Occupy Wall Street

Users who are viewing this thread

So you were minding your own business, looking for penises and fapping, and some ******* protester interrupted you with their inane babble? SEND IN THE NATIONAL GUARD, EXECUTE EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM!
 
Adorno: Prove reducing taxes and government produces inequality. Show me how the government and taxes increase success - a least in the last 45 years, my lifetime. I'm pretty solid here, seeing the failures of the education system, HUD, welfare, social security, medicade/medicare, the EPA, BATF, and - I could go on. In short, there is no overal successfull government program, in that someone else must suffer financial loss, involuntariy, to make anything happen.

Prove how less government and less taxes increases crime, and how it is not the choices of people who choose to do evil. Your financial status hardly commits you to hurting someone through murder, rape, or theft.

Essentially, back up what you stated. I willing to discover a gap in my knowledge.

Jhess - that's interesting. In order for the Tea people to get harassed or arrested, they'd have to start off by intending to break the law. Seems to be one of their beliefs that law, even poor ones, should be obeyed at all times (note the difference between tha concept and the ones esposed by the OWS). I'm thinking that they basically understand the process about changing law - elect someone of your midset, and go through the legislative procedure, checked by an elected executive, and validate by the judicial. I'm thinking the Tea Partiers rely on rule of law and elections, not harassment, intimidation, and unlawful occupation to make a point.

Arch, my good sir - adepty cherry picked. Now put some effort in and put in a contrasting argument of worth. Though I'm getting an impression that its to much effort for you these days. You actually seem kinda grumpy, to me, recently. And  in my opinion, if someone wishes to subordinate their dreams, goals, and life to someone or something else, with the power of life and death over them, they've picked their 'god' - wheher it's government, or career, or significant other, or a by-faith belief in a unseen entity. But I know you're smart enough to have picked that out of the context of my commentary, so why the short remarks? Dark humor? Bitter about a relationship? Bad moo goo gai pan? Out of beer, and economically unable to replenish?

I do believe that, yes, local government can be as corrupt as anything else. Difference is, it's closer to the electorate, and can be addressed very incisively if the electorate chooses. As opposed to several layers away in DC.

And we are arguing over 'how long the miniskirt should be allowed' by any other name - abortion, taxes, increased spending, abuse by government agencies, moral agendas like homosexuality and promiscuity and out of wedlock cultures, oil dependancy, immigration, personal freedoms, governmet interventions. Because the liberal position since the 1960's  has chosen to obfuscate and tear down estabished norms without lawful process in obedience to the constitution, we have rejected fixed morality, and suddenly are able to shift our now-flexible morals by saying 'Well, it's not all right in this situation, but its ok in that' or 'Although I think that's wrong (or immoral, or unethical) and I wouldn't do do it, I couldn't impose that belief on someone else'. Yet we do it all the time, and harass the hell out of anyone who disagrees with a liberal position, blackball them, use the media to belittle them, use the law to silence them. And so goes the sneering against conservatives, the snide comments against the Tea Partiers, the bitter treatment of those who disbelieve 'Global Warming', the condesension against Christianity, and a God, and so many other things the 'religously' liberals do.

Love what you liberal thinkers are doing. Keep it up. maw
 
Ooh what a wonderful time to post :roll:  Actually, in the case we have here we have both sides really looking at the same end result.  Granted both sides have wacky and kooks and attention-getters.  The OWS rely on government taking care of the societal ills.  The Government is for providing National Security and establishing laws for the nation not social reform.  The Tea party relies on the nature of the capitalist system to take care of societal ills.  The Capitalist system is for providing a way for anyone who can get their idea "sold" to those who have money to produce the widget for the biggest investment return it can.  Neither side is right, the only way to curb this is to elect folks who will reduce the size of the drain of tax dollars from those who can't pay to those that should pay.  A flat tax is the right start but of course instead of having it be a sliding scale we want to add a national sales tax, or loop holes or whatever we can to FOCH up the "rightness" of setting a budget much like I have to.  We as Americans have to get right with our selves and understand Washington will do and get away with what we allow them.  The media is no longer the watch dog.  We need to educate ourselves and our lawmakers to do the correct not the "compassion" thing.
 
