Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 20

Thread: Occupy Wall Street

  1. #1
    Hey, I'm back in Eagar visiting relatives for Thanksgiving and so anyways, I went back to my room and discovered that my room was just the way I left it when I went off to college. Nothing was touched. Not even my computer, and guess what popped up under favorites? That's right! This Drawing Room Forum. So, here I am again to say hi and tell you what I think about this stupid Occupy Wall Street movement.


    Some good things have come out of the Occupy Wall Street movement. For one thing it may have pulled the blinders off of many people to let them clearly see that liberals and progressives are really just a bunch of communists.

    I find it funny how they love to blame capitalism for all the problems we are currently facing when it was government getting in the way of capitalism that led to these problems. The bailouts of Wall Street shouldn't have happened. Government should have stayed out of the way and let the businesses which loaned too much money to people who couldn't pay it back just go bankrupt. Government should have stayed out of the way in the first place and not forced businesses to lend to people who could never pay back the loans. Government should have stayed out of the way and not backed mortgages at all (Sallie Mae, Freddie Mac), and then businesses would have to be careful who they loaned money to all the way along, and we wouldn't be in this mess right now.


    I've been listening to Schiff lately, and here's what he had to say about it:

    http://www.schiffradio.com/b/In-Defe...197335133.html

    "Last week, I spent the afternoon visiting the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations in lower Manhattan. I brought a film crew and a sign that said "I Am The 1%, Let's Talk." The purpose was to understand what was motivating these protesters and try to educate them about what caused the financial crisis. I went down there with the feeling that much of their anger was justified, but broadly misdirected.



    Indeed, there were plenty of heated discussions. I did little more than ask how much of my earnings I should be allowed to keep. In return, I was called an idiot, a fool, heartless, and selfish. But when we started talking about the issues, it seemed like the protesters fell into two categories: those who generally understood and agreed that Washington caused this mess, and those who could only recite Marxist talking points. It was the latter who usually resorted to calling names once I pointed out the hypocrisy of their positions. They might shout, "the banks have taken over the regulatory agencies, so we need more regulations!" Obviously, this is paradoxical. If they're blaming government for causing this problem, why would they suggest more government as the solution?

    I think some of the leadership of Occupy Wall Street comes from this kind of radical Marxist background - and perhaps they're smart to intentionally keep quiet about their goals. Because the vast majority of protesters I met did believe in capitalism - they're just tired of being screwed over by crony capitalism. Noted school-choice activist Michael Strong calls it "crapitalism," and that's what it is. It's a rotten deal for everyone, and they know it.



    The problem is that many of these people are under the mistaken impression that Wall Street banks are to blame for this state of affairs. That's like blaming the dogs for getting into the trashcan. Sure, it's bad behavior, but the ultimate responsibility lies with the authority figures - in this case, Washington. After all, it's not the New York metro area that has benefitted the most from this crisis. Rather, the counties around DC are now ranking as the wealthiest in the country. And while wealthy New Yorkers have historically made their living providing essential financial services to the global economy, Washington has always made its living one way: at our expense.



    That's why I have trouble sympathizing with people calling themselves the "99%", implying they stand in opposition to wealth no matter how it's earned. I own a brokerage firm, but I didn't receive any bailout money. In fact, I have to work twice as hard to compete with bigger financial firms that are propped up by the US government. The least I deserve is the ability to keep what I earn.



    Remember, if the IRS weren't taking so much from the wealthy who have earned it, there would be that much less for Wall Street bailouts. A hundred years ago, major banks had no business lobbying Washington, because compared to their free-market earnings, the government simply didn't have that much money to dole.



    The other tool the government didn't have to use against us back then was the Federal Reserve. Even if we drastically reduce taxes, the Fed might decide to do what it has been doing: printing money to finance government profligacy. This acts as a secret tax on everyone with a bank account, and is critical in transferring wealth from hardworking Americans to politically connected elites. So, really, the protests shouldn't be on Wall Street but around the corner on the ironically named Liberty Street, site of the New York Federal Reserve Bank - the heart of this dishonest system.



