_311:

yet the OWS, if you look closely with their current stance is attacking the republican platform, in the hopes of getting Obama reelected even though his approval ratings abysmal.

There can be political thought that exists outside the Democratic-Republican dichotomy, in fact as the two parties go into full time all time election mode where running the country has to take a backseat to being re-elected, there is almost no real thinking going on within the party structures. At a certain point a binary system becomes so self involved that it appears to be all the universe within the system, and viewed from outside it is hard to tell the two sides apart.

There is an old Irish joke.

A Buddhist monk with shaven head and saffron robe sits down at a barstool in Belfast. The bartender sizes him up and walks over and gets his order and makes a bit of small talk then asks "So would you be a Catholic or a Protestant?" The monk looks up to see if the man is joking, and realizes he isn't. "I follow the middle path, I am a Buddhist". "Oh of course, the robe, the sandals, I understand you are a Buddhist" says the bartender" but would you be a Catholic Buddhist, or a Protestant Buddhist?"

Message edited by author 2011-11-04 14:27:42.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

11/04/2011 02:33:58 PM · #187

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

"I understand you are a Buddhist" says the bartender" but would you be a Catholic Buddhist, or a Protestant Buddhist?"

This is a pearl beyond price :-)

R.

tnun

Ricoh GR III

Pentax DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6ED AL [IF] WR DC

11/04/2011 02:36:52 PM · #188

yes.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/04/2011 03:13:54 PM · #189

Originally posted by Spork99:

There's no doubt that politicians are charismatic and likable people. They have to be. Unfortunately, that doesn't address the problems. I don't care about the snake oil sales talk, I look at their actions. How have they voted, who are their supporters, donors etc. I write and call mine too. I have yet to speak with him personally.

Anyone ever notice that politicians are the only governement employees who don't have to take some sort of civil-service exam to see if they are qualified for the job they are seeking?

On a side note: California Representative Jackie Speier (and a few others) are trying something similar to what I've suggested for years: they are going to try and go a week eating on the same budget as someone on the SNAP (nee Food Stamp) Program ... if any of these folks tried living the way most of us have to, they might not be so quick to slash social service benefit programs while continuing to subsidize the multi-nationals.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

11/04/2011 03:44:09 PM · #190

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by mike_311:
yet the OWS, if you look closely with their current stance is attacking the republican platform, in the hopes of getting Obama reelected even though his approval ratings abysmal.

There can be political thought that exists outside the Democratic-Republican dichotomy, in fact as the two parties go into full time all time election mode where running the country has to take a backseat to being re-elected, there is almost no real thinking going on within the party structures. At a certain point a binary system becomes so self involved that it appears to be all the universe within the system, and viewed from outside it is hard to tell the two sides apart.

Very much agree. One problem we are faced with is the self-perpetuating properties of the two-party system. We, of course, have the fundraising/money part which everybody here is complaining about in unison (I don't think anybody thinks that's a GOOD thing). But we also have the idea that a third candidate tends to hurt the candidate most like him/her. The Tea Party is/was forced to work within the Republican party because if there were a republican, tea party, and democratic candidate in an election the first two would be at a handicap from sharing a certain segment of the vote. The same would go for the democrat side (anybody remember how pissed people were at Ralph Nader?). So unless you have a third party candidate that draws from the true center (ie. takes votes from both candidates) the "smart" people will not cast their vote in that direction being willing to settle for "closer" rather than the candidate they don't like.

I don't have a suggestion how to remove ourselves from this predicament, but just wanted to note that we're in it.

Message edited by author 2011-11-04 15:45:20.

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

11/04/2011 04:15:09 PM · #191

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The same would go for the democrat side

Small point but the term "Democrat" and "Democrat party" instead of "Democratic" and "Democratic Party" is slipping into common usage on Fox and the like, and it's use is intended to annoy; sort of like the guy in the office who doesn't like "Richard" so he constantly calls him "Dick" instead of his proper name. Even if you don't care for an organisation or person, calling them something different than they call themselves is impolite, and unlikely to foster civil discourse.

The larger point is on target, sadly.

Message edited by author 2011-11-04 16:17:33.

Judith Polakoff

Nikon D7000

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

11/04/2011 04:18:16 PM · #192

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Read the article in its entirety here.

Of course it was both issues. I'm not saying anything else. The widening of the credit risk to allow far more people to suddenly be able to buy a house was the opportunity for the speculators and greedy people to take advantage of. More demand with a lag in supply equals an increase in value. Bubble forms. Speculators go crazy. Suddenly my great-aunt is flipping four houses a year. Bubble pops. It was the law of unintended consequences, but you are blind if you don't understand that that change in policy at Fannie Mae was at least part of the story.

The point is that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac played a role in the debacle, yes, but it was only one of many factors, and not the most important factor by a long shot.

