I've missed a few pages, but looking back people are making trophy analogies, and claims of entitlement, and all that kind of stuff...so let's get real with this. First, I do acknowledge that there is a set of people out there that just want handouts and that's NOT cool, but I believe they are in the minority. Anyway if we want to talk about entitlements lets think about this in a few different ways:
1. I know 204 chords and Mike knows 200, but Mike grew up in a wealthy family and has 8 guitars. I grew up poor and have 1, and it broke. The way taxes used to work would have allowed me to buy a second one, or I would receive enough social welfare to get that second one. However, that time is over and I am fucked. Now Mike doesn't pay taxes (or very little since most of his loot is stashed overseas) owns 400 guitars (reflective of the shift in CEO to worker pay gap), and I own that same broken one, and he bitches that it's entitlement for ME to ask for the money to get that one guitar. Who's entitled?
This is a dumb analogy.
If a kid gets cancer when he's 2 and dies when he is 5, how would the government "even the playing field" then? This whole thought that evening the playing field is downright stupid, in my mind. Shit happens. Each person should pay what they owe, end of story... and if you don't like the tax rates or how they are enforced, fine... but, the way to change that is to change... wait for it,.... GOVERNMENT.
Oh yeh, but Obama said not to talk about government, so let's try to swing this back to another scapegoat.
2. My wife and in-laws live in a wealthy part of Mass., got to go to the best public (and private for a time) high schools in the area, that prepared them for success once they graduated high school. They got the best teachers, the best training for SATs, and were provided a comfortable living situation. All three went to private colleges for a combined 14-years, costing upwards of $700k, and not a one owes for a school loan. Two of them work in the financial industry getting jobs because their dad is a big name and because of where they went to school. I told you my school history, and what I did to get through a PhD "only" owing $72k for my efforts. Who's entitled?
Like I said, some kids get cancer when they are two years old. You didn't. Who's entitled? This whole utopian dreamworld thought that you could ever make things equal is downright dumb. We're all different, and no matter how hard you try, we'll never be equal. We all have some great things going for us and some not so much. All we can do is the best with what we have been given (IQ, talent, looks, wealth, health, etc.). Trying to re-arrange that, is literally wrong in my humble opinion. And anyone who wants to do that shows an inherent insecurity in my mind.
3. Inlet you talked about living at home for 6 years while you pursued your PhD...did you pay your parents rent? What about the fact that you were lucky enough to have parents living close to your University, with room in their house to take you in? Like I said I lived in my Uncle's basement paying cut-rate rent, and cooking dinners to make up for it. Lucky as shit to do so. We did sacrifice to get PhD's but we were both entitled and lucky.
I paid my parents rent for living at their home. Sure, I was fortunate to have parents who would take me in and I paid a smaller rent to then I would have living in an apartment myself or with friends. But, I also sacrificed in the near term to benefit later (which is rare in today's world). Like I said, I stayed in many nights when my friends went out. I had pretty much no expendable money. My schedule was flip-flopped from everyone I was close to. These were negatives, but I took it. I may not have decided to get my PhD if I didn't have my parents, but who knows, maybe I would have done it another way. If I had to bet, I may have stayed in my full-time job in finance, gotten an MBA at night with my job paying for it, if my parents wouldn't or couldn't take me in. For all I know, I would've ended up making more money that way, and maybe even been better off. All I know is, I would've ended up fine, just in another career if I didn't have parents to let me stay there.
So, although yeh I can say in this way or that way, I was lucky. I made decisions to do things the best with the resources I had available to me at the time. That's all anyone can do. And saying that someone who came from an even poorer background then me, couldn't do what I did.... I KNOW is BULLSHIT. I saw people do what I did, who were much, much poorer than even me. Yet, they did it. Anyone can, if that's what they really want. They just need to work on it. Handouts don't teach work ethic. Determination does.
I'm so sick and tired of this handout culture. It teaches sloth and laziness. It also teaches: DISCRIMINATION. Do the best with what you have (talent, looks, money, intelligence, etc.) and there's no reason to ever discriminate or want what other people have, in fact there's no time to... because you're too busy working on improving yourself and doing the best you can with what you have.
