The Only Thing About OWS I Find Even Vaguely Understandable

People overall, don't want a handout. They want an opportunity.

I think there's a real disconnect among conservatives related to that understanding. There is not enough gainful employment available. Outsourcing, scientific management and automation (or as Republicans call it, 'High worker productivity') have lowered the meaningful jobs available per capita, which has driven down wages for the jobs that do exist.

Some of these protesters understand that; Some don't, but know something is 'off;' and perhaps yes a minority are looking for a handout - This is true of any groundswell.

But I do wish you and yours would acknowledge the mathematics about this, and not just what you perceive as the ideology.

Ideology: 'It's capitalism, there's winners and losers, tough shit.'
Reality: Mathematically, there's going to be a lot more losers than there used to be. The longer this continues and the more severe it becomes, the less stable we will be as a society.

People want opportunity not a handout? While I agree with you that most Americans DO just want an opportunity I don't agree with you that the OWS activists feel that way. They believe that the rich "owe" them a living wage whether they are employed or not and the pardoning of all debt.

How can you call calling for those things a plea for "opportunity"? That's leaching off of the part of society that creates wealth by those who don't even try. You talk about winners and losers? I look at the protesters in New York City and I see people who revel in BEING losers. They don't want opportunity...they DEMAND handouts. That isn't my ideology talking...I'm just calling it like I see it.

Seek and ye shall find. I can accept that your preferred information sources have chosen to focus on the bad apples.


It's also true imo the lack of opportunity when so few have so, soooo much, can both confuse and infuriate those who were sold the American dream only to find out they haven't been selected to participate in it.

Even those you perceive as only wanting a handout probably wouldn't be protesting if they could find a job. Like I said... Confused and infuriated.

If something doesn't change, this sort of thing will continue and perpetuate. I wish the right would acknowledge that, even if they're unwilling to concede any of the rabble's observations. If you're unable to do so for reasons of fairness or empathy, acknowledge and address it for the reasons of maintaining discipline.

Eventually, we as a people will have no choice but to address it - That's just the way a society works. And the problems are probably far easier to fix now than they will be if you let it get to that point...

First of all you aren't "selected" to participate in the American dream. That dream has always been there for those who want it bad enough. Unlike many other places on this earth, America has always rewarded hard work and ingenuity. You "can" be a Steven Jobs, start a company up in your mom's garage and turn it into one of the largest corporations in the world. Unfortunately it's becoming harder and harder to make something like that happen because the private sector is being choked to death with government regulations and overbearing taxation.

As for why those kids don't have jobs? First of all NOBODY has gotten jobs the last two years because this Administrations policies have been jobs killers. Blaming a lack of jobs on banks and corporations just shows how truly ignorant these activists are. You're right about the "confused and infuriated" thing however, but you overlook the root cause of both. These poor kids are confused why their Poly Sci and English degrees aren't getting them a six figure job with paid health care and six weeks off a year...and their poor parents are infuriated that they had to go a hundred thousand in debt to pay for their kids to be brainwashed by far left professors into thinking society OWED them a living.

I love how you guys keep trying to bring "fair" into the discussion. In case you hadn't been filled in on the concept as a youngster (and shame on your parents for not doing so) life is seldom "fair" in the sense you progressives seems to feel it should be. You see, it isn't "fair" that I grew up on a farm and had to work hard every day while one of my friends grew up the adopted son of a big plastics corporation CEO and never had to work. According to people like you, Cuyo...that kid "owes" me something because he had a better set of circumstances than I did. It's a wonderful theory but it's total bullshit. One has to only look at human history to see quite clearly that you can't legislate your kind of "fair" because it goes against human nature. Having that wealthy neighbor made me want to go to college and get a good job so I could have some of the things I saw them with. I never had the feeling that someone should come in to seize their wealth and give it to me. That thought never crossed my mind. What progressives never seem to understand is that most wealthy people are not only THRILLED when someone else makes good but will actually go out of their way to mentor those they observe trying to make that happen. I know this goes counter to all of your progressive beliefs but rich people don't hate poor people and want to keep them poor.
 