    Until these twin sources of financial oppression are brought under control, the average American's standard of living will most likely continue to fall, more jobs will leave for increasingly capitalist emerging markets, and more young kids will be left with nothing better to do than block traffic.

    One common refrain I heard at the protests was that our problems result from the rich not paying enough taxes. Most feel that economy was better when marginal tax rates were higher, and that lower rates are a cause of financial decline. Forget about the faulty logic of this assumption, it ignores two key points. First, while it's true that marginal tax rates were much higher after World War II, the tax code also used to contain many allowances and exceptions, such that very few people actually paid the nominal rate. Second, prior to 1913, the rich paid no income taxes at all; yet, lower- and middle-class living standards rose much faster in the 19th century than in the 20th!



    Overall, I think there was a real lack of understanding of basic economic principles among the Occupiers. Protesters thought that the rich owed a duty to share their wealth with society. However, they failed to see that in true capitalism, the rich can only acquire their wealth by serving others. No one succeeds in a vacuum. Consider the late Steve Jobs. He became a billionaire by sharing his wealth. Think about the millions of people around the world whose lives are vastly better because of Apple products. Think of all the Apple employees who benefit from high-paying jobs he created. Think about all those investors who made money from Apple stock. Steve Jobs shared his wealth with the entire planet before he ever paid one dime in taxes. In fact, any money Steve Jobs did pay in taxes likely prevented him from creating and sharing even more wealth. Had Jobs tried to hoard his wealth instead, he never would have acquired it in the first place.



    Of course, the idea that Occupy Wall Street protesters have a right to share directly in the private profits earned by others is immoral. The protesters were correct in being outraged by having to share in Wall Street's losses. But if they do not want to share the losses, they have no right to demand a share of the profits!



    One protester equated the low wages paid by Wal-Mart to slavery, yet thought the government should take 70% of my income. In the case of Wal-Mart, employees are free to choose other jobs. What choice would I have when faced with a 70% income tax? They call it "slavery" when Wal-Mart offers workers better opportunities than they could find elsewhere, and "justice" when government enslaves me by forcibly taking 70% of the fruits of my labor.



    Another protester challenged my claim that businesses create jobs by stating that consumers create the jobs by spending money. When I asked him where the consumers got their money, he replied "from their jobs," which actually proved my point. Without jobs, consumers have no purchasing power. And without production, there is nothing to purchase.



    I'm calling for these protesters to educate themselves on the causes of the current financial decline and not to waste their time attacking the wrong target. They have every right to be angry, but also an obligation to be part of the solution. Yes, I am the 1% - but I've earned every penny. Instead of trying to take my wealth away, I hope they learn from my example."


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=vZr9c1zYaOE
    Last edited by 999969999; 11-22-2011 at 09:27 PM.
    Who can take your money and give it to someone else? The Government Can! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO2eh...layer_embedded

  2. The Drawing Room   -   #2
    mjmacky's Avatar an alchemist?
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    day book
    Posts
    10,855
    Looks like you came back to do a little trolling. I was really feeling like you were changing up your style a bit by synthesizing your own commentary, but then you went and posted someone else's diatribe. You should probably stick it in a quote field or spoiler field, it would clean up your posts immensely.
    Everything is brought to you by Fjohürs Lykkewe.

  3. The Drawing Room   -   #3
    megabyteme's Avatar RASPBERRY RIPPLE BT Rep: +19BT Rep +19BT Rep +19BT Rep +19
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Using Mrs. Nussbaum's CC#
    Posts
    17,380
    My response:

    Today, Occupy K St./DC liberated the empty, city-owned Franklin School. The school was closed several years ago and initially reopened as a homeless shelter. Despite widespread public opposition, the city government later closed the shelter. Next -- in blatant disregard of social safety net programs that are necessary for the very survival of the people who are most directly impacted by economic injustice -- announced plans to turn the building either into luxury condos or a hotel for the 1% lobbyists on K St.

