Caption this Protest WallStreet Photo!

[Intense]

Yes, actually, it did. You implied that our economy is currently an unregulated "corporatacracy."

no, that's what you wanted it to mean. in fact, it had nothing to do with regulations at all except to say that I'd favor a midly regulated Capitalist Economy.

I think his point was that 165K pages of regulations (not including regulations in other categories of regs) is already beyond mildly regulated.

I agree.

There is no substitute for a fair playing field.

 

[G.T.]

you mean like the loan obama made to solyndra and the auto union bail outs?

yea, they're good examples. They're not the only examples.

what are some other examples?

t-a-x- loopholes

 

[Full-Auto]

Yes, actually, it did. You implied that our economy is currently an unregulated "corporatacracy."

no, that's what you wanted it to mean. in fact, it had nothing to do with regulations at all except to say that I'd favor a midly regulated Capitalist Economy.

I think his point was that 165K pages of regulations (not including regulations in other categories of regs) is already beyond mildly regulated.

I agree.

Regulations are just an excuse to charge consumers more.

The president said so!!

 

[G.T.]

Yes, actually, it did. You implied that our economy is currently an unregulated "corporatacracy."

no, that's what you wanted it to mean. in fact, it had nothing to do with regulations at all except to say that I'd favor a midly regulated Capitalist Economy.

So it had nothing to do with regulation even though you used the word "regulated" to answer the question?

Do you ever read the crap you post?

@ YOU MISSING THE WORD "EXCEPT" IN THE POST, DICKHEAD

 

[Si modo]

No, I oppose backroom deals to get the purchase to go to the highest "donator," wink wink.

Then you have little understanding of government contracts.

i know that they're supposed to go to the lowest bidder and that's a quite-often fudged rule.
....

Somewhat true. Actually, it is much more complicated than that with checks, balances, and rules along several stop points.

.... I know that Legislation / subsidies passed which directly benefit certain campaign donors is a huge conflict of interest.

It is, and the process prevents that (the majority of the time) often to the detriment of actually getting the best product/service at the lowest cost.

 

[G.T.]

Yes, actually, it did. You implied that our economy is currently an unregulated "corporatacracy."

no, that's what you wanted it to mean. in fact, it had nothing to do with regulations at all except to say that I'd favor a midly regulated Capitalist Economy.

I think his point was that 165K pages of regulations (not including regulations in other categories of regs) is already beyond mildly regulated.

I agree.

And many times, Regulations directly FAVOR big Corporations that are in bed with our Government. It's quite sad, really.

 

[Sallow]

Ah, so you also oppose the government purchasing goods and services from the private sector?

That was the question.

The question was "How is money funneled upward"?

But here's a good question. Do you support tax payer funded technology being "given" to the private sector to benefit a few people?

I oppose taxpayer funded technology, period.

Furthermore, the private sector benefits everyone.

You'll have to explain how you can be opposed to "funneling money upward" without being opposed to government purchasing goods and services from the private sector since you just got done saying that they are one and the same.

It's pretty simple. No corporation should have a ratio that shares profit among it's executives to employees that looks something like 475:1. It's bizzare, it's outlandish, it's crazy and it bodes badly for a capitalistic system. Wealth disparity is one of the greatest challenges facing this country..because you cannot hope to keep capitalism with a system that squashes competition.

 

[Sallow]

no, that's what you wanted it to mean. in fact, it had nothing to do with regulations at all except to say that I'd favor a midly regulated Capitalist Economy.

I think his point was that 165K pages of regulations (not including regulations in other categories of regs) is already beyond mildly regulated.

I agree.

There is no substitute for a fair playing field.

EXACTLY!

 

[Intense]

That was the question.

The question was "How is money funneled upward"?

But here's a good question. Do you support tax payer funded technology being "given" to the private sector to benefit a few people?

I oppose taxpayer funded technology, period.

Furthermore, the private sector benefits everyone.

You'll have to explain how you can be opposed to "funneling money upward" without being opposed to government purchasing goods and services from the private sector since you just got done saying that they are one and the same.

It's pretty simple. No corporation should have a ratio that shares profit among it's executives to employees that looks something like 475:1. It's bizzare, it's outlandish, it's crazy and it bodes badly for a capitalistic system. Wealth disparity is one of the greatest challenges facing this country..because you cannot hope to keep capitalism with a system that squashes competition.