****

When people send you private messages I think it is only fair they allow a reply. Not being able to thank your interlocutor privately for their insightful criticism is the reason for this comment. Is freedom only one way? Seems for some it is.


California Girl said:
Hi, you have received -974 reputation points from California Girl.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
Twit.

Regards,
California Girl

Note: This is an automated message.

Cali Girl,

Thanks, I always appreciate it when my posts are read and thought through, you confirm my efforts with your notice.

By the way I am still waiting for some links to your original writing? What gives.

your friend and mentor, mc5
 
****

When people send you private messages I think it is only fair they allow a reply. Not being able to thank your interlocutor privately for their insightful criticism is the reason for this comment. Is freedom only one way? Seems for some it is.


California Girl said:
Hi, you have received -974 reputation points from California Girl.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
Twit.

Regards,
California Girl

Note: This is an automated message.

Cali Girl,

Thanks, I always appreciate it when my posts are read and thought through, you confirm my efforts with your notice.

By the way I am still waiting for some links to your original writing? What gives.

your friend and mentor, mc5
"Note: This is an automated message." <-- That's an indication that California Girl sent you no private message.

:eusa_whistle:
 
Okay, these folks have me convinced that they're mostly just a bunch of whackjobs. Here's the blurb from Wiki:

The participants of the events are mainly protesting against social and economic inequality, corporate greed, and the influence of corporate money and lobbyists on government, among other concerns.[10][11] Adbusters states that, "Beginning from one simple demand – a presidential commission to separate money from politics – we start setting the agenda for a new America."

So what are they gonna do? Pass laws that people can't get TOO rich? Will we have statutes against emotions / character flaws?
"The citizens shall not be jealous, sentimental or greedy..." WTF?

The only thing I can understand is the concern about corporate influence and lobbyists. Hell, I can even agree that's bad for our government.

I wonder. Will it also apply to unions?

They don't know anything...

All they know is that that they want to live the 60's and that's what they're doing...

They have no message and most of the idiots are just hanging er camping out and are being educated with Marxist ideas while they have a "strict" daily routine that consists of doing yoga, eating and protesting....

Its really just one big party - but you can shit anywhere you want...
 
Okay, these folks have me convinced that they're mostly just a bunch of whackjobs. Here's the blurb from Wiki:

The participants of the events are mainly protesting against social and economic inequality, corporate greed, and the influence of corporate money and lobbyists on government, among other concerns.[10][11] Adbusters states that, "Beginning from one simple demand &#8211; a presidential commission to separate money from politics &#8211; we start setting the agenda for a new America."

So what are they gonna do? Pass laws that people can't get TOO rich? Will we have statutes against emotions / character flaws?
"The citizens shall not be jealous, sentimental or greedy..." WTF?

The only thing I can understand is the concern about corporate influence and lobbyists. Hell, I can even agree that's bad for our government.

I wonder. Will it also apply to unions?

Pass a law putting a ceiling on how much wealth greedy Americans can amass? Not likely. This is the US of A, where money has more value than ideals, morals, principles and sometimes even life

What should become law, however, is making the wholesale outsourcing of American jobs a criminal offense. That might slow down America's gluttonous appetite for attaining more and more wealth a tiny bit. The upside, some Americans would go back to work. As for diminishing Daddy Warbucks treasure chest, well since America doesn't work for $5.00 a day perhaps it could..

But even that might be too late to stop the damage already done to us by us. Nothing is built or manufactured here anymore. Our once prosperous steel mills and foundries are silent and cold. While in pursuit of the almighty dollar, which isn't worth $.50, we let everything that once made us the most envied nation slip away.