Thanks for commenting, Papa. But I did put foward ideas, and observations, in my prior posts.

Oh. You must be referring to Arch. Or just jumping in late. maw
 
maw said:
Prove how less government and less taxes increases crime, and how it is not the choices of people who choose to do evil. Your financial status hardly commits you to hurting someone through murder, rape, or theft.
That's exactly how it is  :smile: (although I don't think I mentioned "less government")
Statistically poor people are more prone to become criminals and are more often the victims of violent crimes.
They also have poorer health, live shorter lives and are more likely to do drugs.

Now for the evidence:

In countries with high inequality crime rates are much higher

Drug use:
(Numbers taken from UN reports)

In recent years soft values like 'trust' is also being monitored (because it's a measurement of social well-being),
and not surprisingly the trust in other people is much lower in countries high inequality.
(Numbers based on World Values Survey http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/)

What the numbers show is that 1) they cannot be attributed to pure chance (they're based Pearson Correlation Coefficient).
2) Countries that distribute wealth through taxes, minimizing poverty, fair better on almost all parameters when the well-being of populations are monitored
(Suicide is an interesting exception.).
And interestingly the countries - with high taxes and large government spending, public health care etc. - are generally wealthy, with strong economies.

Notice how countries with public health care for all citizens have populations with better health, based on the parameters being monitored,
such as infant mortality, obesity, life expectancy, mental illness...


 
maw said:
if someone wishes to subordinate their dreams, goals, and life to someone or something else, with the power of life and death over them, they've picked their 'god'
Erm, again this is a factor of any government.
I do believe that, yes, local government can be as corrupt as anything else. Difference is, it's closer to the electorate, and can be addressed very incisively if the electorate chooses. As opposed to several layers away in DC.
How? Unless you're suggesting reforming the entire system then in both cases the only redress the electorate has is the election. You're still just checking a box on a piece of paper, I'm not sure how whether the guy lives inside or outside of the state would alter anything there.
And we are arguing over 'how long the miniskirt should be allowed' by any other name
Precisely. So much for fixed morality.

Papa Lazarou said:
Yeah, I guess I was a bit too adversarial. I do think you're a bit too hung up on these mysterious liberals though.
He could be right for all I know. From here in Europe even the US liberals are dangerously right wing :wink:
 
Maw,

or maybe Tea Party rallies are held in redneck towns where the local law enforcement couldn't care less about them breaking any county ordinances as they would prefer to join in? Or maybe OWS doesn't have Fox News supporting them nation wide? Or hey, investment banks didn't donate millions to the police department of ****ville, Alabama, maybe that makes a difference?

Peaceful Tea Partiers, happily engaging in freedom of speech:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alJ2o4smRfg

and another example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FxF1I2L4w8

Example of a smart, logical Tea Party member, just evoking her right to debate the current President's policies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tR7en8LPoWQ

Another example of well-read Tea Party supporters explaining their reasons for being Tea Partiers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTMDVwxNDis

And yes, Tea Partiers surely never blocked traffic or inconvenienced people:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VMXz6xGeqc

So maybe you could drop that little comparison from your spiel, maw.

Adorno, he's probably going to answer with the usual "America has so many people of so many races, it would never work here"-speech. Or then it's the "Constitution is more important than our citizen's well being!"-speech.
 
maw said:
Show me how the government and taxes increase success - a least in the last 45 years, my lifetime.

Just a few thoughts. Pardon their randomness.

Bill Clinton raised taxes, leading to an actual surplus (after Reagan tripled the national debt by raising military spending, and cutting taxes). Bush proceeded to cut taxes, and waste billions on two unwinnable wars, leading to the situation the government is in now. And when Obama tries to to raise taxes on the rich (Which was what Clinton did), the Republicans become absolutely rabid, and start saying that cutting taxes is the way to go.

Seems kind of screwy, in my opinion. Eager to see your response. nom

 
The woman in Jhessail's first link, the woman who spoke most, has a really annoying squeaky high-pitched voice. :lol: and I didn't see any threatening with the sign in that clip. That woman annoyed me quite a lot, even.
 