I've missed a few pages, but looking back people are making trophy analogies, and claims of entitlement, and all that kind of stuff...so let's get real with this. First, I do acknowledge that there is a set of people out there that just want handouts and that's NOT cool, but I believe they are in the minority. Anyway if we want to talk about entitlements lets think about this in a few different ways:
1. I know 204 chords and Mike knows 200, but Mike grew up in a wealthy family and has 8 guitars. I grew up poor and have 1, and it broke. The way taxes used to work would have allowed me to buy a second one, or I would receive enough social welfare to get that second one. However, that time is over and I am fucked. Now Mike doesn't pay taxes (or very little since most of his loot is stashed overseas) owns 400 guitars (reflective of the shift in CEO to worker pay gap), and I own that same broken one, and he bitches that it's entitlement for ME to ask for the money to get that one guitar. Who's entitled?
2. My wife and in-laws live in a wealthy part of Mass., got to go to the best public (and private for a time) high schools in the area, that prepared them for success once they graduated high school. They got the best teachers, the best training for SATs, and were provided a comfortable living situation. All three went to private colleges for a combined 14-years, costing upwards of $700k, and not a one owes for a school loan. Two of them work in the financial industry getting jobs because their dad is a big name and because of where they went to school. I told you my school history, and what I did to get through a PhD "only" owing $72k for my efforts. Who's entitled?
3. Inlet you talked about living at home for 6 years while you pursued your PhD...did you pay your parents rent? What about the fact that you were lucky enough to have parents living close to your University, with room in their house to take you in? Like I said I lived in my Uncle's basement paying cut-rate rent, and cooking dinners to make up for it. Lucky as shit to do so. We did sacrifice to get PhD's but we were both entitled and lucky.
Finally someone asked the question about whether Steve Jobs children should have to go to public school, and I am saying yes, if you are against entitlements and free handouts, then what gives those kids the right to segregate themselves with other rich kids? Of course this is absurd, but maybe now you get how absurd it is to call one thing entitlement, and the other capitalism.
1) not everyone who is wealthy comes from wealth. some earn it as the 1st-generation of their families to earn it. eddie vedder, jeff ament and mike mccready sure as shit didn't own 8 guitars 20 years ago. and why is 8 guitars the standard? isn't one enough? - or is it just that you envy and wish you were those with more?
2) does your father-in-law know you think his daugthers are privileged and didn't 'earn' their way? and that you think he and his family are a part of the problem with this country? i'm guessing not. also it was your CHOICE to incur $72,000 in debt for student loans not anyone else's. no one said you had to incur said debt.
3) you and inlet have both presented stories where you worked to make your situations work - i don't see where the current system fucked you in any way. you got an education, paid for it and now have a job. problem?
i think we agree they should pay more...i'm just saying don't call it a fair tax. i'd respect the movement more if they came out and said they want those fuckers to pay more because they have more.
also it's a slippery slope to complain about executives getting paid at such a higher rate. can you really tell a private corporation what to pay it's employees? and should the government? i said in this thread before the only way to hurt a corporation is to hurt their bottom line. marching or camping will have no effect if we continue to use their products and services.
and i know the argument is going to be used about the bailouts and how much they make on wall street but the fact is we had to bailout the banks or our economy would be in much much worse shape than it currently is. however we had gotten to that point wasn't important, it needed to be done at the time.
choice of words often comes down to semantics anyways ... call it what you want ... but this isn't about making them pay more simply because they have more ... it's again about how the distribution of wealth is achieved in a "fair" way ...
i won't get into the bailouts ... but i'd love to hear the libertarians on here comment on bailouts ...
and why no response to my other point nor my prison example??
The point of my post was to dispute what you guys called an entitlement culture for the poor when one already exists for the rich. I am not jealous of those who are rich, and most OWS aren't either. I just don't think calling things like welfare, financial aid, and so on "entitlement" programs are accurate or respectful when my wife and in-laws were entitled because of where they were born. What exactly did they do to EARN their degrees and their jobs?
Yes my in-law's knows how I feel, they read everything I write, and I talk to them every day. We disagree on things politically, but that doesn't mean that I don't love and care for them. Further, I want my son to understand that he is, in fact, entitled and that he did nothing to EARN is spot on this earth and that he should respect that when he goes to nice schools, has a nice living situation, and two caring parents.