It has never been Government's function to create private sector jobs or keep the nation employed. The only jobs government generates are government jobs and there are more than enough of those already. And even if corporate America were to have a sudden epiphany causing them to give a fat rat's ass about about the situation, would they be able to effectively find new needs. Jobs fill a need. Where no need exists there is no need for a job.

And finally, IMHO, there is something off-kilter, sinister and decidedly unhealthy about anyone who can't ever get enough money. What floors me is that these a**holes insatiable greed is defended as if it defined who we are. Perhaps it is. If so, God help us. But I'm not sure He can do anything or for that matter would.

America has been founded on the principle that if you work hard, are dedicated, can manage money, you can succeed and in your effort you will be rewarded. It's a free market principle, it is also why we have been the most successful nation in world history.

Why would I want to go get a Doctorate degree spend all that time and money to make the same wage as the local garbage collector. Answer- I wouldn't and neither would you.

The people I have seen carrying on this ridiculous protest I would not hire for $5 a day, they aren't worth it. They are the non-productive element in our society that are parasites that live off of the hard work of others, mainly their parents, and expect and demand more and more for doing absolutely NOTHING.

The constitution guaranteed an equal opportunity it DID NOT guarantee an equal outcome. The outcome depends entirely upon you, no one else.

" Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, the gospel of envy, it's only virtue is the shared equality of misery." Winston Churchill.
 
Last edited:
Okay, these folks have me convinced that they're mostly just a bunch of whackjobs. Here's the blurb from Wiki:

The participants of the events are mainly protesting against social and economic inequality, corporate greed, and the influence of corporate money and lobbyists on government, among other concerns.[10][11] Adbusters states that, "Beginning from one simple demand – a presidential commission to separate money from politics – we start setting the agenda for a new America."

So what are they gonna do? Pass laws that people can't get TOO rich? Will we have statutes against emotions / character flaws?
"The citizens shall not be jealous, sentimental or greedy..." WTF?

The only thing I can understand is the concern about corporate influence and lobbyists. Hell, I can even agree that's bad for our government.

I wonder. Will it also apply to unions?

They don't know anything...

All they know is that that they want to live the 60's and that's what they're doing...

They have no message and most of the idiots are just hanging er camping out and are being educated with Marxist ideas while they have a "strict" daily routine that consists of doing yoga, eating and protesting....

Its really just one big party - but you can shit anywhere you want...

You got that right, I think they should all go to Haiti and find out what life would be like should there not be a Wall Street that invests in those corporate made cell phones, I pads, clothing and food that those evil corporations make. I think they would have a new appreciation for Wall Street and those evil corporations on about the first day there when they didn't have any of those things. I say lets create a fund to send them there.:lol::lol: Maybe a nice raft would do.:lol::lol:
 
People want opportunity not a handout? While I agree with you that most Americans DO just want an opportunity I don't agree with you that the OWS activists feel that way. They believe that the rich "owe" them a living wage whether they are employed or not and the pardoning of all debt.

How can you call calling for those things a plea for "opportunity"? That's leaching off of the part of society that creates wealth by those who don't even try. You talk about winners and losers? I look at the protesters in New York City and I see people who revel in BEING losers. They don't want opportunity...they DEMAND handouts. That isn't my ideology talking...I'm just calling it like I see it.

Seek and ye shall find. I can accept that your preferred information sources have chosen to focus on the bad apples.


It's also true imo the lack of opportunity when so few have so, soooo much, can both confuse and infuriate those who were sold the American dream only to find out they haven't been selected to participate in it.

Even those you perceive as only wanting a handout probably wouldn't be protesting if they could find a job. Like I said... Confused and infuriated.

If something doesn't change, this sort of thing will continue and perpetuate. I wish the right would acknowledge that, even if they're unwilling to concede any of the rabble's observations. If you're unable to do so for reasons of fairness or empathy, acknowledge and address it for the reasons of maintaining discipline.

Eventually, we as a people will have no choice but to address it - That's just the way a society works. And the problems are probably far easier to fix now than they will be if you let it get to that point...

