Occupy Wall Street: The Movement Grows
- Thread starter Twalbert
- Start date
The Gadfly
Senior Member
- Feb 7, 2011
- 2,190
- 614
- 48
Oh, this crowd consider themselves far too good for the military; why, they might have to get some dirt and calluses on those soft, manicured, little, entitled hands; good grief, they might even get hurt! We can't have THAT- they are, after all, "INTELLECTUALS", don't you know, and far superior to me and you; therefore they should have what others worked for, simply given to them! I wouldn't worry too much; the vast majority of them will yell and screech, and throw rocks and feces like bored monkeys at the zoo, but few if any of them have the guts to pick up a rifle and use it,(as if most of them knew which end the round comes out of)! Much sound and fury, signifying NOTHING but the desperate lunacy of their far-Left masters and puppeteers who have orchestrated this stinking, wretched little "movement" of crybabies and losers. For all the bluster, even a little pepper spray makes them cry "police brutality" like the whining little children they are. My, what great, brave "warriors" they are! Some revolutionaries; this filthy rabble of sandy vaginas, like their hippie progenitors, couldn't start a real revolution in the lowliest, two-bit banana republic. Nothing but arrogant, pompous, treasonous, little windbags and whiners, but they are going to "fight" us "knuckle-draggers"-I am just shaking in my jump boots, in anticipation of their "terrible swift sword"!
The Gadfly
Senior Member
- Feb 7, 2011
- 2,190
- 614
- 48
You and they, Georgie, can wish in one hand, defecate in the other, and see which fills up first.
georgephillip
Diamond Member
"Sir Ronald Storrs, the first Governor of Jerusalem, certainly had no illusions about what a 'Jewish homeland' in Palestine meant for the British Empire: 'It will form for England,' he said, 'a little loyal Jewish Ulster in a sea of potentially hostile Arabism.'”
Divide and Conquer as Imperial Rules | FPIF
Are you still stealing your neighbors' land and water and killing their children for the benefit of the 1%?
Harvard approves.
Samson
Póg Mo Thóin
From your source:
Clearly their is a political incentive for connecting Republicans to the "superrich."
However EVERYONE's income has increased since 1979:
Furthermore, for the 28 year time period 1979-2007, Democrats, not Republicans, controlled congress the majority of the time, and usually by a much greater majority than Republicans ever were in control.
From a Year ago.
According to a Roll Call analysis of Senate financial disclosure forms filed in 2010, more than half of the chamber’s membership, 54 lawmakers, reported a minimum net worth of more than $1 million. Another four Senators fell short of that mark by less than $100,000.
In addition, more than half of the Senate’s membership saw their individual fortunes grow in 2009, the period covered by their most recent disclosure reports.
Those increases are reflected in the chamber’s combined minimum wealth, which increased to about $680 million in 2009, or more than 4 percent higher than the previous year.
That pattern is consistent with studies showing a rebound in the U.S. millionaire population over the past year. Reported the Wall Street Journal in Sept.:
According to a new survey from Phoenix Marketing International’s Affluent Market Practice, the number of American households with investible assets of $1 million or more rose 8% in the 12 months ended in June. The survey says there now are 5.55 million U.S. households with investible assets of $1 million or more.
That follows two years of declines and brings the millionaire count back to 2006 levels. Of course, that is still below the peak of 5.97 million in 2007 and the current growth rate is well below pre-financial crisis levels, when the millionaire population increased as much as 35% a year.
The U.S. Senate: Now with even more millionaires | Politerati
According to a Roll Call analysis of Senate financial disclosure forms filed in 2010, more than half of the chamber’s membership, 54 lawmakers, reported a minimum net worth of more than $1 million. Another four Senators fell short of that mark by less than $100,000.
In addition, more than half of the Senate’s membership saw their individual fortunes grow in 2009, the period covered by their most recent disclosure reports.
Those increases are reflected in the chamber’s combined minimum wealth, which increased to about $680 million in 2009, or more than 4 percent higher than the previous year.
That pattern is consistent with studies showing a rebound in the U.S. millionaire population over the past year. Reported the Wall Street Journal in Sept.:
According to a new survey from Phoenix Marketing International’s Affluent Market Practice, the number of American households with investible assets of $1 million or more rose 8% in the 12 months ended in June. The survey says there now are 5.55 million U.S. households with investible assets of $1 million or more.
That follows two years of declines and brings the millionaire count back to 2006 levels. Of course, that is still below the peak of 5.97 million in 2007 and the current growth rate is well below pre-financial crisis levels, when the millionaire population increased as much as 35% a year.
The U.S. Senate: Now with even more millionaires | Politerati
Samson
Póg Mo Thóin
Yeah, but only REPUBLICAN congressmen were rich....Right?
John Kerry, D-Mass.
Average net worth: $238,812,296
http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-250_162-10008411-2.html
Last edited:
Samson
Póg Mo Thóin
Mark Warner, D-Va.
Average net worth: $174,385,102
Average net worth: $174,385,102
Samson
Póg Mo Thóin
Herb Kohl, D-Wis.
Average net worth: $160,302,011
Average net worth: $160,302,011
Samson
Póg Mo Thóin
Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va.
