Occupy Wall Street

[carlfense]

I liked ACORN and had sent them money in the past.

 

They did a great job to increase voter turnout in segments of the population that were most disengranchised.

But, Sub-Husker . . . we don't want those people voting because they predominantly voted for President Obama.

 

The War on Voting continues.

[Sub-Husker]

Voeing is a right... but the T party took a chunk out of that.

[Cactusboy]

By the nature of statistics there will always be one percenters.

 

The question is... how much of the nations wealth will/should they control?

 

And what percentage of the population is suffering due to losses of home and other basic services, and will the rest of the 99% care about their plight?

 

 

How can we, in a Capitalist society, have any say in how much wealth our neighbors own? Do I get to decide how wealthy you can be?

 

Well we have checks/balances. We don't alloy monopolies...or anything close to it like when we broke up the phone industry. This is what needs to be done to the banks. We can have taxes, income, estate, that keep the gap from getting too out of control. Don't get me wrong, having rich people is ok. We just the gap should be like it was back before the 80s.....and there were rich people back then.

[Cactusboy]

Maybe this will clear some things up.

 

http://www.foxnews.c...-after-exposed/

 

Granted it is only one news source and I am not a big fan of any major network but, take it for what it is worth.

 

Looks like another Fox News article blaming ACORN that's entirely based on "sources said"...

 

and even if people that were at ACORN support OWS....so what?

[Tulsa-Husker]

Talk about extreme - we have leftist extremists running that party now.

 

Serious question... please name the "leftist extremists" who are running that party.

 

Note: Even one will do!

 

lol. Like who? With examples of their extremism please.

 

It seems that I'm not the only one questioning this!

You humor me. I guess you haven't heard of Reed, Pelosi, Obama, Sanders,(your home state guy Sub), Frank, etc, They are at least as far left as any repub is right. Yes, I know, you don't consider Obama that liberal because he's in bed wt the corp and bank CEOs like Bush.

[knapplc]

By the nature of statistics there will always be one percenters.

 

The question is... how much of the nations wealth will/should they control?

 

And what percentage of the population is suffering due to losses of home and other basic services, and will the rest of the 99% care about their plight?

 

 

How can we, in a Capitalist society, have any say in how much wealth our neighbors own? Do I get to decide how wealthy you can be?

 

Well we have checks/balances. We don't alloy monopolies...or anything close to it like when we broke up the phone industry. This is what needs to be done to the banks. We can have taxes, income, estate, that keep the gap from getting too out of control. Don't get me wrong, having rich people is ok. We just the gap should be like it was back before the 80s.....and there were rich people back then.

 

So you advocate scrapping Capitalism? To become what?

[Cactusboy]

By the nature of statistics there will always be one percenters.

 

The question is... how much of the nations wealth will/should they control?

 

And what percentage of the population is suffering due to losses of home and other basic services, and will the rest of the 99% care about their plight?

 

 

How can we, in a Capitalist society, have any say in how much wealth our neighbors own? Do I get to decide how wealthy you can be?

 

Well we have checks/balances. We don't alloy monopolies...or anything close to it like when we broke up the phone industry. This is what needs to be done to the banks. We can have taxes, income, estate, that keep the gap from getting too out of control. Don't get me wrong, having rich people is ok. We just the gap should be like it was back before the 80s.....and there were rich people back then.

 

So you advocate scrapping Capitalism? To become what?

 

 

Of course not....after all I'm a small business owner. As Sub said...there is a middle ground between 100% pure capitalism(we've never had it) and pure socialism. We had capitalism during the years I'm a fan of...the pre-80s.

[Sub-Husker]

Talk about extreme - we have leftist extremists running that party now.

 

Serious question... please name the "leftist extremists" who are running that party.

 

Note: Even one will do!

 

lol. Like who? With examples of their extremism please.

 

It seems that I'm not the only one questioning this!

 

You humor me. I guess you haven't heard of Reed, Pelosi, Obama, Sanders, (your home state guy Sub), Frank, etc, They are at least as far left as any repub is right. Yes, I know, you don't consider Obama that liberal because he's in bed wt the corp and bank CEOs like Bush.

 

Harry Reed: Would not champion any significant Progressive legislation in the Senate... but he talks about it.

Nancy Pelosi: The best of the entire Dem bunch, she had the best three appointees to the SuperCongress.

Barack Obama: There is almost no difference in Obama's financial and foreign policy from that of Bush. In some cases it is worse.