That gap to me represents the divide between Rich and Poor, not Right and Left. While we are hanging at Wendy's, they may be hitting the back 9 holes at some Exclusive Club, we aren't allowed near. Just saying.

 

[healthmyths]

ah... you wrote" When a Government corrupted by $$ funnels money upward, it is not "earned," dipshit."
Would you consider "corruption of Federal taxes???
* $2.6 million training Chinese prostitutes to drink more responsibly on the job
* The (NIH) spent nearly $442,340 to study male prostitutes in Vietnam
and their social setting.
* A university study of how much alcohol college freshmen women require
before agreeing to sex!
* $700,000 federal grant to examine "greenhouse gas emission from
organic dairies, caused by cow burps.
* The National Science Foundation spent $250k to Stanford to study
how Americans use the Internet to find love.
* (ATF) spent over $20,000 in taxpayer money "to unravel the
anonymity of a 2,500-year-old mummy."

 

[Si modo]

no, that's what you wanted it to mean. in fact, it had nothing to do with regulations at all except to say that I'd favor a midly regulated Capitalist Economy.

I think his point was that 165K pages of regulations (not including regulations in other categories of regs) is already beyond mildly regulated.

I agree.

And many times, Regulations directly FAVOR big Corporations that are in bed with our Government. It's quite sad, really.

While I agree that used to be quite common for big corporations and there were many scandals associated with that, that is not all that common any longer. More often than not someone like Raytheon, for example, will be the best candidate for a contract in cost and product/service, but they can't even get out of the competitive gate because they are DQed from the start. Now, the problem lies in the 8A and set-asides. This allows politicians to invest in start-ups who are favored for contracts but haven't the ability to produce.

It's disgusting to see that the regulations put in place to stop corruption that has already been dealt with for the most part now create a whole new class of rip-offs to The People.

So, in part, I agree with the OWS, but they are misdirecting their anger.

That is what regulations usually do. Newton's Law applies - for each action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Level the playing field by stopping regulating as much as can be done.

 

[G.T.]

I think his point was that 165K pages of regulations (not including regulations in other categories of regs) is already beyond mildly regulated.

I agree.

And many times, Regulations directly FAVOR big Corporations that are in bed with our Government. It's quite sad, really.

While I agree that used to be quite common for big corporations and there were many scandals associated with that, that is not all that common any longer. More often than not someone like Raytheon, for example, will be the best candidate for a contract in cost and product/service, but they can't even get out of the competitive gate because they are DQed from the start. Now, the problem lies in the 8A and set-asides. This allows politicians to invest in start-ups who are favored for contracts but haven't the ability to produce.

It's disgusting to see that the regulations put in place to stop corruption that has already been dealt with for the most part now create a whole new class of rip-offs to The People.

So, in part, I agree with the OWS, but they are misdirecting their anger.

I don't think so. A person accepting a bribe and the person offering it are equally as abhorrent, to me.

If we simply get money the hell out of our electoral process we'd be a lot better off. Maybe Legislators would be more pragmatic and less about their own personal pockets.

We should have the best leaders possible leading our Country. When they can't raise Campaign money to compete, we get less than that.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

My Caption? TYPICAL LIMOSINE LIBERAL HYPOCRITES!

Great example of why I always have a string of laughing smilies at the bottom of my posts. Because you can't help laughing at this rank stupidity. Yet, liberals always think they are the smartest people in the room. Seriously?

If your comparison (re: intelligence) is to Teabaggers....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMjC9mq5Y]9.12 DC TEA PARTY - MARCH FOOTAGE WITH INTERVIEWS - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fevga9jUC48]9.12 DC TEA PARTY - INTERVIEW B-ROLL - YouTube[/ame]

.....Hell, anyone (else) in the room sounds like the smartest-person!!!!!

​

 

[Si modo]

And many times, Regulations directly FAVOR big Corporations that are in bed with our Government. It's quite sad, really.

While I agree that used to be quite common for big corporations and there were many scandals associated with that, that is not all that common any longer. More often than not someone like Raytheon, for example, will be the best candidate for a contract in cost and product/service, but they can't even get out of the competitive gate because they are DQed from the start. Now, the problem lies in the 8A and set-asides. This allows politicians to invest in start-ups who are favored for contracts but haven't the ability to produce.