When I first heard of this movement, I thought it was something I would agree with because I was vehemently against the bailouts that Wall St. received.
But, when I see what a lot of the issues and positions that the protesters are taking, I just can't support them.
We've got to stop asking for government to get involved in all aspects of our live and we HAVE to realize that life isn't and wasn't ever meant to be fair.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Politicians are only influenced by corporations if they allow themselves to be. They are fully capable of doing what they think it best even if it means that some CEO or Chairman of the Board at some big company isn't happy about it. So, if you're unhappy with the influence of corporations on our government, you should be protesting the politicians (on all sides) who willfully and happily allow it to happen instead of acting like the politicians have no say in what happens. By the way, there was nobody on this board giving Bush the same enormous amount of slack when he was in office. Back then the cry around here was, "Bush is giving handouts to his big business buddies! Bush is evil and needs to be voted out! Impeach him!" It's amazing how it suddenly became a problem for which it's now unfair to hold the President accountable.
Let's say you work at bank and your friend needs a loan. He asks you to give him that loan at a lower rate than the bank offers, so you input the loan and change the rate for him because you think he might not be your friend anymore if you don't because you're worried that he might not be your friend anymore. Which one of you did something wrong?
Politicians are only influenced by corporations if they allow themselves to be. They are fully capable of doing what they think it best even if it means that some CEO or Chairman of the Board at some big company isn't happy about it. So, if you're unhappy with the influence of corporations on our government, you should be protesting the politicians (on all sides) who willfully and happily allow it to happen instead of acting like the politicians have no say in what happens. By the way, there was nobody on this board giving Bush the same enormous amount of slack when he was in office. Back then the cry around here was, "Bush is giving handouts to his big business buddies! Bush is evil and needs to be voted out! Impeach him!" It's amazing how it suddenly became a problem for which it's now unfair to hold the President accountable.
Let's say you work at bank and your friend needs a loan. He asks you to give him that loan at a lower rate than the bank offers, so you input the loan and change the rate for him because you think he might not be your friend anymore if you don't because you're worried that he might not be your friend anymore. Which one of you did something wrong?
but it's more insidious than that ... and for as long as i've been on this board - i've said partisanship is a joke ... you are constantly choosing from both sides of the coin ...
to use your example ... you CAN'T change the loan rate here in canada ... there is regulation in place to prevent that kind of fraud ... which is why canada's banking system has held strong thru this "economic downturn" ... and it goes to my point ...
i think we need to look at this from a much larger viewpoint ... it's not about whether ceo X pays 34% or 54% ... it's about how the decisions are made that determine what the rate is ... and how much influence the wealthy and corporations have ...
i think we agree they should pay more...i'm just saying don't call it a fair tax. i'd respect the movement more if they came out and said they want those fuckers to pay more because they have more.
Thank you.
Coining the term "Fair Share" to help gain public support for having private citizens bailout congress is just as disingenuous as the corn industry lying in paid ads about the effects of corn syrup.
Congress fucked up. They spent more then they had. Now they are trying to turn private citizens against one another so they can get bailed out .... ALL WHILE NEVER PUTTING FORTH A GOOD PROPOSAL ON HOW THEY CAN EVEN COME CLOSE TO BALANCING A BUDGET NEXT YEAR.
Unbelievable. But somehow in 10 years everything will be OK.
Once they raise taxes on the rich, I wonder what term they will come up with to justify taxing the middle class....
The point of my post was to dispute what you guys called an entitlement culture for the poor when one already exists for the rich. I am not jealous of those who are rich, and most OWS aren't either. I just don't think calling things like welfare, financial aid, and so on "entitlement" programs are accurate or respectful when my wife and in-laws were entitled because of where they were born. What exactly did they do to EARN their degrees and their jobs?
