Occupy Wall Street

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by ryoder, Oct 5, 2011.

Loading...
  1. friendorfoe

    friendorfoe Active Member

    You mean as in "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" ala Mr. Marx? Hmmmm....that's pretty unsound from an American standpoint, a freedom standpoint, an economic standpoint and a pragmatic standpoint. Are you sure you meant that?
     
  2. jts

    jts New Member

    Today must be my day to munch on other people's words... and here I was hoping to try the new Mexican restaurant in town. Please don't ruin my appetite on words, I want to save room for a chimichanga.

    I am not for wholesale wealth redistribution, because I don't think it would result in enough competitive spirit.

    I am, however, for two big things you might not like:

    Thing Number One: A Comprehensive Safety Net. No one in this country should be starving, or die of curable disease, or freeze in the cold. Barracks with three hots and cot are fine, along with educational opportunities and such for those that can benefit. Sorry, it's now part of the social contract that people in need receive these minimal protections from the rest of society.

    Thing Number Two: Incentives that cause corporations to more fairly compensate workers for the value they bring--reducing income disparity and improving the economy. (People who don't have money don't buy too many things.)

    Tom
     
  3. BobbyJim

    BobbyJim New Member

    jts - I did say "I did not say it was ethical, but it wasn’t illegal (mostly)."

    I assume from your comments that you are all in on the "nanny state." So we strongly disagree, and that's it folks.
     
  4. jts

    jts New Member

    But... but... someone is wrong! On the Internet!

    BobbyJim,

    You call it a "nanny state" because it sounds bad. I call it "not letting people starve in the streets or die of cancer because some computer somewhere says their credit is lousy," because it puts a human face on it. It doesn't have quite the same ring as "nanny state," though, does it?

    We're not dealing in abstractions here, we're talking about real lives, and real consequences. Providing all of our citizens with basic life-sustaining services isn't something we should shirk off because it's financially unsound. What we do, in that situation, is make it financially sound. Healthcare is ridiculously expensive, as a big example. We need to fix it. We have the resources to feed everyone, and provide healthcare to everyone. We may need to give up a couple carrier groups to do so, but we'll still have plenty left to conquer the world in a pinch.

    It's a question of priorities. Is our priority killing brown people for oil, or is our priority taking care of our own? I know I'm jumping around issues a bit, but everything is run so backwards in this country that I'm in a target-rich rhetorical environment.

    Tom
     
  5. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    I believe that it was small pox blankets.

    The Straight Dope: Did whites ever give Native Americans blankets infected with smallpox?

    (I know it is an irrelevant correction and I apologize. I just couldn't resist.)
     
  6. BobbyJim

    BobbyJim New Member

    nanny state

    It is a nanny state that some of you describe. I do not advocate ‘letting people starve in the streets or die of cancer because some computer somewhere says their credit is lousy’, but I do not believe the federal government is required to implement relief programs. Also we have current laws that prohibit refusal of emergency care. I give to charities that work toward relieving those suffering from the problems mentioned, and they do it much more effectively than the federal government.

    I do not advocate ‘killing brown people for oil’, or any other reason for killing anyone. I perfectly happy to pay for it, but I rather that we have the ability to use our own energy until we find alternatives.

    ‘We're not dealing in abstractions here, we're talking about real lives, and real consequences. Providing all of our citizens with basic life-sustaining services isn't something we should shirk off because it's financially unsound. What we do, in that situation, is make it financially sound. Healthcare is ridiculously expensive, as a big example. We need to fix it. We have the resources to feed everyone, and provide healthcare to everyone. We may need to give up a couple carrier groups to do so, but we'll still have plenty left to conquer the world in a pinch.’ If you want free healthcare and free tuition assistance join the military!

    I’ve been there and done that…born poor, served in the military, bootstrapped myself into a good profession, and delayed satisfaction. I’ve paid through the nose for healthcare and have also done without. Don’t tell me to put a face on it!!!!!!
     
  7. jts

    jts New Member

    BobbyJim,

    Looks like I've got you riled-up a little bit. I know the cognitive dissonance is a bit frightening, and fear leads to anger. Bear with me, though, and I'll have you deprogrammed in no time flat.

    I see you're dragging out all the old tropes: The general uselessness/ineffectiveness of the federal government, and how charities are much more effective in any case. Please tell it to the fellow I saw at the Interstate offramp last week, with his daughter, holding a sign that read "Will work for food." Clearly the charities are doing a bang-up job, and nothing else need be done. As for emergency care, it has a bad habit of bankrupting those who are already on the ropes. (Most bankruptcy filings are due to medical costs, and a worrying number of filers had medical insurance. There is a deeper problem with the system than you're acknowledging.)