Let me state it another way. Example 1, the ratings agencies. The ratings agencies could have stopped the subprime housing bubble in its tracks had they done their job properly, but they failed to do their job properly due to conflicts of interest -- they were paid for their ratings by the very entities whose financial instruments they were rating, and getting large sums for the service; and if the ratings agencies didn't rate these instruments very highly, the banks would take their business elsewhere. So if accurate and honest ratings had been produced, the investment banks would not have been able to sell the crap mortgages off their books and would therefore be stuck with a lot of bad debt and would not have loaned huge sums to entities like Countrywide to make those mortgages in the first place.

Example 2, Alan Greenspan. He could have, all by himself, stopped the subprime housing bubble in its tracks. He was aware of it (remember his "irrational exuberance" speech?), but he caved under enormous political pressure, and he believed that the rationality of market participants would preclude their engaging in risk-taking strategies that could lead to their ultimate demise (the shortcomings of his ideological beliefs).

So those are two factors that contributed crucially to the subprime housing bubble because each could have cut the legs out from under it.

Now let's look at Fannie and Freddie and their role in this debacle. If Fannie and Freddie had refused to buy any of these junk mortgages/mortgage-backed securities, would that have made any difference to the ultimate outcome of the financial crisis? No!! The banks and mortgage companies were already fully engaged in this madness by the time Fannie and Freddie got involved. They were late to the party, and their private investors wanted a piece of the action. Was their participation irresponsible? Yes, absolutely. Had they not participated, would the subprime housing bubble been stopped in its tracks? Not at all. It would have taken longer to get to the end game perhaps, but the bubble had a life of its own and would have continued to live on whether or not Freddie and Fannie were in the mix.

Now, if we take a look at the numbers, it becomes very clear that the bad mortgages all by themselves are not the root cause of the crisis. The total outstanding subprime loans in the U.S. are valued at about $1.3 to $1.5 trillion. Something on the order of about 20 percent of those are in default. This means we could eliminate the problem of bad mortgages completely by paying off every subprime mortgage in default for a total cost of about $300 billion. End of story. Get the junk off the banks' books, get the housing market back on its feet, and we're golden. However, the problem is (and this is only ONE problem among many) that while the value of the subprime loans is $1.5 trillion, the value of the credit default swaps based on those debts is estimated to be about $50 trillion, and that's a conservative estimate. Nobody really knows how much of this stuff is out there or how to estimate the value of the credit default swaps because it's part of the derivatives market, an entirely unregulated sector of the financial system. This is what almost brought down AIG and, if AIG had not been rescued, what would have brought down the entire financial system worldwide. And all of this bad debt attributable to credit default swaps has absolutely nothing to do with Fannie and Freddie.

So now you know why I rail against the BIG LIE that Fannie and Freddie and Barney Frank are entirely to blame for the financial crisis. It's a laughable hoax. There's plenty of blame to go around on this one, and I have no interest in defending Barney Frank or Bill Clinton or anyone else for their role in it. But the Republicans ought to be drawn and quartered for perpetuating the lie, and for scapegoating poor people too, all in the name of selling the public on their "small government" ideology so the rich can become ever richer. It's bloody infuriating.

11/04/2011 04:48:07 PM · #193

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The same would go for the democrat side

Small point but the term "Democrat" and "Democrat party" instead of "Democratic" and "Democratic Party" is slipping into common usage on Fox and the like, and it's use is intended to annoy; sort of like the guy in the office who doesn't like "Richard" so he constantly calls him "Dick" instead of his proper name. Even if you don't care for an organisation or person, calling them something different than they call themselves is impolite, and unlikely to foster civil discourse.

The larger point is on target, sadly.

So noted. That was really my lack of proper English rather than meaning anything. Still, how would you self-identify? I am a Democrat, no?

A tangentially related, but merely interesting factoid I saw many years ago was the fact that the media tends to refer to Republicans as "moderate" when they are in the middle whereas they refer to similar Democrats as "centrist". Why? No idea. When I reflected I found that I did the same thing myself.

11/04/2011 04:49:44 PM · #194

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

So now you know why I rail against the BIG LIE that Fannie and Freddie and Barney Frank are entirely to blame for the financial crisis. It's a laughable hoax. There's plenty of blame to go around on this one, and I have no interest in defending Barney Frank or Bill Clinton or anyone else for their role in it. But the Republicans ought to be drawn and quartered for perpetuating the lie, and for scapegoating poor people too, all in the name of selling the public on their "small government" ideology so the rich can become ever richer. It's bloody infuriating.

I hate to break this to you but, they are both to blame, they both cater to big business and both write policy on what us best for their contributors. Its not just the Republicans, that's shat them democrats want you to think.

