Occupy Wall Street: Support or Oppose? (OWS vs. Nativity)

[Night Strike]

I said that if/when I have a daughter...

Must have missed that part... fair enough...

Well, in that case, if/when you have children and they bring out the red crayon for their colouring books, is it going to send you into a nervous breakdown?

I've just never seen someone worry about socialism so much - You do realise there is 0% chance of socialism ever being implemented in the US, right?

I have nothing wrong against the color red. I do have something against using the government to take money from one group and give it to another group (while taking their own large skim off the top), especially when the latter doesn't want to actually work to do earn that money.

[AndyDufresne]

I have nothing wrong against the color red. I do have something against using the government to take money from one group and give it to another group (while taking their own large skim off the top), especially when the latter doesn't want to actually work to do earn that money.

I'd like to start bringing in the National Guard to stamp-out the poor and the lazies and hippies and hoodlums and the immigrants who don't want to work, and just want to ride the coat tails of the Job Creators.


--Andy

[thegreekdog]

I have nothing wrong against the color red. I do have something against using the government to take money from one group and give it to another group (while taking their own large skim off the top), especially when the latter doesn't want to actually work to do earn that money.

I'd like to start bringing in the National Guard to stamp-out the poor and the lazies and hippies and hoodlums and the immigrants who don't want to work, and just want to ride the coat tails of the Job Creators.


--Andy

Look! It's a fatcat with a sign! GET HIM!

[Symmetry]

I said that if/when I have a daughter...

Must have missed that part... fair enough...

Well, in that case, if/when you have children and they bring out the red crayon for their colouring books, is it going to send you into a nervous breakdown?

I've just never seen someone worry about socialism so much - You do realise there is 0% chance of socialism ever being implemented in the US, right?

I have nothing wrong against the color red. I do have something against using the government to take money from one group and give it to another group (while taking their own large skim off the top), especially when the latter doesn't want to actually work to do earn that money.

Erm, is that actually true? Are you genuinely saying that you have something against the government taxing people to pay soldiers.

I think you might have fallen a little short of truth with that one.

[BigBallinStalin]

I have nothing wrong against the color red. I do have something against using the government to take money from one group and give it to another group (while taking their own large skim off the top), especially when the latter doesn't want to actually work to do earn that money.

I'd like to start bringing in the National Guard to stamp-out the poor and the lazies and hippies and hoodlums and the immigrants who don't want to work, and just want to ride the coat tails of the Job Creators.


--Andy

Look! It's a fatcat with a sign! GET HIM!

[esiemer]

well, the TEA party stands for "taxed enough already" and they were formed during times of historically low taxes in a country that is among the least taxed in the world, so right away their argument seems invalid. i went to a couple of their meetings and am still on their email list. the issue my local chapter seems really fired up about is instituting a back door poll-tax and more military which both = big government to me.

the Occupy Wall Street seems really disjointed and i haven't been able to figure out what their plan is except to point out that the past 30 years of American policy of redistributing wealth to the top 1% in the hopes that jobs will trickle down has been a massive failure. also, i heard one of of them advocating for a universal health care system, which is socialized medicine but it would in fact save our country tons of money. so is that bigger gov't or smaller?

but then i come in here and apparently Night Strike can read all their minds, cause he knows exactly what they want. and someone else posted some demands of theirs which are crazy, but they didn't source them so im skeptical. ill just stick with NightStrikes mind reading, he seems to have liberals figured out. he seems legit.

so here i am, living in the middle ground. but then all the conservatives in this thread tell me there is no middle ground.

its all very confusing. who am i to trust?

[Night Strike]

I said that if/when I have a daughter...

Must have missed that part... fair enough...

Well, in that case, if/when you have children and they bring out the red crayon for their colouring books, is it going to send you into a nervous breakdown?

I've just never seen someone worry about socialism so much - You do realise there is 0% chance of socialism ever being implemented in the US, right?

I have nothing wrong against the color red. I do have something against using the government to take money from one group and give it to another group (while taking their own large skim off the top), especially when the latter doesn't want to actually work to do earn that money.

Erm, is that actually true? Are you genuinely saying that you have something against the government taxing people to pay soldiers.

I think you might have fallen a little short of truth with that one.

Funny how people equate paying for a military (a legitimate function of our government) with paying unemployed people indefinitely (an illegitimate function of government).

[Night Strike]

well, the TEA party stands for "taxed enough already" and they were formed during times of historically low taxes in a country that is among the least taxed in the world, so right away their argument seems invalid. i went to a couple of their meetings and am still on their email list. the issue my local chapter seems really fired up about is instituting a back door poll-tax and more military which both = big government to me.

The rates may be low, but the effective tax rate (the amount people actually pay) is much higher than it was before due to withholding money from paychecks and more IRS audits, oversight. When the tax rate was at rates such as 75%, it was also a time where it was much easier to just hide the money and not pay taxes on it.

And what back door poll tax are you talking about?

[Symmetry]

I said that if/when I have a daughter...

Must have missed that part... fair enough...

Well, in that case, if/when you have children and they bring out the red crayon for their colouring books, is it going to send you into a nervous breakdown?

I've just never seen someone worry about socialism so much - You do realise there is 0% chance of socialism ever being implemented in the US, right?

I have nothing wrong against the color red. I do have something against using the government to take money from one group and give it to another group (while taking their own large skim off the top), especially when the latter doesn't want to actually work to do earn that money.

Erm, is that actually true? Are you genuinely saying that you have something against the government taxing people to pay soldiers.

I think you might have fallen a little short of truth with that one.

Funny how people equate paying for a military (a legitimate function of our government) with paying unemployed people indefinitely (an illegitimate function of government).

Incorrect, I see government as a legitimate way of transferring money from one group to another in some cases, you claimed to disagree with at as a principal in all cases.

[Night Strike]

Incorrect, I see government as a legitimate way of transferring money from one group to another in some cases, you claimed to disagree with at as a principal in all cases.

That's because I DO disagree with it in principle. However, there are precise tasks that the federal government is supposed to provide, and of course the people who carry out those tasks should be compensated. The military is a primary function of the federal government, so of course it's ok to use taxes to fund them. However, it's completely inappropriate for the government to pass taxes just so they can buy votes by handing out that money to other people.

[AndyDufresne]

Incorrect, I see government as a legitimate way of transferring money from one group to another in some cases, you claimed to disagree with at as a principal in all cases.

That's because I DO disagree with it in principle. However, there are precise tasks that the federal government is supposed to provide, and of course the people who carry out those tasks should be compensated. The military is a primary function of the federal government, so of course it's ok to use taxes to fund them. However, it's completely inappropriate for the government to pass taxes just so they can buy votes by handing out that money to other people.

Is not passing taxes the equivalent of buying votes as well in that schema?


--Andy

[anonymus]

Hard to come to an agreement with people who want to destroy capitalism and replace it with socialism.

No middle ground, nope, none at all.

Jeez, you're worse than scotty. And that's saying something.

lol i was just thinking the same..

/

... Think it through then and please, tell us all what middle ground you can find between the two. You are purporting there is room for middle ground and ridiculing those who say there is not. So, educate us.

... But first, while you prepare your analysis, please consider a few of the "official demands" of the Occupy Wall Street folks:
...

Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.

... And the progs laugh when we imply this group is socialist?!
... Perform actual work for wages?! Are you outta your mind?!

ok this may seem a bit silly, but in sweden we have a social safetynet that actually (almost) works, if you are disabled or unable to work you are still allowed to live, in a house not on the streets.. works fairly well at least..

as for working for a salary i think most people prefer that to taking handouts from the goverment, especiallt since this safety net is designed to let you live but hardly in luxury..

...

Demand four: Free college education.

... So... who's going to pay the bills for teachers, books, etc...?
... Perhaps we can aspire to the level of France's university system! ... wait a minute..

also here i need go no further than to my old homeland.. schools are not free, BUT there are student-loans that are affordable and you do NOT have to be born in a wealthy family to get an education..

...

Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.

... Awesome!!

what would be wrong with this? it would provide companies with a workforce and the goverment with money through TAXES so that it can pay for things like free healthcare, affordable education and a social safetynet for those most in need, sounds awesome to me..
...
... This next one is pure genius!:

Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the “Books.” World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the “Books.” And I don’t mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.

if the brittish goverment can do it for banks and the us govt for the car-industry why not to people who actually need it?

... Personal responsibility for one's actions? .... NAH! We don't need that kind of Right-Wing shit here, man!

how about responsibility for your fellow human being? i agree that people do make choises and of course there will be consequences, however i do not agree with "every man for himself" this cannot work in a world where people are born with different opportunities.. and im sure that no-one on the other side are for everyone starting from scratch and may the most brilliant person prevail and care for his family, (until the kids are 18 and they start from scratch and so on).. TAXATION however is a wounderful instrument to level out these differences and make sure everyone can lead a good life, not just if you managed to choose wealthy parents..

... Lookin' forward to your (and by "your", I mean of course anybody's) assessments of that middle ground.

how is that for middleground?

...

/

[thegreekdog]

It only took a week or two, but The Daily Show finally covered the Occupy Wall Street protests. Well, it would be more accurate to say they made fun of Fox's coverage of the Occupy Wall Street protests (rightfully so). I look forward, tongue-in-cheek, to when Jon Stewart skewers the liberals on being anti-Tea Party but pro-Occupy Wall Street protests. But seriously, Jon Stewart isn't biased.

EDIT - I stand corrected. Good segment with Samantha Bee on October 6th. Funny interview with a dude talking about how he has a right to use McDonald's bathroom. He explained that he has consumer rights... even though he didn't buy anything. Seriously folks, this is just as good as the moron Tea Partiers.

[jimboston]

well, the TEA party stands for "taxed enough already" and they were formed during times of historically low taxes in a country that is among the least taxed in the world,

This may be true if you ONLY count income taxes... and not all the other taxes and fees we pay...
excise tax
gas tax
income tax
phone tax (universal access)
tolls
property tax
etc.
etc. etc.

If you add all the taxes together you will find we are no by any stretch of the imagination the 'least taxed country'... and even if we were, so what!

[Timminz]

well, the TEA party stands for "taxed enough already" and they were formed during times of historically low taxes in a country that is among the least taxed in the world,

This may be true if you ONLY count income taxes... and not all the other taxes and fees we pay...
excise tax
gas tax
income tax
phone tax (universal access)
tolls
property tax
etc.
etc. etc.

If you add all the taxes together you will find we are no by any stretch of the imagination the 'least taxed country'... and even if we were, so what!

I didn't realize how good I had it, not having to pay any of those taxes. Thanks for brightening my day, James.

[thegreekdog]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2011/10/ ... questions/

[spurgistan]

well, the TEA party stands for "taxed enough already" and they were formed during times of historically low taxes in a country that is among the least taxed in the world, so right away their argument seems invalid. i went to a couple of their meetings and am still on their email list. the issue my local chapter seems really fired up about is instituting a back door poll-tax and more military which both = big government to me.

The rates may be low, but the effective tax rate (the amount people actually pay) is much higher than it was before due to withholding money from paychecks and more IRS audits, oversight. When the tax rate was at rates such as 75%, it was also a time where it was much easier to just hide the money and not pay taxes on it.

And what back door poll tax are you talking about?

Umm, I'm not sure what offshore accounts were like during the Eisenhower administration, but I feel safe saying that what this statement is not correct in the slightest.

[Symmetry]

Incorrect, I see government as a legitimate way of transferring money from one group to another in some cases, you claimed to disagree with at as a principal in all cases.

That's because I DO disagree with it in principle. However, there are precise tasks that the federal government is supposed to provide, and of course the people who carry out those tasks should be compensated. The military is a primary function of the federal government, so of course it's ok to use taxes to fund them. However, it's completely inappropriate for the government to pass taxes just so they can buy votes by handing out that money to other people.

You seem to want it both ways, to be able to say that the government should not be in the business of transferring money, and then saying that it should in certain cases.

I appreciate that you like saying that the government shouldn't redistribute money, but as long as you think soldiers should get paid for risking their lives, you're asking for the government to redistribute money.

[anonymus]

Incorrect, I see government as a legitimate way of transferring money from one group to another in some cases, you claimed to disagree with at as a principal in all cases.

That's because I DO disagree with it in principle. However, there are precise tasks that the federal government is supposed to provide, and of course the people who carry out those tasks should be compensated. The military is a primary function of the federal government, so of course it's ok to use taxes to fund them. However, it's completely inappropriate for the government to pass taxes just so they can buy votes by handing out that money to other people.

You seem to want it both ways, to be able to say that the government should not be in the business of transferring money, and then saying that it should in certain cases.

I appreciate that you like saying that the government shouldn't redistribute money, but as long as you think soldiers should get paid for risking their lives, you're asking for the government to redistribute money.

but also he will ignore your arguments so that is ok

/

[thegreekdog]

Incorrect, I see government as a legitimate way of transferring money from one group to another in some cases, you claimed to disagree with at as a principal in all cases.

That's because I DO disagree with it in principle. However, there are precise tasks that the federal government is supposed to provide, and of course the people who carry out those tasks should be compensated. The military is a primary function of the federal government, so of course it's ok to use taxes to fund them. However, it's completely inappropriate for the government to pass taxes just so they can buy votes by handing out that money to other people.

You seem to want it both ways, to be able to say that the government should not be in the business of transferring money, and then saying that it should in certain cases.

I appreciate that you like saying that the government shouldn't redistribute money, but as long as you think soldiers should get paid for risking their lives, you're asking for the government to redistribute money in return for services.

Fixed. Hopefully that will help kill this discussion so we can get back to more important issues - like figuring out how to give the Occupy Wall Street protestors a message that will appeal to 99% (rather than 4%).

Here are my ideas:

(1) More mention of the bailouts.
(2) Less stupid college kids talking.
(3) Less 50 something rich magazine contributors and columnists talking about how awesome this movement is (I'm looking at you Krugman).
(4) More Democrat-bashing (I'm in favor of keeping the Republican-bashing).
(5) Less Tea Party comparisons
(6) More Tea Partiers at the Occupy Wall Street protests. If I didn't have a job (that I routinely ignore to type on this site), I would go and bring some Tea Party-appropriate signs (not the sign pimpdave always posts).
(7) Less rich people supporting the Occupy Wall Street protests (I'm looking at you Aqwil Talib or whatever the f*ck your name is)
(8) Less entrenched, mainstream, "I get donations from these Wall Street guys" and "my administration is making sure the Dodd-Frank Act is unenforced" politicians supporting the Occupy Wall Street protests (I'm looking at you President Obama).

If we can get all those things, maybe we'll have some real change.

[Symmetry]

Incorrect, I see government as a legitimate way of transferring money from one group to another in some cases, you claimed to disagree with at as a principal in all cases.

That's because I DO disagree with it in principle. However, there are precise tasks that the federal government is supposed to provide, and of course the people who carry out those tasks should be compensated. The military is a primary function of the federal government, so of course it's ok to use taxes to fund them. However, it's completely inappropriate for the government to pass taxes just so they can buy votes by handing out that money to other people.

You seem to want it both ways, to be able to say that the government should not be in the business of transferring money, and then saying that it should in certain cases.

I appreciate that you like saying that the government shouldn't redistribute money, but as long as you think soldiers should get paid for risking their lives, you're asking for the government to redistribute money in return for services.

Fixed. Hopefully that will help kill this discussion so we can get back to more important issues

As if he'll reply

[thegreekdog]

As if he'll reply

I'm sure he will although it probably depends upon the result of tonight's baseball game. Ironically, I'm a Philadelphia fan and I believe Night Strike roots for St. Louis.

[BigBallinStalin]

Incorrect, I see government as a legitimate way of transferring money from one group to another in some cases, you claimed to disagree with at as a principal in all cases.

So do you balk at collectivization programs, or mass egalitarian polices implemented by the Soviet Union?

If not, then why? Where do you draw the line?

[BigBallinStalin]

Fixed. Hopefully that will help kill this discussion so we can get back to more important issues - like figuring out how to give the Occupy Wall Street protestors a message that will appeal to 99% (rather than 4%).

Here are my ideas:

(1) More mention of the bailouts.
(2) Less stupid college kids talking.
(3) Less 50 something rich magazine contributors and columnists talking about how awesome this movement is (I'm looking at you Krugman).
(4) More Democrat-bashing (I'm in favor of keeping the Republican-bashing).
(5) Less Tea Party comparisons
(6) More Tea Partiers at the Occupy Wall Street protests. If I didn't have a job (that I routinely ignore to type on this site), I would go and bring some Tea Party-appropriate signs (not the sign pimpdave always posts).
(7) Less rich people supporting the Occupy Wall Street protests (I'm looking at you Aqwil Talib or whatever the f*ck your name is)
(8) Less entrenched, mainstream, "I get donations from these Wall Street guys" and "my administration is making sure the Dodd-Frank Act is unenforced" politicians supporting the Occupy Wall Street protests (I'm looking at you President Obama).

If we can get all those things, maybe we'll have some real change.

I'm in favor of more substantive criticism directed at the government--namely, its complicit role in the bailouts, its previous role in creating the housing crisis (1996), and its continued incompetence in prolonging this recession.

But gee, that may be more difficult to think about--compared to writing a sign saying, "DERP DOWN WITH CAPITALISM!!! (don't ask me to define that word, because I have no idea)."

They may need two signs for all those words though...

[AndyDufresne]

So do you balk at collectivization programs, or mass egalitarian polices implemented by the Soviet Union?

If not, then why? Where do you draw the line?

Usually around myself, excluding myself from everything.


--Andy