    In a move similar to other recent building occupations in Oakland, Chapel Hill, New York, and London, dozens of occupiers entered the building with sleeping bags and food and declared their intent to stay indefinitely. Occupy DC announced plans for an open forum to be held at a church next Monday to discuss uses of the building with the public. Inside, they began cleaning the building to make it usable for the community. From the roof, occupiers chanted "We are the 99%!" as others dropped a banner reading "Public Property under Community Control” over the school. Meanwhile, hundreds rallied in support outside.

    Police -- including the Metropolitan Police and federal Protective Services -- responded with full force. A massive police presence blocked all of 13th St and declared the area a "crime scene." Police then moved into the building and arrested all inside, carrying out people cuffed at the arms and legs. Some protesters banged on the police vans from inside and outside, while others tried to block the vehicles altogether. Police declared they would charge all those inside with unlawful entry, and threatened others with felony charges if they interfered.

    Occupations across the world have recently adopted the tactic of taking over unoccupied buildings. In New York, students and allies occupied New School buildings and dropped leaflets and banners from inside during the N17 Day of Action. They continue to occupy buildings on campus.

    In North Carolina and Oakland, protesters occupied vacant downtown buildings. As described by Occupy Chapel Hill:

    In the midst of the first general strike to hit the US since 1946, a group of comrades occupied a vacant building in downtown Oakland, CA. Before being brutally evicted and attacked by cops, they taped up in the window a large banner declaring, “Occupy Everything…”

    On Nov. 12 at about 8pm, a group of about 50 – 75 people occupied the 10,000 square foot Chrysler Building on the main street of downtown Chapel Hill. Notorious for having an owner who hates the city and has bad relations with the City Council, the giant building has sat empty for ten years. It is empty no longer.
    Last edited by megabyteme; 11-23-2011 at 04:19 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by IdolEyes787 View Post
    Ghey lumberjacks, wolverines, blackflies in the summer, polar bears in the winter, that's basically Canada in a nutshell.

  4. The Drawing Room   -   #4
    But you're missing the point. It was a crime scene. Why shouldn't the police have responded that way to the situation?
    Who can take your money and give it to someone else? The Government Can! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO2eh...layer_embedded

  5. The Drawing Room   -   #5
    mjmacky's Avatar an alchemist?
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    day book
    Posts
    10,855
    Took me awhile to find this since it's almost a month old. I kept trying to recall a Shiff reference and couldn't believe I forgot it was between him and Cornell West (West being one of my favorite religious people). When you go through the comments section of the youtube video, you see lots of people making comments about Schiff "pwning" West. However, I feel that most people are very quick and easy to forget corporate influence on government's function and actions. Does nobody understand this relationship between business and government? I'm sure Schiff has experienced and benefited from it at some level of the government, which is why he acknowledged it. However, he's immediately defensive towards businesses since government makes it easy to be influenced.

    In my opinion, neither government nor corporate businesses are entirely defensible. However, there are aspects/agencies/members of government that do function with its major purpose being to enact common benefits for the population, the same cannot really be said about huge corporations. When it comes down to it, which of the 2 would you rather be defending your interests, which would you defend? I'm really goading someone to say "insurance companies", "pharmaceutical industry", or "the oil industry". It used to be that banking/financial institutions only survived and prospered when they kept their interests aligned with all of their clients. Then found a way to make lucrative amounts of money unimpeded at opposition to their customers' interest.

    Anyways, here's a video.

    Last edited by mjmacky; 11-23-2011 at 04:16 PM.
    Everything is brought to you by Fjohürs Lykkewe.

  6. The Drawing Room   -   #6
    I think most people dont get capitalism and I dont mean it in a way that might be offensive.
    It is a political question if you like certain goals and measures to achieve them.