Yes my in-law's knows how I feel, they read everything I write, and I talk to them every day. We disagree on things politically, but that doesn't mean that I don't love and care for them. Further, I want my son to understand that he is, in fact, entitled and that he did nothing to EARN is spot on this earth and that he should respect that when he goes to nice schools, has a nice living situation, and two caring parents.
but unless their great ancestors came over already rich at some point someone in their familiy earned that prilevege. I think you would agree that Eddie Vedder has earned his privilege and don't think it's fair that his daugthers not share in that in the future.
and RW not to get off topic i give you a lot of credit for making arguments without resorting to personal and juvenile attacks (as you have seen in our philly sports threads on aet). clearly we disagree on some things (ok many things ) but at least your arguments are clearly written and are used to stir a debate. honestly i thought my last comments about your in-laws might resort to that (after i posted that wasn't sure if i should edit it out, kind of border line shot on my part). it's kind of cool that we've gone 4 or 5 pages in this thread without few if any insults or name calling happeneing.
Your second paragraph is a complete contradiction on what you said these protest boil down to. Complaining about who's taxed what is....
...a government issue.
Yet, government isn't really taking any heat at these things. It's a contradiction.
not if the gov't is controlled by the corporations ...
Seriously, that's your logic? The President has either done a good, a moderate job or bad job in response to this corporate governance. If you're frustrated with the system, the government will need change and you should be upset at the government for practicing this corporatized governance. I mean the corporate governance issue is your logic and your rationale for the upsetment... and this is the guy who promised "hope and change".... yet you're response is, it's not his fault? It's solely the corporations? He has no other choice? Seriously?
I mean it's tough to discuss issues like this with people who can't honestly say that the heavy majority of these protesters are trying to deflect blame from President Obama in a lead up the 2012 election. That's just fact.
I am losing a lot of respect for you here. I say keep your indignation regarding corporatism, but don't blatantly lie to yourself about the underlying agenda here, simply because you think one's side of the aisle's kool-aid tastes better.
Government is not being called out at all at these protests and the reason is.... these are all Obama supporters, who seek to deflect blame from his unfavorable record.
Seriously, that's your logic? The President has either done a good, a moderate job or bad job in response to this corporate governance. If you're frustrated with the system, the government will need change and you should be upset at the government for practicing this corporatized governance. I mean the corporate governance issue is your logic and your rationale for the upsetment... and this is the guy who promised "hope and change".... yet you're response is, it's not his fault? It's solely the corporations? He has no other choice? Seriously?
I mean it's tough to discuss issues like this with people who can't honestly say that the heavy majority of these protesters are trying to deflect blame from President Obama in a lead up the 2012 election. That's just fact.
I am losing a lot of respect for you here. I say keep your indignation regarding corporatism, but don't blatantly lie to yourself about the underlying agenda here, simply because you think one's side of the aisle's kool-aid tastes better.
Government is not being called out at all at these protests and the reason is.... these are all Obama supporters, who seek to deflect blame from his unfavorable record.
i can't speak for every protestor ... but i'm guessing they aren't obama supporters ... i consider myself supportive of this movement and i sure as heck don't support obama ... having said that - i also recognize what he can and can't do ...
the problem with obama is that he has compromised too much to both special interest and the republicans (who's sole function seems to be to screw obama over) ... it should be painfully obvious to everyone that partisanship has killed any real progress in gov't ...
I don't think there's anyone here who hasn't felt the effects of the recession. Disagreeing with the protesters does not mean that someone hasn't felt any impact from the recession.
Your second paragraph is a complete contradiction on what you said these protest boil down to. Complaining about who's taxed what is....
...a government issue.
Yet, government isn't really taking any heat at these things. It's a contradiction.
not if the gov't is controlled by the corporations ...
Government is not being called out at all at these protests and the reason is.... these are all Obama supporters, who seek to deflect blame from his unfavorable record.
This is BS and shows your ignorance of this movement. These people can look at the bigger picture, its not about any one president (think about all the protests around the world) its about the whole system. Quit trying to derail this thread with your partisan rhetoric.
You don't think the guy in NY with a cardboard camera and microphone that says "Faux News" and pretends to interview people is voting for Obama? He sure as hell isn't voting for the Republican candidate.