Free market capitalism us by far the best economic structure to have. I can be rich, you can be rich, anyone can be rich, with a good idea and hard work. But so many people feel they are entitled to everything. Lets not tear it down because some greedy bastards lacked control and had no oversight.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/04/2011 04:51:12 PM · #195

Statement: Congresswoman Speier Reports on her 4th Day of her Five-Day Food Stamp Challenge

Originally posted by Cited Article (emphasis added):

But the food stamp challenge also differs from a diet in that I know that this is what much of America faces each week. One in six Americans lives in povertyâ��thatâ��s, 46.2 million people, or 15.1% of our population, the highest rate of poverty of any major industrialized nation in the world. Three out of four people who receive food stamps have a job. But nearly 20 percent of all working adults arenâ��t able to rise above the poverty line even if they work full-time for a year. And the federal government sets poverty income for one person at $10,890â��thatâ��s less than $1,000 per month, an income that guarantees hunger and, if slightly exceeded, no food stamps.

11/04/2011 04:54:23 PM · #196

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

So now you know why I rail against the BIG LIE that Fannie and Freddie and Barney Frank are entirely to blame for the financial crisis.

Whoever said they were entirely to blame? Nobody here.

Of course you are correct that there are many factors, but of course Spork (who I was replying to) only chose to mention one (the greedy bankers). I was pointing out that if we are only going to mention one of the many causes we can easily make the story sound completely different. I wasn't disagreeing with his point that the banks brought this upon us by giving loans to anybody with a pulse, just indirectly showing that it's a tunnel vision narrative.

I've seen too many of your posts Judith to consider you anything close to unbiased. You sit far to the left of me so, in my book, you are just as dangerous as those far to my right. Nothing personal. You are probably a nice lady and we'd have a good dinner. But when you talk politics you are just another talking head, the anti-FOX if you will.

Message edited by author 2011-11-04 16:56:51.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/04/2011 04:56:32 PM · #197

Originally posted by mike_311:

Free market capitalism us by far the best economic structure to have. I can be rich, you can be rich, anyone can be rich, with a good idea and hard work. But so many people feel they are entitled to everything. Lets not tear it down because some greedy bastards lacked control and had no oversight.

"Anyone" can be rich, but not "everyone" can be rich -- in order for YOU to be rich it requires about 70-80 people to live modestly or less, and another 20-30 to live in poverty -- that's just how the math (and the current system) works.

11/04/2011 04:57:57 PM · #198

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by mike_311:
Free market capitalism us by far the best economic structure to have. I can be rich, you can be rich, anyone can be rich, with a good idea and hard work. But so many people feel they are entitled to everything. Lets not tear it down because some greedy bastards lacked control and had no oversight.

"Anyone" can be rich, but not "everyone" can be rich -- in order for YOU to be rich it requires about 70-80 people to live modestly or less, and another 20-30 to live in poverty -- that's just how the math (and the current system) works.

Commie! ;)

EDIT: I should say a little more. It is practically impossible as well as idealistically dangerous to try to level weath across the board to everybody. There is nothing wrong with the idea that some people have more than others, especially if they have more because of their own effort. However (and this is where we can agree, I think), you want a system that will work against an increasing gap between the richest and the rest. A system that will take some of that accumulated wealth and recycle it back at the bottom (to eventually work its way up again). That system, in my view, is a progressive taxation which includes (and very importantly) a "death" tax ("inheritance tax" for the sane). Money has its own "gravity" and tends to clump. The system needs to work to "declump" it, but it will always have that propensity.

Message edited by author 2011-11-04 17:07:16.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/04/2011 05:05:51 PM · #199

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by mike_311:
Free market capitalism us by far the best economic structure to have. I can be rich, you can be rich, anyone can be rich, with a good idea and hard work. But so many people feel they are entitled to everything. Lets not tear it down because some greedy bastards lacked control and had no oversight.

"Anyone" can be rich, but not "everyone" can be rich -- in order for YOU to be rich it requires about 70-80 people to live modestly or less, and another 20-30 to live in poverty -- that's just how the math (and the current system) works.

Commie! ;)

Nope -- never ... I don't believe in the dictatorship of the proletariat any more than I believe in any other form of dictatorship (at least, where I'm not dictator -- an office I'd have to either decline or abolish).

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I've seen too many of your posts Judith to consider you anything close to unbiased. You sit far to the left of me so, in my book, you are just as dangerous as those far to my right. Nothing personal. You are probably a nice lady and we'd have a good dinner. But when you talk politics you are just another talking head, the anti-FOX if you will.

What would Jesus think of investment bankers and corporate polluters? Would he sit to your left or your right?

Since the SCOTUS has defined corporations as persons, does that mean they have souls? And if so, can they be saved without confessing their sins?

I must admit, the idea of BP or BofA burning forever does present an enticing argument for reconsidering my belief (or lack thereof) in Divine retribution ...