  7. The Drawing Room   -   #7
    Quote Originally Posted by mjmacky View Post
    Took me awhile to find this since it's almost a month old. I kept trying to recall a Shiff reference and couldn't believe I forgot it was between him and Cornell West (West being one of my favorite religious people). When you go through the comments section of the youtube video, you see lots of people making comments about Schiff "pwning" West. However, I feel that most people are very quick and easy to forget corporate influence on government's function and actions. Does nobody understand this relationship between business and government? I'm sure Schiff has experienced and benefited from it at some level of the government, which is why he acknowledged it. However, he's immediately defensive towards businesses since government makes it easy to be influenced.

    In my opinion, neither government nor corporate businesses are entirely defensible. However, there are aspects/agencies/members of government that do function with its major purpose being to enact common benefits for the population, the same cannot really be said about huge corporations. When it comes down to it, which of the 2 would you rather be defending your interests, which would you defend? I'm really goading someone to say "insurance companies", "pharmaceutical industry", or "the oil industry". It used to be that banking/financial institutions only survived and prospered when they kept their interests aligned with all of their clients. Then found a way to make lucrative amounts of money unimpeded at opposition to their customers' interest.

    Anyways, here's a video.

    Thanks for the video. It is amazing how two people can watch the same video and come away from it with completely opposite impressions about it. I think Schiff once again did an excellent job of stating the free market capitalist position in this discussion with Cornell West, and I agree with what Schiff had to say. I think he made a lot of sense.

    I am not surprised that Cornell West is one of your heroes. He is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. He has Marxist ideas, which you love.

    There is a very wide chasm between the left and the right, and it is getting wider by each passing day. In essence, there is a struggle between Marxism and capitalism in this country. I hope capitalism wins the battle in the end, but I can see my side is in for the fight of its life.

    Eagar, of course, had no Occupy protests. But when I was in Eugene I saw a lot of them in the downtown area. One thing I noticed is the very biased way the government and the media treats them. They violate city ordinances and various laws blatantly and routinely get away with it. The media looks the other way. But if a Tea Party protest did the same thing, they would all be rounded up and thrown in prison. So much for equal treatment under the law. So much for an unbiased media.

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011...lies-at-plaza/


    The Tea Party vs. Occupy Wall Street

    By Edwin J. Feulner (Archive) · Friday, November 4, 2011

    Editor's note: This column was co-authored by Billie Tucker

    President Obama recently compared the Tea Party to the Occupy Wall Street protests, telling ABC News’ Jake Tapper, “in some ways they’re not that different.” We beg to differ. The Tea Party and the protestors are almost exact opposites.

    The president is in a dilemma. He sympathizes with the protesters because many of their goals are also his. He thus wants to associate the Occupiers with the Tea Party, a movement that has resonated with the American people.

    But there’s the rub. Obama identifies with the Occupiers because, as pollster Doug Schoen put it, they reflect “values that are dangerously out of touch with the broad mass of the American people … and are bound by a deep commitment to radical left-wing policies.”

    That’s not the Tea Party. That’s the opposite.

    Unlike the Occupiers, the Tea Party has a unifying set of principles. Those are articulated clearly in America’s founding document, the Constitution. It lays out a system for limited government, delegating specific powers to elected leaders and prohibiting them from exercising responsibilities beyond these enumerated powers.

    The Tea Party’s heroes are therefore the Founding Fathers. The Tea Party is all about the small-government, personal responsibility and conservative philosophies espoused by Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, Russell Kirk and Milton Friedman.

    The Tea Party is not an anarchist, anti-government group. We agree with Barry Goldwater that “the legitimate functions of government are actually conducive to freedom. Maintaining internal order, keeping foreign foes at bay, administering justice, removing obstacles to the free interchange of goods-the exercise of these powers makes it possible for men to follow their chosen pursuits with maximum freedom.”

    The Tea Party reveres the values of this country: respect for the law and private property, freedom of expression, assembly and religion, self-government, self-sufficiency, hard work, and the belief that the family -- not the federal government -- is the major institution in society. We know America’s success stems directly from these values. It’s what sets America apart from all others.