Average net worth: $98,832,010
Average net worth: $98,832,010
Samson
Póg Mo Thóin
Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn.
Average net worth: $94,870,116
Average net worth: $94,870,116
Samson
Póg Mo Thóin
Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.
Average net worth: $77,082,134
Average net worth: $77,082,134
Samson
Póg Mo Thóin
Frank R. Lautenberg, D-N.J.
Average net worth: $76,886,611
Read more: Frank R. Lautenberg, D-N.J. Pictures - CBS News
Average net worth: $76,886,611
Read more: Frank R. Lautenberg, D-N.J. Pictures - CBS News
Samson
Póg Mo Thóin
The quasi Republican:
Olympia J. Snowe, R-Maine
Average net worth: $28,612,527
Read more: Olympia J. Snowe, R-Maine Pictures - CBS News
Olympia J. Snowe, R-Maine
Average net worth: $28,612,527
Read more: Olympia J. Snowe, R-Maine Pictures - CBS News
georgephillip
Diamond Member
Who owned the private property that was dumped in Boston harbor in 1773?
"When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade.
"After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country's founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.
"Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end."
History of Corporations (United States)
The rich federal bondholders and landowners who wrote our constitution crafted a government that safeguards rights and liberties with a special emphasis on property rights. Only the 1% would find that acceptable.
If it would be necessary to bring proof to a proposition so clear, as that which affirms that the powers of the federal government, as to its objects, were sovereign, there is a clause of its Constitution which would be decisive. It is that which declares that the Constitution, and the laws of the United States made in pursuance of it, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority, shall be the serene law of the land. The power which can create the supreme law of the land in any case, is doubtless sovereign as to such case.
This general and indisputable principle puts at once an end to the abstract question, whether the United States have power to erect a corporation; that is to say, to give a legal or artificial capacity to one or more persons, distinct from the natural. For it is unquestionably incident to sovereign power to erect corporations, and consequently to that of the United States, in relation to the objects intrusted to the management of the government. The difference is this: where the authority of the government is general, it can create corporations in ad cases, where it is confined to certain branches of legislation, it can create corporations only in those cases.
Here then, as far as concerns the reasonings of the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, the affirmative of the constitutionality of the bill might be permitted to rest. It will occur to the President, that the principle here advanced has been untouched by either of them.
For a more complete elucidation of the point, nevertheless, the arguments which they had used against the power of the government to erect corporations, however foreign they are to the great and fundamental rule which has been stated, shall be particularly examined. And after showing that they do not tend to impair its force, it shall also be shown that the power of incorporation, incident to the government in certain cases, does fairly extend to the particular case which is the object of the bill.
The first of these arguments is, that the foundation of the Constitution is laid on this ground: " That all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved for the States, or to the people." Whence it is meant to be inferred, that Congress can in no case exercise any power not Included in those not enumerated in the Constitution. And it is affirmed, that the power of erecting a corporation is not included in any of the enumerated powers.
The main proposition here laid down, in its true signification is not to be questioned. It is nothing more than a consequence of this republican maxim, that all government is a delegation of power. But how much is delegated in each case, is a question of fact, to be made out by fair reasoning and construction, upon the particular provisions of the Constitution, taking as guides the general principles and general ends of governments.
It is not denied that there are implied well as express powers, and that the former are as effectually delegated as the tatter. And for the sake of accuracy it shall be mentioned, that there is another class of powers, which may be properly denominated resting powers. It will not be doubted, that if the United States should make a conquest of any of the territories of its neighbors, they would possess sovereign jurisdiction over the conquered territory. This would be rather a result, from the whole mass of the powers of the government, and from the nature of political society, than a consequence of either of the powers specially enumerated.
But be this as it may, it furnishes a striking illustration of the general doctrine contended for; it shows an extensive case in which a power of erecting corporations is either implied in or would result from, some or all of the powers vested in the national government. The jurisdiction acquired over such conquered country would certainly be competent to any species of legislation.
To return: It is conceded that implied powers are to be considered as delegated equally with express ones. Then it follows, that as a power of erecting a corporation may as well be implied as any other thing, it may as well be employed as an instrument or mean of carrying into execution any of the specified powers, as any other instrument or mean whatever. The only question must be in this, as in every other case, whether the mean to be employed or in this instance, the corporation to be erected, has a natural relation to any of the acknowledged objects or lawful ends of the government. Thus a corporation may not be erected by Congress for superintending the police of the city of Philadelphia, because they are not authorized to regulate the police of that city. But one may be erected in relation to the collection of taxes, or to the trade with foreign countries, or to the trade between the States, or with the Indian tribes; because it is the province of the federal government to regulate those objects, and because it is incident to a general sovereign or legislative power to regulate a thing, to employ all the means which relate to its regulation to the best and greatest advantage.
-Hamilton
Hamilton: The Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States, 1791
This general and indisputable principle puts at once an end to the abstract question, whether the United States have power to erect a corporation; that is to say, to give a legal or artificial capacity to one or more persons, distinct from the natural. For it is unquestionably incident to sovereign power to erect corporations, and consequently to that of the United States, in relation to the objects intrusted to the management of the government. The difference is this: where the authority of the government is general, it can create corporations in ad cases, where it is confined to certain branches of legislation, it can create corporations only in those cases.