I saw a survey that said only 56% of those surveyed at the NY protest voted in 2008 and 74% of those who voted cast their vote for Obama. Now 51% of the total survey group said they disapprove of the job Obama's doing. So approximately 49% of the people there apparently approve of the job Obama is doing (and, one can assume, are therefore NOT protesting his administration) and you know that a large percentage of the people that disapprove of the job he's doing won't be voting for the Republican candidate in 2012. In fact, 25% of the people surveyed at the protest said they don't plan on voting in 2012. So, out of the other 75%, do you think that most of them are more likely to vote for Obama or Romney/Cain/Paul/Perry? 48% of the people surveyed said they are voting for Obama in 2012. That leaves 27% who are either undecided, voting Republican, voting for a 3rd party, or will join the other 25% who aren't voting. If you do the math, that means that 64% (48/75) of the people surveyed who intend to vote or have at least not ruled out voting yet in 2012 plan to vote for Obama.
How sad is it that the people in that park claim to care so much that they felt compelled to protest and camp out in a park for weeks but 56% didn't care enough to vote in 2008 (the national voter participation in 2008 was 56.8%, so the protesters have a below-average voter participation rate) and 25% already say they won't vote next year? If you want to send a message, you need to vote. People wonder why corporations are able to influence polticians and get them to include loopholes in the tax code for their businesses. Well, here's your answer. People put more energy into complaining about "the system" than they put into doing their part to change it. Why would a politician who's worried about getting re-elected give a crap about people who don't vote?
Another interesting question asked in the poll was "What would you like the Occupy Wall Street Movement to Accomplish?" 8% said they weren't sure. What the hell are those 8% doing there? Who protests without a goal? They've had weeks to think about the answer to that question. Regardless of your point of view, at least the other 92% surveyed were able to answer the question. I have a funny feeling that those 8% are part of the 25% that aren't going to vote.
Seriously, that's your logic? The President has either done a good, a moderate job or bad job in response to this corporate governance. If you're frustrated with the system, the government will need change and you should be upset at the government for practicing this corporatized governance. I mean the corporate governance issue is your logic and your rationale for the upsetment... and this is the guy who promised "hope and change".... yet you're response is, it's not his fault? It's solely the corporations? He has no other choice? Seriously?
I mean it's tough to discuss issues like this with people who can't honestly say that the heavy majority of these protesters are trying to deflect blame from President Obama in a lead up the 2012 election. That's just fact.
I am losing a lot of respect for you here. I say keep your indignation regarding corporatism, but don't blatantly lie to yourself about the underlying agenda here, simply because you think one's side of the aisle's kool-aid tastes better.
Government is not being called out at all at these protests and the reason is.... these are all Obama supporters, who seek to deflect blame from his unfavorable record.
i can't speak for every protestor ... but i'm guessing they aren't obama supporters ... i consider myself supportive of this movement and i sure as heck don't support obama ... having said that - i also recognize what he can and can't do ...
the problem with obama is that he has compromised too much to both special interest and the republicans (who's sole function seems to be to screw obama over) ... it should be painfully obvious to everyone that partisanship has killed any real progress in gov't ...
Government is not being called out at all at these protests and the reason is.... these are all Obama supporters, who seek to deflect blame from his unfavorable record.
This is BS and shows your ignorance of this movement. These people can look at the bigger picture, its not about any one president (think about all the protests around the world) its about the whole system. Quit trying to derail this thread with your partisan rhetoric.
Ummm....
NOPE. It shows how bias and how much kool-aid is in your tummy. You won't call out the guy sitting in office because you'll vote for him. You won't say it's the government's fault because you know this is a political issue and you are pro-Democrat. Just be honest and stop trying to derail logic with non-partisan fallacy.
apathy will be your downfall and the downfall of the country.
i hope you never lose your job or get screwed over by the system..
I think it was a really, really lame post. Like something a third grader could come up with. Offer your opinion next time, not stuff like that.
who cares what you think is a lame post? people on here can make up their own minds about other people and their posts without your condescending commentary. i was stating my opinion. i think that it is stupid that people making a modest living are against raising taxes on people that will miss that money the least. if you favor the rich, favor the banks, favor the status quo and do not support those living at standards below yours just come out and say it. don't disparage the movement because you don't agree with cetain aspects of it.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
I don't think there's anyone here who hasn't felt the effects of the recession. Disagreeing with the protesters does not mean that someone hasn't felt any impact from the recession.
A bunch of jobless lazy people defending a President who doesn't give a shit about them.
priceless.
You can tell which people on here have been completely unaffected by the recession and are completely apathetic to those who have.