    Then you go and say that joining the military is a good option for getting healthcare, education, and so on (I guess we agree that one of the things the Feds get right is killing). Way to miss the point, BobbyJim. Our military is a massive waste of space and resources. We spend more on it every year than the rest of the world combined spends on theirs (maybe this is why most proper first-world countries can afford healthcare). Further, the department is named wrong: who exactly are we defending against with that kind of overkill? 10,000 nuclear weapons, 12 (last I checked) carrier groups, thousands of tanks and armored vehicles, who knows how many troops? Freaking extraterrestrial invaders?! Take most of that money and use it for something productive and constructive.

    You mention alternative energy, and that's perfectly sane, so moving on...

    Finally we hit the personal outrage and references to bootstrappyness. Good for you, I'm glad you made it. It's too bad that you lost your empathy and understanding for the people who are stuck, and lack the ability or resources to do the same thing.

    Fewer mega-carriers and fifteenth-generation fighter-jets, and more food and medical care for the less privileged amongst us. Is that such a horrible thing for me to suggest? A personal affront somehow? Poor people should suck it up and get a job, when they can't find one?

    Tom
     
  8. BobbyJim

    BobbyJim New Member

    good night

    “Looks like I've got you riled-up a little bit.”

    Actually, it looks just the opposite!

    Time for you to take your meds.

    Good night Tom.
     
  9. jts

    jts New Member

    BobbyJim,

    You were losing pretty badly, but I had some hope that you'd hang on and learn something. Instead, you run away.

    I think it's one of the larger problems with our society--people get insulated from things they don't want to hear, and thus are able to pretend they don't exist. It's almost like a giant echo chamber for ignorance.

    Keep the shiny side up, good buddy,

    Tom
     
  10. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    As someone who's just been watching the tennis match, I thought you'd like to know that this is where you stopped looking like an eloquent defender of your position, and started to look like just another guy arguing on the Internet. Next time, stick to attacking the position rather than the person. It's much more persuasive.
     
  11. jts

    jts New Member

    Yes. That was a mistake, I agree. It was meant in more of a playful sense, but it probably came off wrong.
     
  12. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

  13. raristud

    raristud Member

    I am curious as to why they are going after Republicans in one of their blog posts, when word around the internet is that Brian Moynihan, the Bank CEO, is a Democrat. Which is interesting because he donated to the Chris Dodd campaign and in one article appeared to be against the Dodd/Frank reform act. What extends my circle of irony is that Warren Buffet, a man who supported the Obama campaign, bought billions in BofA stocks and appears to disagree with certain aspect of the "Buffet Rule".

    It appears that Democrats and liberals are locked in a battle with each other as to what their positions and messages are.

    Buffett Says ‘Buffett Rule’ Should Apply Only to ‘Ultra-Rich’ - ABC News

    Moynihan: Dodd-Frank Will Cost Bank Of America Billions - Forbes

    http://occupywallst.org/forum/libertarians-and-liberals-should-be-friends/

    Confidential To Brian Moynihan, The White House Is Just Using You To Rankle Jamie Dimon « Dealbreaker: Wall Street Insider

    Brian Moynihan - $17,099 in Political Contributions for 2008


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsO-V6bqiDE :D
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 7, 2011
  14. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator Staff Member

    I'm curious why the protesters aren't celebrating the death of Steve Jobs.

    Didn't he represent everything they're supposed to be protesting?
     
  15. DLer

    DLer New Member

    In 2010 the SEC filed suit against Goldman Sachs charging them with fraud. GS settled with the SEC in July 2010 for $550 million (without admitting wrongdoing). I guess that defrauding investors is not illegal if you can get away with it and settle the lawsuit.

    I wonder when and why the measuring stick for being a good US corporate citizen has become "it's OK as long as it's legal or if you can get away with it".

    I also wonder why ordinary citizens feel the need to defend the unethical practices of US corporate citizens. Although I'm sure these ordinary citizens mean well and are probably church going good-hearted people, it makes absolutely no sense that they would defend the indefensible, under ANY circumstances.
     
  16. 03310151

    03310151 Active Member

    Website is down. We knew they would get a message out sooner or later. The videos of some of these kids on YouTube made the T.E.A. party people look like members of Mensa.
     