Here then, as far as concerns the reasonings of the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, the affirmative of the constitutionality of the bill might be permitted to rest. It will occur to the President, that the principle here advanced has been untouched by either of them.
For a more complete elucidation of the point, nevertheless, the arguments which they had used against the power of the government to erect corporations, however foreign they are to the great and fundamental rule which has been stated, shall be particularly examined. And after showing that they do not tend to impair its force, it shall also be shown that the power of incorporation, incident to the government in certain cases, does fairly extend to the particular case which is the object of the bill.
The first of these arguments is, that the foundation of the Constitution is laid on this ground: " That all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved for the States, or to the people." Whence it is meant to be inferred, that Congress can in no case exercise any power not Included in those not enumerated in the Constitution. And it is affirmed, that the power of erecting a corporation is not included in any of the enumerated powers.
The main proposition here laid down, in its true signification is not to be questioned. It is nothing more than a consequence of this republican maxim, that all government is a delegation of power. But how much is delegated in each case, is a question of fact, to be made out by fair reasoning and construction, upon the particular provisions of the Constitution, taking as guides the general principles and general ends of governments.
It is not denied that there are implied well as express powers, and that the former are as effectually delegated as the tatter. And for the sake of accuracy it shall be mentioned, that there is another class of powers, which may be properly denominated resting powers. It will not be doubted, that if the United States should make a conquest of any of the territories of its neighbors, they would possess sovereign jurisdiction over the conquered territory. This would be rather a result, from the whole mass of the powers of the government, and from the nature of political society, than a consequence of either of the powers specially enumerated.
But be this as it may, it furnishes a striking illustration of the general doctrine contended for; it shows an extensive case in which a power of erecting corporations is either implied in or would result from, some or all of the powers vested in the national government. The jurisdiction acquired over such conquered country would certainly be competent to any species of legislation.
To return: It is conceded that implied powers are to be considered as delegated equally with express ones. Then it follows, that as a power of erecting a corporation may as well be implied as any other thing, it may as well be employed as an instrument or mean of carrying into execution any of the specified powers, as any other instrument or mean whatever. The only question must be in this, as in every other case, whether the mean to be employed or in this instance, the corporation to be erected, has a natural relation to any of the acknowledged objects or lawful ends of the government. Thus a corporation may not be erected by Congress for superintending the police of the city of Philadelphia, because they are not authorized to regulate the police of that city. But one may be erected in relation to the collection of taxes, or to the trade with foreign countries, or to the trade between the States, or with the Indian tribes; because it is the province of the federal government to regulate those objects, and because it is incident to a general sovereign or legislative power to regulate a thing, to employ all the means which relate to its regulation to the best and greatest advantage.
-Hamilton
Hamilton: The Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States, 1791
Big Fitz
User Quit *****
- Nov 23, 2009
- 16,917
- 2,522
- 48
Yeah. Thanks to the Dairy Queen as he's not so affectionately known, the state of Wisconsin has learned that lifetime wealth does not mean incorruptible, but rather out of touch.
georgephillip
Diamond Member
"Like many Americans, I grew up believing that conservative values were about local control and personal responsibility for family, community, and nature. It seemed curious to me that the political alliance that drove a rollback of the Roosevelt-era policies that created the American middle class called itself conservative and dismissed its liberal opponents as un-American.
"Eventually, however, I discovered that the term conservative harkens back to a day when conservatives were monarchists who considered democracy a threat to social order and the seas were ruled by buccaneers and privateers.
"That was a clarifying moment.
"Buccaneer is a colorful name for the pirates of old who pursued personal fortune with rules of their own making. They were, in their time, an iconic expression of 'free market' capitalism.
"Privateers were buccaneers to whom a king granted legal immunity and safe harbor in return for a share of the booty. Their charge was to extract physical wealth from foreign lands and peoples by whatever meansincluding the execution of rulers and the slaughter and enslavement of native inhabitants..."
From Buccaneers to Profiteers: On the Origin of Corporations | Common Dreams
"Eventually, however, I discovered that the term conservative harkens back to a day when conservatives were monarchists who considered democracy a threat to social order and the seas were ruled by buccaneers and privateers.
"That was a clarifying moment.
"Buccaneer is a colorful name for the pirates of old who pursued personal fortune with rules of their own making. They were, in their time, an iconic expression of 'free market' capitalism.
"Privateers were buccaneers to whom a king granted legal immunity and safe harbor in return for a share of the booty. Their charge was to extract physical wealth from foreign lands and peoples by whatever meansincluding the execution of rulers and the slaughter and enslavement of native inhabitants..."
From Buccaneers to Profiteers: On the Origin of Corporations | Common Dreams
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Top General in charge of Project Blue Book (UFOs) missing for over a week!- Started by MarathonMike
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
You’re Watching the Old Order Collapse…and the People Who Built It Would Rather Burn America Down Than Lose Power
- Started by Doc7505
- Replies: 2