First of all you aren't "selected" to participate in the American dream. That dream has always been there for those who want it bad enough. Unlike many other places on this earth, America has always rewarded hard work and ingenuity. You "can" be a Steven Jobs, start a company up in your mom's garage and turn it into one of the largest corporations in the world. Unfortunately it's becoming harder and harder to make something like that happen because the private sector is being choked to death with government regulations and overbearing taxation.

As for why those kids don't have jobs? First of all NOBODY has gotten jobs the last two years because this Administrations policies have been jobs killers. Blaming a lack of jobs on banks and corporations just shows how truly ignorant these activists are. You're right about the "confused and infuriated" thing however, but you overlook the root cause of both. These poor kids are confused why their Poly Sci and English degrees aren't getting them a six figure job with paid health care and six weeks off a year...and their poor parents are infuriated that they had to go a hundred thousand in debt to pay for their kids to be brainwashed by far left professors into thinking society OWED them a living.

I love how you guys keep trying to bring "fair" into the discussion. In case you hadn't been filled in on the concept as a youngster (and shame on your parents for not doing so) life is seldom "fair" in the sense you progressives seems to feel it should be. You see, it isn't "fair" that I grew up on a farm and had to work hard every day while one of my friends grew up the adopted son of a big plastics corporation CEO and never had to work. According to people like you, Cuyo...that kid "owes" me something because he had a better set of circumstances than I did. It's a wonderful theory but it's total bullshit. One has to only look at human history to see quite clearly that you can't legislate your kind of "fair" because it goes against human nature. Having that wealthy neighbor made me want to go to college and get a good job so I could have some of the things I saw them with. I never had the feeling that someone should come in to seize their wealth and give it to me. That thought never crossed my mind. What progressives never seem to understand is that most wealthy people are not only THRILLED when someone else makes good but will actually go out of their way to mentor those they observe trying to make that happen. I know this goes counter to all of your progressive beliefs but rich people don't hate poor people and want to keep them poor.

Great post and very true.:clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2: The wealthy that I know always want others to succeed because the ones I know worked hard, took risks, some grew up in poverty, they made it out and they love to help others do the same, but you have to work just as hard as they didl. That's why we are known as the " Land of Opportunity," and that is also why people fight to come here from other countries.
 
Last edited:
Okay, these folks have me convinced that they're mostly just a bunch of whackjobs. Here's the blurb from Wiki:

The participants of the events are mainly protesting against social and economic inequality, corporate greed, and the influence of corporate money and lobbyists on government, among other concerns.[10][11] Adbusters states that, "Beginning from one simple demand – a presidential commission to separate money from politics – we start setting the agenda for a new America."

So what are they gonna do? Pass laws that people can't get TOO rich? Will we have statutes against emotions / character flaws?
"The citizens shall not be jealous, sentimental or greedy..." WTF?

The only thing I can understand is the concern about corporate influence and lobbyists. Hell, I can even agree that's bad for our government.

I wonder. Will it also apply to unions?

Money and politicians?--The people will always get the short end of that stick. BUT--it was Obama who promised he would rid D.C. of lobbyist's and he's surrounded by them.

Just one of a 100 promises that Obama has broken. The OWS--are 3 years too late on this issue--as the Tea Party has been after this one aspect since they started.
 
hehehehe

only in America can left wing nutbars bitch about obesity and poverty in the same breath.

Are you truly that clueless? Tell me, what costs more: the dollar menu at McDonalds or a healthy, home cooked meal with fresh meat and vegetables?

The homecooked meal if items are purchased in bulk and on sale. Added bonus: you can cook more than you need and freeze it for future meals. But admittedly, one would have to get off their drive-thru butt and actually 'do it themselves'.

No need to buy in bulk. Dinner for 6:

Ground Chuck: $3.50
Corn on the Cob: $3.00
Hamburger Buns: $2.50
Gallon of Milk: $3.00

Total: $12.00 or $2 per person. Plus we'll have enough milk for breakfast tomorrow.
 
hehehehe

only in America can left wing nutbars bitch about obesity and poverty in the same breath.