It's disgusting to see that the regulations put in place to stop corruption that has already been dealt with for the most part now create a whole new class of rip-offs to The People.

So, in part, I agree with the OWS, but they are misdirecting their anger.

I don't think so. A person accepting a bribe and the person offering it are equally as abhorrent, to me.

....

I'm just letting you know how it currently is - just the tip of the iceberg.

.... If we simply get money the hell out of our electoral process we'd be a lot better off. Maybe Legislators would be more pragmatic and less about their own personal pockets.

We should have the best leaders possible leading our Country. When they can't raise Campaign money to compete, we get less than that.

I think many of us agree on this. The difference lies in how we reach that end - thorough analysis of the ramifications of actions to that end is a always good idea.

 

[AmericanFirst]

My Caption? TYPICAL LIMOSINE LIBERAL HYPOCRITES!

Great example of why I always have a string of laughing smilies at the bottom of my posts. Because you can't help laughing at this rank stupidity. Yet, liberals always think they are the smartest people in the room. Seriously? I think it's drugs that causes this total obliviousness to reality.

Most lefties are smarter than most righties...this board is evidence of that...

Lefties are the stupid of the stupid.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

My Caption? TYPICAL LIMOSINE LIBERAL HYPOCRITES!

Great example of why I always have a string of laughing smilies at the bottom of my posts. Because you can't help laughing at this rank stupidity. Yet, liberals always think they are the smartest people in the room. Seriously? I think it's drugs that causes this total obliviousness to reality.

Most lefties are smarter than most righties...this board is evidence of that...

And your post is not....

 

[paulitician]

A great question was asked by a USMB poster the other day. He asked,what do the Socialists/Progressives plan on replacing Capitalism with? I still haven't heard a logical or coherent answer from a Socialist/Progressive on this board. They say they have all the answers so i'm open to listening to their plans and solutions. Hating and complaining are not solutions though. Lets hear what their replacement for Capitalism will be.

 

[konradv]

A great question was asked by a USMB poster the other day. He asked,what do the Socialists/Progressives plan on replacing Capitalism with? I still haven't heard a logical or coherent answer from a Socialist/Progressive on this board. They say they have all the answers so i'm open to listening to their plans and solutions. Hating and complaining are not solutions though. Lets hear what their replacement for Capitalism will be.

Who said there would be one? You're setting up a "strawman". I could just as easily ask you why the right is so enamored of the fascist economic model?

 

[Si modo]

A great question was asked by a USMB poster the other day. He asked,what do the Socialists/Progressives plan on replacing Capitalism with? I still haven't heard a logical or coherent answer from a Socialist/Progressive on this board. They say they have all the answers so i'm open to listening to their plans and solutions. Hating and complaining are not solutions though. Lets hear what their replacement for Capitalism will be.

Who said there would be one? You're setting up a "strawman". I could just as easily ask you why the right is so enamored of the fascist economic model?

So how does no economic system work?

 

[Cuyo]

When a Government corrupted by $$ funnels money upward, it is not "earned," dipshit.

HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! EXACTLY. You just hit the nail on the head.

ROFL! Funnel money upward? To who? I'll tell you who! To Unions, like the Unions at GM. To GE who basically has a sweatheart deal with Obama. To the Banks, ditto!

Yet, I don't see you libs protesting that! Oh NO!

You protest the companies that Obama's policies have been seeking to put out of business like the oil companies, the coal (that Ohio needs to run on), and on and on.

So, why aren't they protesting the government? Why aren't they right now at the White House protesting Obama and his sweartheart deals with the unions and GE, or the Banks?
Why instead are they protesting everyone else who is just trying to stay in business under this current administration?

I'll tell you why. Because this is all Obama has left.

To try and incite his kook fringe base, because he has lost everyone else.

This isn't a protest. It's a campaign strategy. Too bad these DUMB KIDS haven't figured out they are being played like a violin.

Exactly! What I highlighted is exactly why these guys aren't the 99%, if they directed their angst at the right people (IE The legislature who passed the laws and the executive branch that asked for them) then you would find the teapartiers standing right along side them.

Oops... Replied to wrong post, disregard this post please..