Bernie Sanders: Not a Democrat, he is a Socialist. God bless Bernie!

Barney Frank: Mr banking interests, he co-authored "the loophole" with Chris Dodd.

 

Most of the good Democrats lost in 2010 as the corporate floodgates opened up for the Tea Party Republicans, and the Blue Dog Democrats. progressives could not compete with the spending.

[Tulsa-Husker]

By the nature of statistics there will always be one percenters.

 

The question is... how much of the nations wealth will/should they control?

 

And what percentage of the population is suffering due to losses of home and other basic services, and will the rest of the 99% care about their plight?

 

 

How can we, in a Capitalist society, have any say in how much wealth our neighbors own? Do I get to decide how wealthy you can be?

 

Well we have checks/balances. We don't alloy monopolies...or anything close to it like when we broke up the phone industry. This is what needs to be done to the banks. We can have taxes, income, estate, that keep the gap from getting too out of control. Don't get me wrong, having rich people is ok. We just the gap should be like it was back before the 80s.....and there were rich people back then.

CB, I won't do the "Brand thing"(inside joke) and point out your typo. Anyway, there is a place and time to look at monopolies. I'm not sure that any one financial institution could qualify - when you think of Standard Oil in the Teddy Roosevelt era, Ma Bell in the 1980s - these were clear monopolies. Now is there a clear monopoly like connection between Federal politicians and major banks - there may be. This is due to the break down in the proper relationship between the regulator and the regulated. Former congressmen should be prohibited from being able to lobby congress - current congressmen should be prohibited from receiving donations (real or proxy) from businesses that are regulated by committees they sit on. Of course the biggest monopoly is the federal govt itself. I'd like to see some of its power broken up and given to the 50 states (Education for example - Fed govt mandates to the states but does not provide funding in some cases). But that is a discussion for another thread.

[Sub-Husker]

How can we, in a Capitalist society, have any say in how much wealth our neighbors own? Do I get to decide how wealthy you can be?

 

Our government (with the consent of the people) can set the groundwork for an economic system that can go from the top 1% owning nearly 100% of the wealth (Fascist capitalism) to owning about 1% of the wealth (communistic socialism).

 

It is the role of the people to pick a government that will lay the groundwork for a government that creates a groundwork for the right economic mix of capitalism and socialism, while avoiding fascism and communism.

 

In my opinion and per the opinions of most OWS demonstrators, we have to much capitalism that is starting to overlap with facsism, and not enough socialism (for the people) in the mix. With the bank bailouts, there is plenty of socialism for the banks that were deemed too big to fail.

 

Of course not....after all I'm a small business owner. As Sub said...there is a middle ground between 100% pure capitalism(we've never had it) and pure socialism. We had capitalism during the years I'm a fan of...the pre-80s.

 

The smaller the government and the lesser the regulations, the larger the chunk of the economy the 1% will take.

 

We the People create the government that gives us the economic system/mix we want.

 

And if we fall asleep as we had, the 1% does it for us, against us.

[Tulsa-Husker]

By the nature of statistics there will always be one percenters.

 

The question is... how much of the nations wealth will/should they control?

 

And what percentage of the population is suffering due to losses of home and other basic services, and will the rest of the 99% care about their plight?

 

 

How can we, in a Capitalist society, have any say in how much wealth our neighbors own? Do I get to decide how wealthy you can be?

 

Well we have checks/balances. We don't alloy monopolies...or anything close to it like when we broke up the phone industry. This is what needs to be done to the banks. We can have taxes, income, estate, that keep the gap from getting too out of control. Don't get me wrong, having rich people is ok. We just the gap should be like it was back before the 80s.....and there were rich people back then.

 

So you advocate scrapping Capitalism? To become what?

 

 

Of course not....after all I'm a small business owner. As Sub said...there is a middle ground between 100% pure capitalism(we've never had it) and pure socialism. We had capitalism during the years I'm a fan of...the pre-80s.