Are you truly that clueless? Tell me, what costs more: the dollar menu at McDonalds or a healthy, home cooked meal with fresh meat and vegetables?

The dollar menu at McDonald's. Where do you shop?
Maybe she figures that time spent cooking for 30 minutes is too cost prohibitive in her busy schedule as a mother.

But, whateryagonnado? :dunno:
 
So what are they gonna do? Pass laws that people can't get TOO rich?

Well, it has been done before and when it was done, it was followed by the longest period of growth for the Middle Class in U.S. History. FDR put a maximum wage into place in 1942 and it stayed there in some form or another until the 80s.

Remember the 80s? It wasn't all about parachute pants and Madonna...there was also "Trickle Down". I remember both. Parachute pants worked out much better.


The only thing I can understand is the concern about corporate influence and lobbyists. Hell, I can even agree that's bad for our government.

I wonder. Will it also apply to unions?

Yes, it will. Unlike so-called conservatives, that only seem to want to get Union money out of politics, liberals want to get ALL the money out.

If I could write the amendment, I would allow individual donations only in the Primary and those would be capped at $100 and would be 100% transparent. General Elections would be publicly funded and all debates broadcast on public television, not on corporate television.

Also in my perfect political world, no campaign commercials could hide behind names like "Americans for freedom and other empty platitudes". 100% transparency there as well. I want to know whether it is Soros or the Kochs and all their little Koch suckers supporting this candidate or issue.

If anyone wants to buy off a politician, they are going to have to do it illegally and under the table...where they can get caught and put in jail...not on the House floor.

LiveLeak.com - Boehner Hands Out Lobbyist Checks on House floor for subsidy vote

So wait. You're saying there was a law providing a ceiling on how much someone could make until the 80's? Gotta link? I find that hard to believe.

Yes. It was called the tax code.
 
As a seasoned bulk shopper I can say.

Getting started is the hardest, especially if you have little income. It takes months to build up supplies. It is not easily started by those desperate for simple necessities. In some cases the cheaper way to go would be the double cheeseburger. You dont pay for storage or preparation.

I'm also a seasoned bulk shopper . . . always have been. And? Who said anything about easy? It's easier for me to order a pizza rather than shop, prepare, cook meals every night.

No, the cheaper way is to buy in bulk and put the time in in preparation; the easier way is to go drive-thru.

Add up how much it costs per lb. of meat at McD's vs. buying in bulk/home prep. Home cooked is cheaper.

You do not understand poverty.

when you have ten bucks to feed the family dinner and no other money you can not bulk shop

If someone chooses convenience food for $10 their problem is not money. Their problem is bad choices. Fresh chicken legs are $1.43 per pound here. No need to bargain shop or buy in bulk. Fresh green beans are $1.29 per pound. Milk is $3.00 per gallon. Bread is $2 per loaf.

3 pounds of chicken, a pound of beans, a half gallon of milk, and a loaf of bread will feed a family of 6 for under $10.
 
Well, it has been done before and when it was done, it was followed by the longest period of growth for the Middle Class in U.S. History. FDR put a maximum wage into place in 1942 and it stayed there in some form or another until the 80s.

Remember the 80s? It wasn't all about parachute pants and Madonna...there was also "Trickle Down". I remember both. Parachute pants worked out much better.




Yes, it will. Unlike so-called conservatives, that only seem to want to get Union money out of politics, liberals want to get ALL the money out.

If I could write the amendment, I would allow individual donations only in the Primary and those would be capped at $100 and would be 100% transparent. General Elections would be publicly funded and all debates broadcast on public television, not on corporate television.

Also in my perfect political world, no campaign commercials could hide behind names like "Americans for freedom and other empty platitudes". 100% transparency there as well. I want to know whether it is Soros or the Kochs and all their little Koch suckers supporting this candidate or issue.

