OCCUPY WALL STREET - Spreading

1…1112141617…27

Comments

  • EdsonNascimento
    EdsonNascimento Posts: 5,531
    brianlux wrote:
    "well the game was rigged all along"
    I have to say, I think this is true.

    Explain. How did I get my job? I don't know any of the proverbial 1% (Well, I do now, but I didn't when I got this job).

    Was I just lucky? Was it because I came from a Middle Class family?

    It's easy to sit back and say it's rigged. That's a great rationalization for failure. Instead of picking yourself back up, blame someone else. Our parents suck. We are the children of the children of the 60's. And it shows.
    Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
  • catefrances
    catefrances Posts: 29,003
    EdsonNascimento wrote:
    catefrances wrote:
    ajedigecko wrote:
    fair playing field?
    never going to happen......honestly, i do not want a fair playing field. i only appreciate the opportunity.

    even the animal kingdom has this figured out. GO ANTS!

    agreed.. capitalism isnt about fairness(though i would like a system that is about fairness and a level playing field).. its about the opportunity to compete... or as i read somewhere the pursuit of happiness, not guaranteed happiness. and we compete...to what level we compete is up to us... and how much of our soul were willing to sacrifice to do so.

    Oh, but that's the thing - they don't want fairness. Is it fair that someone seleted a major that does not have the same financial prospects that costs the same as another major that does? Is it fair if the latter persons perhaps sacrificed some of her "fun" to do so but the former person pursued whatever it was they liked? Is it fair then that the sacrificer is now being asked to give money to the other (via loan breaks, tax hikes, whatever)?

    That's not fair. Fairness is everyone has the chance to do what they'd like AND face the consequences of those decisions. Fairness is NOT getting to do whatever the hell it is you want to do and then turn around and say - well the game was rigged all along. You rich people only higher who you want to higher, and I'm not one of them. So, give me money.

    fair? who said life is meant to be fair? why do people expect fairness? the system we live in is about profit.. theres no fairness there.. its irrelevant.

    i chose a major, not for its financial prospects but because i knew it was something id excel in and something that i had a great interest in. it also set me up for my postgrad. how much id profit financially from my decision at the other end never entered my mind. its just not what im about. people need to stop thinking the current system owes them anything.. if they want a system where 'fairness' is a major factor then they need to disengage from this current one and pursue an alternate. it was their choice to play the game.. and if they did not know the implications of that then they cant turn around now and blame the system they chose to engage with. but i do agree the sytem is geared towards a certain demographic... and it isnt the working class.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,664
    EdsonNascimento wrote:
    brianlux wrote:
    "well the game was rigged all along"
    I have to say, I think this is true.

    Explain. How did I get my job? I don't know any of the proverbial 1% (Well, I do now, but I didn't when I got this job).

    Was I just lucky? Was it because I came from a Middle Class family?

    It's easy to sit back and say it's rigged. That's a great rationalization for failure. Instead of picking yourself back up, blame someone else. Our parents suck. We are the children of the children of the 60's. And it shows.
    To tell you the truth, I think I've just lived long enough to learn how to play the game when I need to and invent my own when I can (there are advantages to being an old fart :lol: ). But I'm glad I'm not 24 living in todays world because I really do believe that today game is set up for only the very luckiest or the very wiliest to win- more so now than in 1969 when we could enter our adulthood with a "who gives a flying fuck, we can do whatever we want attitude" and still do ok later on.

    I also think it's more difficult to pick oneself up from failure today. I had to pick myself up from a failed life (not of my own doing, but anyone can be injured or lose their job or have a run of bad luck and thus "fail") ten years ago before the economy tanked. I had to work very hard to do so, had some help along the way, had a lot of luck and the world was an easier place- even just 10 years ago. I know a few people today in similar positions and they're sweating bullets. I do what I can... but I'm not Warren Buffett, I can only do so much, so I support the OWS movement.
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    pjhawks wrote:
    so what do you want government control of tv and avertising???

    and hey i got a 52-inch Hi-Def TV with 700 channels so i don't watch commercials because it's my choice not too. again not 3rd world country living here.

    look i'm not saying things are perfect or even great at this point, but it's not 3rd world country and it's not close to being the worst time in this countries history. this generation and my generation are living high off the hog compared to our great-grandparents and grandparents. an example is when i see a large portion of the country paying $100-$200 a month for phone service with internet, apps, and texting (and i have much of this technology but at times i question myself about the need) well it leads me to believe that the economic status of most of those people isn't quite as bleak as they make it out to be. to quote our favorite singer "i don't question our existence, i just question our modern needs" - to me there seems to be a lack of perspective going on.

    absolutely ... it's called fraud ... it's born from the same principles that allow your gov't to send kids to a war that has killed many innocent people all in the interests of corporate greed ... it's much easier to exploit when the truth is not a requirement ...

    again - i don't disagree with what you are saying about people in general ... let's face it - most people are stupid ... a lot of their debt is self-inflicted but think about it ... this country runs on these people ... imagine if people didn't carry the debt they did ... that means they aren't spending ... guess what happens then?

    but again - that is separate from this ... it's about how the rules of the game favours the rich and powerful ... and how the public interest is not even a consideration ... it's fucked up - take the prison system ... laws are passed that have ridiculous prison terms for relatively minor offenses so that they ensure a thriving prison population ... look at the incarceration rate by country ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... ation_rate

    the US is #1 ... how is that remotely reasonable for such a supposed wealthy and prosperous country? ... this is what i'm talking about ... everything is done in the interests of corporations ...
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    inlet13 wrote:
    My issue is this:

    You said corporatized government. If you feel that way, fair enough. But, if that's the case, why do these protest focus only on just the corporation as the evil entity.... or more specifically, Wall Street? Why is there such focus on the top 1% of income earners at these protests?

    Most importantly:

    Where's the focus on the other half of the word you used: corporatized government?

    Government is not focused on at all at these protests. The way to change this system is to change government. If you're honest, you'd admit that a lot of these people are basically regurgitating what the Obama administration wants them to (the top 1% stuff is a direct line of his). Do you not see any irony in that? Why is he not being called out at these protests if the issue really is corporatized government? I mean, he is the President of the USA. Yet, you see no anti-Obama signs at these protests. Ironic.

    well ... that's a very valid point ... but the movement has to start somewhere ...

    right now, the movement is very early in its infancy and the message is obviously not very clear ... but the simple fact is that the so called "1%" are the ones who are profiting from their unwillingness to pay what this movement argues is their "fair" share of taxes ... because of loopholes and the such, these folks don't pay the taxes many feel they should and in return the gov't has to borrow money to sustain itself and who are they borrowing money from? ... the 1%!! ...

    yes ... the gov't is complicit in allowing corporations to take over but the movement needs to first establish the role of these powerful interests ...
  • pjhawks
    pjhawks Posts: 12,922
    polaris_x wrote:
    inlet13 wrote:
    My issue is this:

    You said corporatized government. If you feel that way, fair enough. But, if that's the case, why do these protest focus only on just the corporation as the evil entity.... or more specifically, Wall Street? Why is there such focus on the top 1% of income earners at these protests?

    Most importantly:

    Where's the focus on the other half of the word you used: corporatized government?

    Government is not focused on at all at these protests. The way to change this system is to change government. If you're honest, you'd admit that a lot of these people are basically regurgitating what the Obama administration wants them to (the top 1% stuff is a direct line of his). Do you not see any irony in that? Why is he not being called out at these protests if the issue really is corporatized government? I mean, he is the President of the USA. Yet, you see no anti-Obama signs at these protests. Ironic.

    well ... that's a very valid point ... but the movement has to start somewhere ...

    right now, the movement is very early in its infancy and the message is obviously not very clear ... but the simple fact is that the so called "1%" are the ones who are profiting from their unwillingness to pay what this movement argues is their "fair" share of taxes ... because of loopholes and the such, these folks don't pay the taxes many feel they should and in return the gov't has to borrow money to sustain itself and who are they borrowing money from? ... the 1%!! ...

    yes ... the gov't is complicit in allowing corporations to take over but the movement needs to first establish the role of these powerful interests ...

    the movement doesn't want the 1% to pay their 'fair share' they want them to pay more because they have more. a fair share would be the same income tax rate for every american but it reality a flat tax is way more unfair to the poor than the rich...so don't tell me it is about fair share because it's not. it's about making those with more pay more than their fair share because they have more to give. call it what it is - pay more beause you have more because calling it 'fair' share is just bogus.
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    pjhawks wrote:
    the movement doesn't want the 1% to pay their 'fair share' they want them to pay more because they have more. a fair share would be the same income tax rate for every american but it reality a flat tax is way more unfair to the poor than the rich...so don't tell me it is about fair share because it's not. it's about making those with more pay more than their fair share because they have more to give. call it what it is - pay more beause you have more because calling it 'fair' share is just bogus.

    fair is subjective for sure ... back in war times ... the tax rate for the wealthy (as agreed to by republicans) was like 94% ... one could argue that we are in war times now ... seeing as that's where most of the money is spent on these days ...

    i spoke of this with inlet13 in some other thread ... when you have such a disparity and inequal distribution of wealth - this is what happens ... the question is what has caused this prosperity gap and whether or not one thinks its a good thing ...
  • pjhawks
    pjhawks Posts: 12,922
    polaris_x wrote:
    pjhawks wrote:
    the movement doesn't want the 1% to pay their 'fair share' they want them to pay more because they have more. a fair share would be the same income tax rate for every american but it reality a flat tax is way more unfair to the poor than the rich...so don't tell me it is about fair share because it's not. it's about making those with more pay more than their fair share because they have more to give. call it what it is - pay more beause you have more because calling it 'fair' share is just bogus.

    fair is subjective for sure ... back in war times ... the tax rate for the wealthy (as agreed to by republicans) was like 94% ... one could argue that we are in war times now ... seeing as that's where most of the money is spent on these days ...

    i spoke of this with inlet13 in some other thread ... when you have such a disparity and inequal distribution of wealth - this is what happens ... the question is what has caused this prosperity gap and whether or not one thinks its a good thing ...

    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.
  • RW81233
    RW81233 Posts: 2,393
    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.
  • inlet13
    inlet13 Posts: 1,979
    polaris_x wrote:
    inlet13 wrote:
    My issue is this:

    You said corporatized government. If you feel that way, fair enough. But, if that's the case, why do these protest focus only on just the corporation as the evil entity.... or more specifically, Wall Street? Why is there such focus on the top 1% of income earners at these protests?

    Most importantly:

    Where's the focus on the other half of the word you used: corporatized government?

    Government is not focused on at all at these protests. The way to change this system is to change government. If you're honest, you'd admit that a lot of these people are basically regurgitating what the Obama administration wants them to (the top 1% stuff is a direct line of his). Do you not see any irony in that? Why is he not being called out at these protests if the issue really is corporatized government? I mean, he is the President of the USA. Yet, you see no anti-Obama signs at these protests. Ironic.

    well ... that's a very valid point ... but the movement has to start somewhere ...

    right now, the movement is very early in its infancy and the message is obviously not very clear ... but the simple fact is that the so called "1%" are the ones who are profiting from their unwillingness to pay what this movement argues is their "fair" share of taxes ... because of loopholes and the such, these folks don't pay the taxes many feel they should and in return the gov't has to borrow money to sustain itself and who are they borrowing money from? ... the 1%!! ...

    yes ... the gov't is complicit in allowing corporations to take over but the movement needs to first establish the role of these powerful interests ...


    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.
    Here's a new demo called "in the fire":

    <object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot;&gt;&lt;/param&gt; <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&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
  • inlet13
    inlet13 Posts: 1,979
    RW81233 wrote:
    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.
    RW81233 wrote:
    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.
    RW81233 wrote:
    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.
    Here's a new demo called "in the fire":

    <object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot;&gt;&lt;/param&gt; <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&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
  • pjhawks
    pjhawks Posts: 12,922
    RW81233 wrote:
    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?
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    inlet13 wrote:
    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 ...
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    pjhawks wrote:
    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??
  • RW81233
    RW81233 Posts: 2,393
    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.
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    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.
  • Monster Rain
    Monster Rain Posts: 1,415
    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?
    polaris_x wrote:
    inlet13 wrote:
    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 ...
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    Monster Rain wrote:
    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 ...
  • Jason P
    Jason P Posts: 19,314
    pjhawks wrote:
    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....
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • pjhawks
    pjhawks Posts: 12,922
    RW81233 wrote:
    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 :D ) 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.

Categories