Occupy Wall Street Fail
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
That sounds to me like what I would call a "progressivist" mentality. Change for the sake of it.
How many times have you bought a product, a tool or utensil or small appliance that you liked and did the job well, and when it finally wore out you tried to buy another and found that they don't make it anymore, but they make this similar product, more expensive and poorer quality which doesn't do nearly as well what the original did? Perhaps it was the market that caused that but more often than not it was some pencil pushing designer with nothing better to do than change things for the sake of it. A progressivist.
Not everything needs to be changed. What we need to do is zero in on what is not working and change that. There is a great truth in the old saying, "if it ain't broke don't fix it."
And, what is the definition of "backward?" What is the definition of "advanced?" Those terms mean vastly different things to different people who have different values. To a Steve Jobs, seeing half the population walking around with their heads down thumbing their texts to each other may be advanced, but to someone else sitting on a green hillside playing a flute and watching over some sheep and goats life may be rich and full and not backward at all. And by the way, which is more environmentally friendly?
Certainly there is merit in a free society where people can take ideas and run with them. That is the essence of free markets. You might be successful or you might fall flat on your face. The problem is that most of the progressives in our society with the "progressivist" mentality are also collectivists. That is to say, the come up with an idea and they want us all to run with it.
It was actually some time ago Captain. For thirty years I have not had an 8 hour a day job. Everything I've ever done has been 10, 12, 16 hours a day. I've worked hard and by my choice. I have a University degree which I paid for. My family didn't have money to help me, I've never "worked my contacts", stepped on anyone, screwed anyone over, or otherwise advanced at the expense of someone else. I have given value to everyone I have worked for and I can honestly say that every paycheck I've ever had I could cash with a clear conscience. And where am I today? By most standards I am part of the working poor. Do I resent that? No.
But I will say this. When we look at the ones who are at the bottom of the social spectrum and taking a hand-out we are only seeing half the problem. In my years I have seen the increase of a sickness throughout our society, from top to bottom. Everyone is looking for the chance at "something for nothing." Could I be well off today? Absolutely. I have had opportunities in my life to jump ahead by stepping on someone else, by scamming or by shady business. I am no angel, but I could not live with myself. The sickness in our society is that so many are quite able to live with themselves after milking the system in one way or another.
What were all those programs on HGTV about? Hey, grab a "distressed" property, give it a coat of paint and voila! Re-sell and make a profit. At least there was a little work involved there. The Wall Street types have refined the art of something for nothing. They don't bother with real goods and services. They go right to the mainline, money itself. Trade money and shave off some of it. Compounded interest. All of it part of the false economy, the huge massive balloon that floats over the rest of us in the real economy, where real goods are made, bought and sold. What is the biggest growth activity these days? Day traders. Everybody trying to get something for nothing, for no real work, no added value to the real economy. Why is there a shortage of tradesmen and a glut of business grads? Because nobody wants to do the real work, but everyone wants in on the gravy train.
So they pump up the system, the huge casino, and everyone big or small dreams of getting in on the action. The lure of something for nothing. At the top of it all are the real big players, the ones who control the money supply, the ones who create money out of nothing and lend it to governments. And when they get spooked, they choke off the supply of money and who gets hurt? Why those of us down here in the real economy.
And then you have the public employees, who have never understood the equation between adding value and compensation for it. They are not part of the real economy, the part that builds real wealth in a nation, not casino winnings, and so the public employee with the encouragement of the union, sees only minimizing work and maximizing pay. They bleat when they are targeted for austerity, saying that they actually help the economy by buying goods and services, not realizing that the money they are paid is recycled from those who have actually added value to the economy in the first place.
The idea of something for nothing is as old as mankind. It is part of the human condition. But this is where the Occupy Wall Street and all of the "occupiers" have really missed the target. They went after Wall Street, which is a large part of the problem, but they didn't go after the problem itself. All sorts of people have been carping on the huge numbers of "free-loaders" receiving government checks but in my opinion they are no different than those who do not work but would rather play the spread in the markets every day at whatever level.
And then the unions jump on the "occupy" band-wagon with their early industrial revolution rhetoric, unable to distinguish the difference between a hedge fund manager and the CEO of a manufacturing company. At least the manufacturer actually makes a product in the real economy. His pay and bonuses are not the problem.
In my opinion, the problem is a moral one, throughout all of society. That time you spoke of Captain Morgan, was when the general level of morality was high across the board, not just at the bottom. And, truth be told, I don't know how you fix it. It will likely only change as the result of some catalyst like a large-scale catastrophe, likely economic, or another world war or something.
U.S. president outlined Occupy viewpoint 125 years ago
The Occupy movement was fore-seen 125 years ago by Rutherford B. Hayes, 19th president of the United States.
He said "that government cannot long endure if property is largely in the hand of a few and large masses of people are unable to earn homes, education and a support in old age.
"In church it occurred to me that it is time for the public to hear that the giant evil and danger in this country, the danger which transcends to all others is the vast wealth owned and controlled by few persons. Money is power. In Congress, in state legislators, in city councils, in the courts, in the political conventions, in the press, in the pulpit, in the circles of education and the talented, its influence is growing greater and greater.
"Excessive wealth in the hands of the few means extreme poverty, ignorance, vice and wretchedness as the lot of many."
I believe in free enterprise but can-not help but believe there is probably some justification for the Occupy movement if it is genuinely dedicated to the above statements by president Hayes.