If anyone wants to buy off a politician, they are going to have to do it illegally and under the table...where they can get caught and put in jail...not on the House floor.

LiveLeak.com - Boehner Hands Out Lobbyist Checks on House floor for subsidy vote

So wait. You're saying there was a law providing a ceiling on how much someone could make until the 80's? Gotta link? I find that hard to believe.

Yes. It was called the tax code.
:lmao:

Nice backpeddle, in a funny sense of the ridiculously lame.
 
What's being referred to by a "ceiling" on wealth is a confiscatory top marginal tax bracket. Under Eisenhower it was a 91% tax on income above (in today's dollars) $1.6 million.

With the ability to use countless loopholes and deductions that no longer exist. There was no Alternative Minimum Tax. It was possible to use losses from one company to reduce income derived from another. Offshore tax havens were legal.
 
Are you truly that clueless? Tell me, what costs more: the dollar menu at McDonalds or a healthy, home cooked meal with fresh meat and vegetables?

The homecooked meal if items are purchased in bulk and on sale. Added bonus: you can cook more than you need and freeze it for future meals. But admittedly, one would have to get off their drive-thru butt and actually 'do it themselves'.

No need to buy in bulk. Dinner for 6:

Ground Chuck: $3.50
Corn on the Cob: $3.00
Hamburger Buns: $2.50
Gallon of Milk: $3.00

Total: $12.00 or $2 per person. Plus we'll have enough milk for breakfast tomorrow.

No need to but . . . if you purchase the product when it is at it's lowest price (and utilize coupons at this time), buy the family pack size rather than the smaller size, buy a few more than what you will need/use/eat in a week and freeze it/store it, you will then have the product when you need it at a lower cost. Do this on a consistent basis and you will never pay full price for items again.

As an example . . . Eight O'Clock coffee here is $5.99/12 oz bag. I gather coupons (usually $2 off of two bags coupon) and wait until the coffee goes on a BOGO sale then purchase enough to last us four months, which is how often they put this coffee on a BOGO sale.

Full price for 16 bags: $95.84
BOGO sale plus coupons price: $31.92 (BOGO price = $47.92 minus another $16 in coupons)
Savings: $63.92 or 67% or $1.99/bag vs. $5.99 bag!

Either way I'm going to be spending money on coffee; shopping sales/coupons/bulk saves money. The bulk doesn't have to be massive, just enough to last until the next time the product goes on sale.

You can shop the sales week to week but if you purchase a bit in bulk it will last longer and save you time/money in the long run. The more you do it the easier it becomes.
 
Last edited:
The first time the U.S. implemented a maximum wage was in 1942, when President Roosevelt said that “no American citizen ought to have an income, after he has paid his taxes, of more than $25,000 a year,” the equivalent of $315,000 today.

Some version of a maximum wage law was in effect until 1980. Before 1964, income over $400,000 in today’s dollars faced a 91 percent federal tax rate, and the top-bracket tax rate never dipped below 70%. Under Reagan, the top tax rate slid down to 28 percent.

Maximum Wage Law Passes Congress

So, if taxing income in excess of (at the time) $25,000 at 91% isn't a maximum wage, what is it?
 
The first time the U.S. implemented a maximum wage was in 1942, when President Roosevelt said that “no American citizen ought to have an income, after he has paid his taxes, of more than $25,000 a year,” the equivalent of $315,000 today.

Some version of a maximum wage law was in effect until 1980. Before 1964, income over $400,000 in today’s dollars faced a 91 percent federal tax rate, and the top-bracket tax rate never dipped below 70%. Under Reagan, the top tax rate slid down to 28 percent.

Maximum Wage Law Passes Congress

So, if taxing income in excess of (at the time) $25,000 at 91% isn't a maximum wage, what is it?

It's a way to encourage hiding income, evasion, and other tricks.
You fail.
Again.
 

Forum List

Back
Top