Calling people 'lazy' because they can't find work in a recession is pure apathy. It also doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the OWS movement. People putting down the movement are also putting down those who can't find work and happen to also be pissed about it enough to be out protesting.
Government is not being called out at all at these protests and the reason is.... these are all Obama supporters, who seek to deflect blame from his unfavorable record.
This is BS and shows your ignorance of this movement. These people can look at the bigger picture, its not about any one president (think about all the protests around the world) its about the whole system. Quit trying to derail this thread with your partisan rhetoric.
Ummm....
NOPE. It shows how bias and how much kool-aid is in your tummy. You won't call out the guy sitting in office because you'll vote for him. You won't say it's the government's fault because you know this is a political issue and you are pro-Democrat. Just be honest and stop trying to derail logic with non-partisan fallacy.
Ummmm....kool-aid? :roll: I have not voted for and never will vote for Obama, and I vote in every election at every level. Nice try but I'm Canadian, where we have the fortune of having more than a two party system. Please try and tell me what I'm about again.
Government is not being called out at all at these protests and the reason is.... these are all Obama supporters, who seek to deflect blame from his unfavorable record.
i STRONGLY disagree with your not so expert assessment that these are all obama supporters deflecting blame from an unfavorable record. these are people out there trying to make a change. these people are not supporting obama. they are in the streets because they are obama's base that he used to get elected and has abandoned them.
do you have evidence that these are all democratic voters? i can't prove that they are.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
I don't think there's anyone here who hasn't felt the effects of the recession. Disagreeing with the protesters does not mean that someone hasn't felt any impact from the recession.
You can tell which people on here have been completely unaffected by the recession and are completely apathetic to those who have.
Calling people 'lazy' because they can't find work in a recession is pure apathy. It also doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the OWS movement. People putting down the movement are also putting down those who can't find work and happen to also be pissed about it enough to be out protesting.
Calling people 'lazy' because they can't find work in a recession is pure apathy. It also doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the OWS movement. People putting down the movement are also putting down those who can't find work and happen to also be pissed about it enough to be out protesting.
these accusations of laziness and entitled, etc and the looking down upon the unemployed and poor are part of the same rhetoric i hear rush limbaugh spew every day on my drive home from work.
conicidence?
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Comments
This is a dumb analogy.
If a kid gets cancer when he's 2 and dies when he is 5, how would the government "even the playing field" then? This whole thought that evening the playing field is downright stupid, in my mind. Shit happens. Each person should pay what they owe, end of story... and if you don't like the tax rates or how they are enforced, fine... but, the way to change that is to change... wait for it,.... GOVERNMENT.
Oh yeh, but Obama said not to talk about government, so let's try to swing this back to another scapegoat.
Like I said, some kids get cancer when they are two years old. You didn't. Who's entitled? This whole utopian dreamworld thought that you could ever make things equal is downright dumb. We're all different, and no matter how hard you try, we'll never be equal. We all have some great things going for us and some not so much. All we can do is the best with what we have been given (IQ, talent, looks, wealth, health, etc.). Trying to re-arrange that, is literally wrong in my humble opinion. And anyone who wants to do that shows an inherent insecurity in my mind.
I paid my parents rent for living at their home. Sure, I was fortunate to have parents who would take me in and I paid a smaller rent to then I would have living in an apartment myself or with friends. But, I also sacrificed in the near term to benefit later (which is rare in today's world). Like I said, I stayed in many nights when my friends went out. I had pretty much no expendable money. My schedule was flip-flopped from everyone I was close to. These were negatives, but I took it. I may not have decided to get my PhD if I didn't have my parents, but who knows, maybe I would have done it another way. If I had to bet, I may have stayed in my full-time job in finance, gotten an MBA at night with my job paying for it, if my parents wouldn't or couldn't take me in. For all I know, I would've ended up making more money that way, and maybe even been better off. All I know is, I would've ended up fine, just in another career if I didn't have parents to let me stay there.
So, although yeh I can say in this way or that way, I was lucky. I made decisions to do things the best with the resources I had available to me at the time. That's all anyone can do. And saying that someone who came from an even poorer background then me, couldn't do what I did.... I KNOW is BULLSHIT. I saw people do what I did, who were much, much poorer than even me. Yet, they did it. Anyone can, if that's what they really want. They just need to work on it. Handouts don't teach work ethic. Determination does.
I'm so sick and tired of this handout culture. It teaches sloth and laziness. It also teaches: DISCRIMINATION. Do the best with what you have (talent, looks, money, intelligence, etc.) and there's no reason to ever discriminate or want what other people have, in fact there's no time to... because you're too busy working on improving yourself and doing the best you can with what you have.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
1) not everyone who is wealthy comes from wealth. some earn it as the 1st-generation of their families to earn it. eddie vedder, jeff ament and mike mccready sure as shit didn't own 8 guitars 20 years ago. and why is 8 guitars the standard? isn't one enough? - or is it just that you envy and wish you were those with more?
2) does your father-in-law know you think his daugthers are privileged and didn't 'earn' their way? and that you think he and his family are a part of the problem with this country? i'm guessing not. also it was your CHOICE to incur $72,000 in debt for student loans not anyone else's. no one said you had to incur said debt.
3) you and inlet have both presented stories where you worked to make your situations work - i don't see where the current system fucked you in any way. you got an education, paid for it and now have a job. problem?
not if the gov't is controlled by the corporations ...
choice of words often comes down to semantics anyways ... call it what you want ... but this isn't about making them pay more simply because they have more ... it's again about how the distribution of wealth is achieved in a "fair" way ...
i won't get into the bailouts ... but i'd love to hear the libertarians on here comment on bailouts ...
and why no response to my other point nor my prison example??
Yes my in-law's knows how I feel, they read everything I write, and I talk to them every day. We disagree on things politically, but that doesn't mean that I don't love and care for them. Further, I want my son to understand that he is, in fact, entitled and that he did nothing to EARN is spot on this earth and that he should respect that when he goes to nice schools, has a nice living situation, and two caring parents.
But, when I see what a lot of the issues and positions that the protesters are taking, I just can't support them.
We've got to stop asking for government to get involved in all aspects of our live and we HAVE to realize that life isn't and wasn't ever meant to be fair.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Let's say you work at bank and your friend needs a loan. He asks you to give him that loan at a lower rate than the bank offers, so you input the loan and change the rate for him because you think he might not be your friend anymore if you don't because you're worried that he might not be your friend anymore. Which one of you did something wrong?
but it's more insidious than that ... and for as long as i've been on this board - i've said partisanship is a joke ... you are constantly choosing from both sides of the coin ...
to use your example ... you CAN'T change the loan rate here in canada ... there is regulation in place to prevent that kind of fraud ... which is why canada's banking system has held strong thru this "economic downturn" ... and it goes to my point ...
i think we need to look at this from a much larger viewpoint ... it's not about whether ceo X pays 34% or 54% ... it's about how the decisions are made that determine what the rate is ... and how much influence the wealthy and corporations have ...
Coining the term "Fair Share" to help gain public support for having private citizens bailout congress is just as disingenuous as the corn industry lying in paid ads about the effects of corn syrup.
Congress fucked up. They spent more then they had. Now they are trying to turn private citizens against one another so they can get bailed out .... ALL WHILE NEVER PUTTING FORTH A GOOD PROPOSAL ON HOW THEY CAN EVEN COME CLOSE TO BALANCING A BUDGET NEXT YEAR.
Unbelievable. But somehow in 10 years everything will be OK.
Once they raise taxes on the rich, I wonder what term they will come up with to justify taxing the middle class....
but unless their great ancestors came over already rich at some point someone in their familiy earned that prilevege. I think you would agree that Eddie Vedder has earned his privilege and don't think it's fair that his daugthers not share in that in the future.
and RW not to get off topic i give you a lot of credit for making arguments without resorting to personal and juvenile attacks (as you have seen in our philly sports threads on aet). clearly we disagree on some things (ok many things
priceless.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
A bunch of jobless lazy people defending a President who doesn't give a shit about them.
priceless.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Seriously, that's your logic? The President has either done a good, a moderate job or bad job in response to this corporate governance. If you're frustrated with the system, the government will need change and you should be upset at the government for practicing this corporatized governance. I mean the corporate governance issue is your logic and your rationale for the upsetment... and this is the guy who promised "hope and change".... yet you're response is, it's not his fault? It's solely the corporations? He has no other choice? Seriously?
I mean it's tough to discuss issues like this with people who can't honestly say that the heavy majority of these protesters are trying to deflect blame from President Obama in a lead up the 2012 election. That's just fact.
I am losing a lot of respect for you here. I say keep your indignation regarding corporatism, but don't blatantly lie to yourself about the underlying agenda here, simply because you think one's side of the aisle's kool-aid tastes better.
Government is not being called out at all at these protests and the reason is.... these are all Obama supporters, who seek to deflect blame from his unfavorable record.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
You can tell which people on here have been completely unaffected by the recession and are completely apathetic to those who have.
i can't speak for every protestor ... but i'm guessing they aren't obama supporters ... i consider myself supportive of this movement and i sure as heck don't support obama ... having said that - i also recognize what he can and can't do ...
the problem with obama is that he has compromised too much to both special interest and the republicans (who's sole function seems to be to screw obama over) ... it should be painfully obvious to everyone that partisanship has killed any real progress in gov't ...
This is BS and shows your ignorance of this movement. These people can look at the bigger picture, its not about any one president (think about all the protests around the world) its about the whole system. Quit trying to derail this thread with your partisan rhetoric.
apathy will be your downfall and the downfall of the country.
i hope you never lose your job or get screwed over by the system..
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
READ.... it said "lame" post on it. It was just as lame as the post it was referring to.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
I think it was a really, really lame post. Like something a third grader could come up with. Offer your opinion next time, not stuff like that.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
I saw a survey that said only 56% of those surveyed at the NY protest voted in 2008 and 74% of those who voted cast their vote for Obama. Now 51% of the total survey group said they disapprove of the job Obama's doing. So approximately 49% of the people there apparently approve of the job Obama is doing (and, one can assume, are therefore NOT protesting his administration) and you know that a large percentage of the people that disapprove of the job he's doing won't be voting for the Republican candidate in 2012. In fact, 25% of the people surveyed at the protest said they don't plan on voting in 2012. So, out of the other 75%, do you think that most of them are more likely to vote for Obama or Romney/Cain/Paul/Perry? 48% of the people surveyed said they are voting for Obama in 2012. That leaves 27% who are either undecided, voting Republican, voting for a 3rd party, or will join the other 25% who aren't voting. If you do the math, that means that 64% (48/75) of the people surveyed who intend to vote or have at least not ruled out voting yet in 2012 plan to vote for Obama.
How sad is it that the people in that park claim to care so much that they felt compelled to protest and camp out in a park for weeks but 56% didn't care enough to vote in 2008 (the national voter participation in 2008 was 56.8%, so the protesters have a below-average voter participation rate) and 25% already say they won't vote next year? If you want to send a message, you need to vote. People wonder why corporations are able to influence polticians and get them to include loopholes in the tax code for their businesses. Well, here's your answer. People put more energy into complaining about "the system" than they put into doing their part to change it. Why would a politician who's worried about getting re-elected give a crap about people who don't vote?
Another interesting question asked in the poll was "What would you like the Occupy Wall Street Movement to Accomplish?" 8% said they weren't sure. What the hell are those 8% doing there? Who protests without a goal? They've had weeks to think about the answer to that question. Regardless of your point of view, at least the other 92% surveyed were able to answer the question. I have a funny feeling that those 8% are part of the 25% that aren't going to vote.
http://theweek.com/article/index/220529 ... he-numbers
The article links to another article that gives some more of the numbers I cited above.
Ummm....
NOPE. It shows how bias and how much kool-aid is in your tummy. You won't call out the guy sitting in office because you'll vote for him. You won't say it's the government's fault because you know this is a political issue and you are pro-Democrat. Just be honest and stop trying to derail logic with non-partisan fallacy.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Calling people 'lazy' because they can't find work in a recession is pure apathy. It also doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the OWS movement. People putting down the movement are also putting down those who can't find work and happen to also be pissed about it enough to be out protesting.
Ummmm....kool-aid? :roll: I have not voted for and never will vote for Obama, and I vote in every election at every level. Nice try but I'm Canadian, where we have the fortune of having more than a two party system. Please try and tell me what I'm about again.
do you have evidence that these are all democratic voters? i can't prove that they are.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
conicidence?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."