MrNomNom said:
maw said:
Show me how the government and taxes increase success - a least in the last 45 years, my lifetime.

Just a few thoughts. Pardon their randomness.

Bill Clinton raised taxes, leading to an actual surplus (after Reagan tripled the national debt by raising military spending, and cutting taxes). Bush proceeded to cut taxes, and waste billions on two unwinnable wars, leading to the situation the government is in now. And when Obama tries to to raise taxes on the rich (Which was what Clinton did), the Republicans become absolutely rabid, and start saying that cutting taxes is the way to go.

Seems kind of screwy, in my opinion. Eager to see your response. nom

The screwy-ness (pardon my spelling) derives from the problem that the national debt is so high that the interest rates stand toe to toe against the people.

Allow me to expound.

At some point in the future, be it 10 or a million years away, the debt will be so high that investors will lose hope in that the debt will be repayable.(at least that is the feeling that people seem to have because of the stagnant actions of Washington)  There are two mindsets to consider.

The first is "People first" this mindset holds that as times get bad the government should care for people through social programs that prevent their lives from changing greatly. This eases the suffering of the people but accelerates us toward the "second great depression"

The second is "Longevity" this mindset holds that there will be people that have their lives greatly affected by hard times but they will hold up just the same or better while not accelerating us toward the "second great depression" because the rate of spending is significantly slowed.

Both of those are the rationales that actually pull in voters (in my humble opinion) but both are tainted by career politicians.



Now I am about to postulate another theory that I think got us here, here goes nothing.

The United States once had many great spheres of influence, as with all empires that does not mean playing fair with others. For a empire to survive as a empire it must force feed itself, this has seen throughout history in the form of colonies, protectorates,  and spheres of influence. The United States chiefly acted in the realm of financial spheres of influence.(paying for both world wars) From our position of power we became complacent; we decided that everybody should get a fair turn(speaking about the world, not domestically) and unplugged our empire's life support in the process. Unlike most former empires however we continued to live it up; we just wanted to be handed ease in life.

This mess was once easily repairable, but not anymore, as the interest rates are expected to match our ability to pay under lab conditions. This does not take into account what will not budge( social security etc.)  Obama has spent nearly the same as Bush did in his first term(being compared 1st term vs 1st term); Bush had two terms and doubled his debt which was then added to by Obama. With Obama's spending track record I believe that people don't tend to buy into "yea I spent a lot but it'll be different this time  :wink:"  This is where the two mentalities I mentioned before come into play.

 
MrNomNom said:
Just a few thoughts. Pardon their randomness.

Bill Clinton raised taxes, leading to an actual surplus (after Reagan tripled the national debt by raising military spending, and cutting taxes). Bush proceeded to cut taxes, and waste billions on two unwinnable wars, leading to the situation the government is in now. And when Obama tries to to raise taxes on the rich (Which was what Clinton did), the Republicans become absolutely rabid, and start saying that cutting taxes is the way to go.

Seems kind of screwy, in my opinion. Eager to see your response. nom
Good point. To some extent Clinton managed to level the debt out a bit,
but in the big picture not much has happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

This is funny. Notice Bush vs. Clinton.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms
 
No no, Reagan was a saint and Clinton a filthy cheater who send American troops into danger to cover up his failed economical policies and sexual escapades. Bush Jr did what was necessary to undo those eight years of liberal misrule in a dangerously anti-American world. Now the secret-Muslim Obama has turned the boat around and tries to finish off America in order to please his NWO masters.  :roll:
 
rebelsquirrell said:
At some point in the future, be it 10 or a million years away, the debt will be so high that investors will lose hope in that the debt will be repayable.(at least that is the feeling that people seem to have because of the stagnant actions of Washington)  There are two mindsets to consider.
The problem isn't so much the size of the debt as it is US politics. They're far too polarised at the moment, the feeling being that the US is putting party politics ahead of actual effective governance. The markets fear instability far more than debt, and when you have a situation where one party will happily act against the common interest simply to score political points against their opponents it creates that instability. And that's before you start to worry about what happens when the platform of both parties essentially becomes "undo everything the previous government did".
 
Back
Top Bottom