 

CB, pre 1980s was full of Nixonian price and wage controls, high inflation and other Jimmy Carter issues. The 1970s was a terrible time economically - we got off the gold standard, rising gas prices, etc. Recessions were a normal way of life. Some of that was fuel by the oil crisis (no pun intended) - gas going way up to $1/gal. A lot of people remember the 1950s as being 'Happy Days' - I wouldn't know but it was at the height of post war manufacturing and housing booms. We were the world's main manufacturer back then. That goes back to making manufacturing a back bone of our economy. I'm almost convinced that our unhappy days came about due to the increased globalization of our large companies and the resultant outsourcing of our manufacturing base. I would bet that if we had a strong manufacturing base it wouldn't really matter who was president - the economy would hum along inspite of the president. It seems like a foregone conclusion that we just have to accept a reduced manufacturing sector. I would like to see all presidential candidates address this issue more clearly, including our campaigner in chief with some solid comprensive plans (tax policies included) on restoring manufacturing. The best way to close the income gap is to create good jobs that don't require Masters Degrees that pay well - typically in the past - these were manufacturing jobs. I know Newt has some good ideas on this - I'd like to see more discussions from the other guys and gal.

[Tulsa-Husker]

What is the solution to OWS complaints? 1st what are the solutions offered by OWS (honest ? - I'd like to know)? Just taxing the rich more and redistributing that captured wealth only places a band aid on symptoms IMHO. It doesn't solve the problem. It may actually make the problem worse as the rich seek shelter from greater taxation overseas - moving assets and jobs overseas to less hostile environments. I do believe there needs to be a 'reset' in our economy. But not a reset by having bigger govt and enriching those who are favored by the party in control. I think we have to re-address the affect globalization has had on our economy and create incentivies that would allow business to bring capital back to the USA and re-invest here and create jobs here. We also have to change the focus of the average consumer - from the Walmart model - cheapest is best, to a 'guality, made in USA' is best. As consumers we craved the cheapest and we got goods manufactured in China and elsewhere by workers that held jobs once done by American workers. In 1946, 96% of what was consumed in the USA was made in the USA. That is why we had Happy Days economically in the 1950s and beyond. Nixon got us off of the gold standard but committed that we would make this up to other countries who were holding our currency reserves by buying their goods. Thus the move from us being the greatest exporter to the greatest importer - all at the cost to the American worker .

[johnnyrodgers20]

One's opinions of the two groups provides an immediate litmus test as to their larger political views, and you can tell a lot from the OP's initial post. I just like sitting back and watching the hypocrisy. Here we have two groups doing pretty much the same thing with a few differences and you have liberal media sources coddling the Wall-Streeters and condemning the Tea Party and Fox doing the opposite. I guess consistency has been tossed out the window for good.

 

One major difference, the people you listed on fox are news analysts. They are paid to give THEIR OPINION. The other news orgs are news anchors and should give the news in an unbiased format. You are comparing apple to oranges. If you said the fox news analysts and people like Maddow and Oberman then that would have been correct.

[Sub-Husker]

CB, pre 1980s was full of Nixonian price and wage controls, high inflation and other Jimmy Carter issues. The 1970s was a terrible time economically - we got off the gold standard, rising gas prices, etc. Recessions were a normal way of life. Some of that was fuel by the oil crisis (no pun intended) - gas going way up to $1/gal. A lot of people remember the 1950s as being 'Happy Days' - I wouldn't know but it was at the height of post war manufacturing and housing booms. We were the world's main manufacturer back then. That goes back to making manufacturing a back bone of our economy. I'm almost convinced that our unhappy days came about due to the increased globalization of our large companies and the resultant outsourcing of our manufacturing base. I would bet that if we had a strong manufacturing base it wouldn't really matter who was president - the economy would hum along inspite of the president. It seems like a foregone conclusion that we just have to accept a reduced manufacturing sector. I would like to see all presidential candidates address this issue more clearly, including our campaigner in chief with some solid comprensive plans (tax policies included) on restoring manufacturing. The best way to close the income gap is to create good jobs that don't require Masters Degrees that pay well - typically in the past - these were manufacturing jobs. I know Newt has some good ideas on this - I'd like to see more discussions from the other guys and gal.

 

The Reagan years were not an economic boom, that didn't happen until the fall of the Soviets when we were able to exploit foreign labor and markets while still keeping most Americans gainfully enmployed.

 

Now that foreigners can do these middle class jobs,capitalism has sent them abroad at a pace where we could not recreate new jobs.

[Sub-Husker]

One major difference, the people you listed on fox are news analysts. They are paid to give THEIR OPINION. The other news orgs are news anchors and should give the news in an unbiased format. You are comparing apple to oranges. If you said the fox news analysts and people like Maddow and Oberman then that would have been correct.

 

They all give their opinions.

 

However the opinions of some commentators correspond with facts, and others do not.