  17. 03310151

    03310151 Active Member

    We're all hypocrites:

    Down with Corporations.jpg
     
  18. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    Maybe because the evil projections that you ascribe to them are not true...?

    If anyone actually listens to what the people are saying, instead of making stuff up in putting it in their mouths, then maybe you would have a more coherent idea of what they are saying. They are not saying that corporations are evil (hellooooo, do any of you know what a strawman argument is? If so, then congratulations, because you are efficiently churning them out more quickly than China churns out bootleg electronics).

    First things first, before anyone decides to fire ad hominem at me, my interest in politics is merely as an observer. I'm not on this side nor that side nor will I ever be. I care about people, not politics, and am not taking a side here. I want to know what you viewpoints are, but am frustrated by the fact that all I tend to see are people taking shots at others without even knowing who those others are nor what they are saying. I see there are a lot of conservatives here, GOOD FOR YOU, but you have convinced yourselves that since these are mostly (not entirely) liberals that they MUST BE organized for any number of stereotypes that you have consistently ascribed to them.

    One of the biggest issues being raised is corporate money in politics. My question to anyone is this: are you in favor of the idea that a huge corporation has the legal right to buy politicians who will then create policies which favor the very corporations who bought them?

    Oh, and by the way, the "liberal" media is NOT being friendly to these protests. Why is it that we all had the impression that they had no idea what they are protesting? Because that is exactly how they are being portrayed. By the "liberal" media. Who are, in fact, responsible to their true bosses, the very entities which are being protested. There may be a liberal bias in the media, in fact I do see it pretty often, but there are several other much greater biases in the media at play on any given story.
     
  19. 03310151

    03310151 Active Member

    FIFY

    Maybe because the evil projections that you ascribe to the T.E.A. Party are not true...?

    If anyone actually listens to what the people are saying, instead of making stuff up in putting it in their mouths, then maybe you would have a more coherent idea of what they are saying. They are not saying that they hate black people or gays or immigrants (hellooooo, do any of you know what a strawman argument is? If so, then congratulations, because you are efficiently churning them out more quickly than China churns out bootleg electronics).

    On and on.....and on....
     
  20. friendorfoe

    friendorfoe Active Member

    It might also be irrelevant but I don't the "native Americans were doing just fine" before the "greedy Europeans" arrived, etc. I guess it depends on how you define "just fine" since wholesale slaughter, enslavement and even small scale genocide were all common practices between various tribes and all without the influence of "greedy" Europeans. In all fairness though the "greedy" Europeans did capitalize on this by through strategic alliances with tribes to have them turn on their ancestral enemies. But if you feel that badly about the whole thing, feel free to stop by your nearest reservation and volunteer to give your house to anyone of them you might meet. ;)

    Also the idea of putting the poor into barracks has been tried. I believe the turn of the century Europeans called these “work houses” and “poor houses” and the end result turned out to be pretty inhumane. They also tried this in Communist Russia, assigned housing, medical treatment, etc. As history teaches us, this worked out really well too (note the sarcasm).
    You seem to have a lot of faith in the abilities of government, have you been to a DMV in the last few years? What about a county free clinic? Maybe you’ve been to a halfway house or perhaps even a prison or jail? I have to ask because these are places that are generally under strict government control and none tend to work very effectively or efficiently sometimes despite even the best efforts of those who work in them. You’re studying for your MBA right? Have they yet espoused the effectiveness of decentralized management and control? Especially when working with knowledge workers or skilled labor? Just curious because government is the opposite of that in every way.

    As for putting words in your mouth by quoting Marx, I simply paraphrased what you already said. You said. Did you not imply redistribution of wealth? If not, then how do you suppose we make the poor “less poor”? There is of course finite wealth, so if the margins are to be spread somewhere, do you really think the top 1% will have enough resources or even the will to share what they have? Or do you think they’ll instead simply shrink the middle class and redistribute some of the wealth of the many?
    Government controlled and administered socialism, which is essentially what you are espousing, has never successfully been implemented anywhere in the world, at any time in history, at a sustainable level. There are however governments who have socialized certain aspects of society, such a medicine and the results have been less than spectacular, especially in the areas of innovation.

    Profit is not evil (nor is it exploitation) despite the current trend in thinking but it is a good incentive when you remove the “moral debate” from the idea of money. As for protesting “corporate greed” you may as well protest evil or mean people, etc. Or protest “for” world peace. The idea sounds good but ultimately has no goals to shoot for, no success criteria and effectively means nothing. But I’m sure it is fun.
     

Share This Page