He said "that government cannot long endure if property is largely in the hand of a few and large masses of people are unable to earn homes, education and a support in old age.
"In church it occurred to me that it is time for the public to hear that the giant evil and danger in this country, the danger which transcends to all others is the vast wealth owned and controlled by few persons. Money is power. In Congress, in state legislators, in city councils, in the courts, in the political conventions, in the press, in the pulpit, in the circles of education and the talented, its influence is growing greater and greater.
"Excessive wealth in the hands of the few means extreme poverty, ignorance, vice and wretchedness as the lot of many."
I believe in free enterprise but can-not help but believe there is probably some justification for the Occupy movement if it is genuinely dedicated to the above statements by president Hayes.
That is the key point in almost any political debate and something that I think most people can agree on regardless of their political allegiances. At issue is whether you wish to accept that as inevitable or try to change it. If you wish to accept it then You have to allow for a small ruling class or you have to redistribute the wealth (if you actually believe in democracy). I think this is what our current political debates are all about. The so called left wants to redistribute the wealth to create a more democratic system and the so called right wants to have economic freedom so anybody is able to gain the money to become powerful.
I believe the solution is to create a system where money does not equal power. That's easier said than done as there is no profit in that and most of the occupiers aren't focused enough.
No, was quoting: Rutherford Birchard Hayes (October 4, 1822 – January 17, 1893) was the 19th President of the United States (1877–1881).
Didn't the Founding Fathers also have some strong words about all people being treated equally and unfair taxation... Something to the effect of 'no taxation without representation'?
Sorry for not being clear - meant to say Hayes was quoting FF. Essay #10 of Federalist Papers deals with this issue and other writings.
Yes. These were the thoughts of the Committee of Correspondence under Samuel Adams and the Minute Men.
That means if you are unhappy with the Gov you don't have to pay taxes if your complaint is ignored. People who are getting all they want from the Gov will happily pay taxes just to make sure nothing changes that.
Is that right or wrong?
wrong
LOS ANGELES, November 8, 2011—Wall Street corruption and greed does exist, and leftists are sanctioning it, engaging in it, and blaming conservatives for it.
When Barack Obama began flogging “Wall Street fat cats” and “hedge fund managers” in his speeches, it gave the green light for what would become the violent community organization known as Occupy Wall Street. Yet what will soon become apparent is that the movement was never intended to be financial. It was entirely ideological.
In short, liberals would be given a free pass while conservatives would be burnt at the stake.
Democrats Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank were at the epicenter of the 2008 economic collapse. They have never nor will they ever be held accountable. Christopher Dodd retired rather than face questions about his sweetheart deals with Countrywide. As for Barney Frank, several crimes have been committed in his very home, from prostitution to drug running. He has always claimed ignorance.
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/tygrrrr-express/2011/nov/7/occupy-wall-street-jon-corzine-and-other-failed-hu/
Your perspective is too self-centered.
The system (overall) is what is in question and as per the Founding Fathers and their desire for equality for all citizens, that 'system' should reflect this equality. The present tax system uses the PC terminology of 'progressive', yet at its heart, it punishes some groups for succeeding and rewards others for not.
So, with this in mind, you tell me what's right and wrong in consideration of the description 'Equality for All'.
Progressive means to develop gradually in stages. Therefore a tax rate that increases step-wise as the tax base increases is a progressive tax. The very notion of a progressive tax pre-dates any notion of politically correct...
Adam Smith, from Book V of The Wealth of Nations:
Adam Smith, from Book V of The Wealth of Nations:
It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
Yes, Smith's work treated taxation, but not proportional to earnings.
So the smarter you are and the more you make, should penalize you, in order that the scavengers and leaches of society who like nothing better than live off someone else can survive. I am in favor of a fair tax, but only if everyone pays their share. (20%-25% of all income above what ever the poverty level is, with no exemptions.)
Where the conundrum lies is within the framework of equality and how the top tiers end up being targeted each time that the gvt needs to raise revenues. At one time the addition of sales taxes or other consumptive tax measures were installed to extract more reveunes, but now it is severely unbalanced to the point that one segment is virtually paying another segment to exist.
That still penalizes the rich!
I have the best idea yet. Politicians should be required to take second jobs for wages which they contribute to the tax fund to compensate for their incompetence! :lol:
MONDAY, Dec. 19 (HealthDay News) -- Obese Americans have smaller paychecks than those who aren't overweight, and this difference is especially strong among women, a new study finds.
The analysis of data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth revealed that in 2004, overall average annual incomes were $8,666 less for obese women and $4,772 less for obese men compared with normal weight workers.
http://health.yahoo.net/articles/weight-loss/obesity-linked-to-lower-paychecks
Could American society exist with everyone being highly paid engineers, lawyers, doctors, scientists, and business executives? Nope. What's fair can mean a lot of things when you're talking about macroeconomics.
Drop the tax rate on the top earners, increase it on the low wage earners, and see what happens to your economy. You already have a demand issue. You'll drive demand up...in food banks. What do you suppose happens when the working poor have less after tax income? Who is buying the goods?
I think we are just about at the limit of the amount of money the Gov't. can get internally. So the answer obviously lies in two areas, more efficiency or funds from external sources (don't hold your breath) They might squeak a little out by taxing exports that are in big demand from Canada, which would mean other countries don't have the product. Ice worms is one we could look into. :lol:
I do not want to drop the tax rate on anyone, but I would like everyone to pay something.