    The vast majority of Occupiers we’ve heard would deviate America from its historic course. Their hero, judging by their tee-shirts, seems to be more Che Guevara, a psychopathic killer, than Madison, Jefferson and Franklin.

    Let’s analyze how the protesters’ demands would make our country less free and more dependent on an ever-growing government.

    Heading their “99 percent declaration” is the demand for a ban on political contributions by individuals and political speech by associations and groups, including companies and unions.

    Such a change would leave us less free and show a woeful contempt for the First Amendment. As the Supreme Court rightly found in the Citizens United case, this is about the right to engage in free speech, particularly political speech, and the right to freely associate. The Court rejected the idea that the government can decide who gets to speak, and ban some from speaking at all, particularly those speak through associations of members who share their beliefs. This is about one of the fundamental freedoms in the Bill of Rights.

    The Occupiers decry bailouts, but they seem to reject them only for companies and industries they don’t like. Their grab-bag of special interests looks like Mr. Obama’s, including a special exemption for any corporation that claims to be “green.” Meanwhile they want to give authoritarian powers to the Environmental Protection Agency “to shut down corporations, businesses or any entities that intentionally or recklessly damage the environment.”

    The list of baddies is long, and recognizable: the pharmaceutical industry, “corporations engaged in perpetual war for profit,” the “fossil fuel industry.” Sound familiar?

    The Tea Party represents (and respects) America. The Occupiers may be well intended, but their demands would be very different from what the Founding Fathers gave us and would dramatically change America.

    Any comparisons between the Tea Party, which desires to liberate “We the People” from big government, and the Wall Street Occupiers, who want more government regulation, is either misguided or made to intentionally confuse Americans.
    Last edited by 999969999; 11-23-2011 at 09:45 PM.
    Who can take your money and give it to someone else? The Government Can! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO2eh...layer_embedded

  8. The Drawing Room   -   #8
    mjmacky's Avatar an alchemist?
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    day book
    Posts
    10,855
    Quote Originally Posted by 999969999 View Post
    I am not surprised that Cornell West is one of your heroes. He is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. He has Marxist ideas, which you love.
    Hyperbolic reflection, coming from a pit of utterly reasonable prudent though processes (surely). To correct you in spite of my sarcasm, he's just one cool motherfucker.
    Everything is brought to you by Fjohürs Lykkewe.

  9. The Drawing Room   -   #9
    megabyteme's Avatar RASPBERRY RIPPLE BT Rep: +19BT Rep +19BT Rep +19BT Rep +19
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Using Mrs. Nussbaum's CC#
    Posts
    17,380
    I haven't wasted my time reading 9's C&Ps, but when it comes to the issue of capitalism, I find myself more upset with the vast corruptions in the balance of power/representation than I am over someone's ability to make a few $s.

    We are talking about a handful who control everything, and the rest of us who are supposed to believe that the game is fair "if you work hard". Fewer of us are believing it these days.
    Quote Originally Posted by IdolEyes787 View Post
    Ghey lumberjacks, wolverines, blackflies in the summer, polar bears in the winter, that's basically Canada in a nutshell.

  10. The Drawing Room   -   #10
    Quote Originally Posted by megabyteme View Post
    I haven't wasted my time reading 9's C&Ps, but when it comes to the issue of capitalism, I find myself more upset with the vast corruptions in the balance of power/representation than I am over someone's ability to make a few $s.

    We are talking about a handful who control everything, and the rest of us who are supposed to believe that the game is fair "if you work hard". Fewer of us are believing it these days.
    The handful who are supposed to represent us aren't under the control of those who have the resources though, they chose to behave as they do out of that most basic of human instincts, self interest. They look after the rich because doing so makes them wealthy. So blaming those who have the resources is pointless, it's really the fault of the self serving people we chose to represent us.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •