Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Occupy Wall Street      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 576
Occupy Wall StreetPage 24 of 53    (13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53)
I'm gonna have to disagree with you there. You made the point that speculating on the margin was one of the causal factors of this latest meltdown. On that, I agree with you, and here's how it ties in with top tax rates--

The hypothesis is this: if the very wealthy are not taxed much at all, they are more likely to speculate in the markets with their extra cash rather than simply reinvesting in their respective businesses.

Wall Street, in effect, becomes a huge, global, high stakes casino for the really high rollers with virtually no limits and no transparency. In this case, bundled mortgages and derivatives based upon them, along with bogus favorable credit ratings of said derivatives, along with certain people shorting the market (the savvy who saw the end was nigh) all helped create this perfect storm.

Of course, even if you are correct, there are still the years 1929 and 1987 to account for. And 3 for 3 ain't a good pattern to have here... unless one is a "coddle the rich" conservative.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 577
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/7/2011 6:13:36 PM
pk

The point I am trying to make is that YOU and all of the others who seem hell bent on showing how higher tax rates result in more taxes collected, and it was good for everybody, yet you and all others disingenuously point to the 90% tax rates and in effect say.... "See, see, see, look just how great it was when the 90% tax rate was in effect"...... BUT you never have the balls to point out that NOBODY paid that amount, and that the amount generally paid was roughly 1/3 of that amount.............. But why let the facts get in the way of a great talking point, right


Yanno pk....1/3 of 90% is 30%...just to let you know a little simple math...it's not over 40% which was the average for the highest effective marginal tax rate for a tax payer in 1944...so, you were soooo wrong, and don't let facts get in your way


Yes, thank you for proving yourself wrong for me.


Here the rub...I knew I was wrong and was making a point that to you facts just seem to get in the way...and it's obvious from your posting that you had no idea what you were posting...you were just pulling numbers out of your ass.
 Bladesmith81801
Joined: 10/30/2010
Msg: 578
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/8/2011 2:30:11 PM
"An officer shot a person shooting video in Oakland with a rubber bullet in apparently complete violation of departmental policy. Anyone that doesn't condem this is a posterior orifice IMO. "

And heres the video, showing a clear violation of all use of force regualtions and use of that weapon. Clear and premedidtated 1st degree assault with intent, if not worse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=I0pX9LeE-g8

The officers involved deserve to lose their badges and face serious prison time.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 579
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/8/2011 4:46:43 PM

I have been trying to find a study that shows the effective tax rate for the years that the marginal tax rate was over 90%, and as of yet no success in finding any such stats at all for those years.


Well, Paul....let me be the first to call your "facts" to be a big lie...


I have spoken to a friend who used to work for Art Laffer, and he did in fact speak with Laffer, who said that there is some chart by the CBO that shows that effective rates averaged out to well under 40% for those periods of time. Laffer was in transit, and I didn't get a cite, but my friend explained how it worked. Lets say that the bottom rate was 10%, the second rate was 30% the third rate was 60%, and the top rate was 90%. IF you made enough money to trigger the top rate, you still only paid 10% for your income that corresponded with the first rate, 30% for your income corresponding to the second tier, 60% for your income corresponding to the third tier, and finally 90% for your income that corresponded for the income over the top tier. That tells you that NO ONE paid anywhere close to even to the 90% even before they started deducting all that was deductable during those periods.


This is not a source...it is a bunch of unsubstantiated bullshyte.

This would be a credible source...and documented:

http://almostclassical.blogspot.com/2011/03/90-tax-rate-myth.html




BTW...the bottom tax rate in 1944....which is the year we're speakling of...was 23%

Sheesh...don't let facts get in your way pk.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 580
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/8/2011 6:00:51 PM
I really don't see any difference between the almostclassical blog and what Paul was saying-- in other words, both are correct. I think it's an odd argument to be having when currently, Republicans have been complaining that a return to the 39% top marginal rate would be detrimental. Many are even saying the current 35% rate should be lowered.

Silliness.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 581
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/8/2011 6:21:46 PM

I have spoken to a friend who used to work for Art Laffer, and he did in fact speak with Laffer, who said that there is some chart by the CBO that shows that effective rates averaged out to well under 40% for those periods of time. Laffer was in transit, and I didn't get a cite, but my friend explained how it worked. Lets say that the bottom rate was 10%, the second rate was 30% the third rate was 60%, and the top rate was 90%. IF you made enough money to trigger the top rate, you still only paid 10% for your income that corresponded with the first rate, 30% for your income corresponding to the second tier, 60% for your income corresponding to the third tier, and finally 90% for your income that corresponded for the income over the top tier. That tells you that NO ONE paid anywhere close to even to the 90% even before they started deducting all that was deductable during those periods.


Hey Paul don't let facts get in your way.

Art Laffer...pk...don't you mean...".don't I know the co-worker of Art Laffer???"...cause that's where your info comes from...not Art Laffer.

 Bladesmith81801
Joined: 10/30/2010
Msg: 582
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/8/2011 6:37:34 PM
Paul, do you NOT know the difference between presenting facts and presenting anecdotal, word of mouth opinion?

Because what you're spouting is in no way, shape, or form, facts.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 583
view profile
History
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/9/2011 5:49:22 AM
There are differences between theory and fact in how capitalism works over the long haul, particularly the capitalism extremism (CE) worshiped in the US. In addition to relying on the liquidation of finite resources, CE has recently shown that there is an inordinate rush upward of capitol, leaving the masses and the young in particular, relatively impoverished. For those who complain that there are large numbers of young people involved in OWS, there is a reason. They have been left behind.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/11/07/news/economy/wealth_gap_age/?npt=NP1


According to analysis by the Pew Research Center released Monday, younger Americans have been left behind as the oldest generation has seen wealth surge since the mid-1980s.

While it's typical for older generations to hold more wealth than younger ones who've had less time to save, the gap between the two age groups has widened rapidly.

In 1984, households headed by people age 65 and older were worth just 10 times the median net worth of households headed by people 35 and younger.

But now that gap has widened to 47-to-one, marking the largest wealth gap ever recorded between the two age groups.

"We don't know how the story ends, but we know how the story is beginning," said Paul Taylor, executive vice president of the Pew Research Center. "At the beginning, today's young people are not doing better than yesterday's young adults."

The 53%: We are NOT Occupy Wall Street

Households headed by adults ages 35 and younger had a median net worth of $3,662 in 2009. That marks a 68% decline in wealth, compared to that same age group 25 years earlier.

Over the same time frame, households headed by adults ages 65 years and older, have seen just the opposite. Their wealth rose 42%, to a median of $170,494.

So why the growing chasm?

Whether by choice or due to the weak economy, today's young people are getting their independent lives started later in nearly all respects, taking out more debt, living with parents longer and putting off key milestones like employment, marriage and home ownership longer.

Some of those trends come hand in hand with more young people attending college, which can be a double-edged sword.

While those college credentials could lead to income gains for many young people down the road, surging tuition costs are also leaving them burdened by more student loans than prior generations.

Overall, 37% of the young households held zero or negative net worth in 2009, up from 19% in 1984.
 swingarm1966
Joined: 3/27/2011
Msg: 584
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/10/2011 5:19:57 AM
Video of Rep. Joe Walsh shows angry GOP congressman ranting at constituents

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-joe-walsh-lashes-out-1110-20111110,0,537963.story

Why a Dollar & Euro Collapse Is Guaranteed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfHEz4plxtg&feature=player_embedded#!
 Cdn_Iceman
Joined: 12/1/2010
Msg: 585
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/10/2011 8:17:52 AM

There are differences between theory and fact in how capitalism works over the long haul, particularly the capitalism extremism (CE) worshiped in the US. In addition to relying on the liquidation of finite resources, CE has recently shown that there is an inordinate rush upward of capitol, leaving the masses and the young in particular, relatively impoverished. For those who complain that there are large numbers of young people involved in OWS, there is a reason. They have been left behind.
Funny how some young people are actually doing well, its the lazy ass ones that are complaining, lots of young people doing well, but wait they are not sitting home watching American Idol or other reality shows, heck some of them wont get out of bed until noon on the weekends,( but not the ambitions youth ) but the lazy ass ones want the world handed to them on a silver platter, let them protest all they want while the other young people who have figured it out prospers its that simple.

And protesting asking the government to step in to save them and redistribute the wealth of the 1% who actually busted their ass ( not all of them) there a few dishonest 1%, but then how many of the 99% are dishonest?

If they are protesting that government and the economy should be separate? If so, I heartily agree; but I have a hunch this is not what Occupy Wall Street is after. They want Big Government to replace big business. They believe that politicians like Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi will not only bring home the bacon, but distribute it fairly and equitably. Never mind that these politicians haven't the slightest idea where bacon comes from, have never produced bacon and merely seize bacon to give it to people who reward them with votes, money and power.

Is that what you protesters and anti capitalist want?
 sexyisback!
Joined: 9/14/2010
Msg: 586
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/10/2011 8:27:07 AM
^^



Is that what you protesters and anti capitalist want?


if they are being honest, yes.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 587
view profile
History
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/10/2011 9:29:56 AM
If some of ya'll were being honest, you would admit that you don't have a clue about what people are concerned about at the protests, what kind of people are participating and how valid their concerns are. To merely make sh*t up about them, to villify those whom you don't understand or have disagreements with, is the lazy way out of discussion.

If you look at the wealth distribution trends, the unemployment and underemployment rates by age, class and color, the exploding influence of corporate money in politics and legislation, you might have a better clue. And perhaps be more honest with yourselves and us.
 Bladesmith81801
Joined: 10/30/2010
Msg: 588
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/10/2011 9:35:06 AM
Ice, it's simple, really. OWS and it's supporters want the big money bribes out of our political system.

Does anyone here REALLY believe that our electoral system is corrupted from top to bottom? That politicians aren't spending millions and billions for a job that pays merely hundreds of thousands because they care about the little guy?

How many of us can walk into our Senators or Congressmans office without a looooooong time on a waiting list? Wheresas the lobbyist from Big Donor K can drop in any ol time at all and get a warm greeting?

Big money from corps and donors like the Koch brothers have ruined our representative govt. it no longer represents us. The money, the bribes, and the corruption HAVE to go. From both sides of the aisle. Collars need be felt, and jail time to be handed out. REAL jail time.

I remember Boehner handing out checks from Big Tobacco on the FLOOR. How obvious does the corruption have to be?

OWS wants the corruption OUT, the big money out, and a fair and even playing field. The want the rules to be equal, not biased in favor of the rich. The American dream is what again? You work hard, get an education, and you'll be rewarded with a job you can work hard at all your life and move up in, the ability to own a home, transportation and live at a level you're comfortable at, while saving for your inevitable retirement. That you can work hard in your life, and rest in your golden years without having to worry about starving to death or dying in the street. That opportunity will be there if you do your best.

A fair and balanced life, where if you follow the rules, work hard, you can get ahead. Or at least have a slightly better life than your parents.

But we don't have that anymore. It's been stolen by the 1%, the same 1% that control our politicians. And thats not how it's supposed to be. So thats why people have taken to the streets.
 unYOUsual
Joined: 8/11/2011
Msg: 589
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/10/2011 10:02:23 AM
Your argument makes no sense..most of the protestors are Obama supporters...he benefitted from and was elected thanks to the millions he received from corporations and Unions....If things are as you say then Obama is one of the politicians they should be protesting...
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 590
view profile
History
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/10/2011 10:09:53 AM

Ice, it's simple, really. OWS and it's supporters want the big money bribes out of our political system.


Oh how I wish that were true. That is what I wish they were about but unfortunately I truly believe that they are without a clue of what they are about and are unfortunately being used by the real 1% in an attempt to disrupt and collapse even more that has occurred.

The real 1% has nothing to do with wealth. The real 1% influences control over the political processes. Right now the constitution is in the way and what better way to sidestep it then to create an emergent revolt against the economic engines of the country. When the economy collapses people will want to be rescued without thought to what their rescue means. The OWS crowds are opportunistic followers and not the leaders. They are just as likely to be seen running down the street with a TV in a riot as they are to be chanting random meaningless slogans at a bank window. They are just the followers. They just have no idea that they have been led to this. It is incredibly sad. It makes me very sad to know that they are also considered expendable to those that have led them here. I think their lives have more value than what they are being led to.
 Cdn_Iceman
Joined: 12/1/2010
Msg: 591
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/10/2011 11:08:06 AM

If you look at the wealth distribution trends, the unemployment and underemployment rates by age, class and color, the exploding influence of corporate money in politics and legislation, you might have a better clue. And perhaps be more honest with yourselves and us.
I'm sorry I don't buy that argument, while you can show me stats of the underemployed, and unemployed among race, class , colour etc, I can show you success stories from colour, age, race, class etc. six of one half dozen of another.

So let me get this straight Earth puppy . You want The 99% of the population who doesn't have a lot of wealth with the help of the government control the wealth of the 1% who do. How can millions upon millions of people take control of all this wealth?

Families of five or ten have been known to fight over far less wealth, to the point of lawsuits and years of never speaking to one another, And we're to believe that the overwhelming majority of Americans are going to be different when they seize the wealth of the 1% who have the most of it? This makes no sense at all.

Taking over wealth can mean only one thing, in practice: Handing all those billions of dollars in the private sector over to the federal government -- to the Obama Administration and the Republicans and Democrats in Congress who had better do its bidding. Control by the people means control by the politicians -- the favored politicians, that is, such as the President Obama and his cohorts, which by the way before he took office the Obama's earned more in one year then the average joe who voted for him? why doesn't he spread his wealth around, John Kerry, Milt Romney and few other fat cats too.
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 592
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/10/2011 11:24:26 AM
See that's where this whole thing gets off track..

No one, I think, is asking for the rich to give up their millions. What's past is past.

Going forward, it is highly unfair, immoral and should be illegal for corporations to influence legislation, regulation and elections. They are NOT people, they are NOT entitled to a vote, that they can spen millions on lobbyists, campaign contributions to get a favorable position is patently wrong.

Further the people running them, have no morals. They hide behind flowery phrases, like "what's best for the shareholder", when they pay the shareholder a pittance, while they scoop up millions, using the shareholders money to do it. They say it was purely a business decision, when the company could have made a little less, and kept the jobs onshore in the USA.

It's immoral to polute the land, then hide behind legislators and lawyers, when it comes to cleaning up the mess they made.

Take a look at the banks. There are a few who broke the law over the years. They pay a small fine and sign an agreement to not break the law again. Yet Citi broke the same law 7 times since 2000. Different parts of the statute, but the same law. A small fine(small to them) and it's off to the races again.

If you broke the law 7 times, you'd be in jail for 40 years! They break it over and over and nothing happens. How can these people say they have morals? How can they state they are running a good company, that did no wrong?

This has nothing to do with Obama, Kerry, Romney or individuals making money, writing books, running a legal business.

I get that you people don't like them, don't like the concepts they embrace. But right is right, when there is allowed inequality to exist. It's a pretty short trip to anarchy or dictatorship. You guys will never get it, they are out and out stealing and breaking the law. The only difference is they do it with computers, calculators and pens not guns.
 Cdn_Iceman
Joined: 12/1/2010
Msg: 593
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/10/2011 11:44:33 AM
I dont have a problem with people who earns their money the proper way, I have no problem with certain politicians who fight to do the right thing
I have no problems with people demonstrating their rights for changes, that I have no problems with

I have a problem with Idiot politicians, idiot management in certain corporations that has special friends in the government and ask for bail out money, yet sits on hoards of cash on their balance sheets .

I have no problems with corporation taking advantages of Loop holes, that the feds set up, I have a problem with politicians trying to get votes from the very people they are f ucking in the first place, that is what I have issue with.

I have problem with the losers on Wall street that took the bail out money, yeah they shored up their balance sheets and reserves but they also went back to their old tricks and paid out huge bonuses and all that toxic assets on the book, and nobody can figure out the value even under the mark to market system.

I think its stupid for all these Wall street protestors protesting the big banks on Wall street when Wall street is only fraction of the problem, they are taking advantage ( the banks) of the idiotic policies set out by the government, they want to whine about Wall street executives, but are any of these Protestors protesting any of the NBA players that are locked out and making Millions and Millions of dollars, how about protesting Micheal Vick ridiculous salary he is earning, oh wait he is playing football entertaining people ....righttttttt I forgot silly me.

Why not protest the Movie stars making millions and millions of dollars, Martin Lawrence who I think its one of the worst actors is paid almost 20 million dollars a flick? anyone protesting that? sorry off topic but tell me where is the outrage regarding those salaries?

Tell me how Society benefits from Vick making that kind of money, and If I was in Philadelphia I would be pissed because my cable bill is going up because of this losers salary but nobody is protesting Comcast? didn't think so.

I'm being facetious somewhat but seriously don't understand the selective protesting, I would seriously be impressed if the 99% march on Capital hill that would get the attention of the moron in Congress and the White house.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 594
view profile
History
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/10/2011 11:57:29 AM


Going forward, it is highly unfair, immoral and should be illegal for corporations to influence legislation, regulation and elections. They are NOT people, they are NOT entitled to a vote, that they can spen millions on lobbyists, campaign contributions to get a favorable position is patently wrong.


Well, yeah the tea party agrees with you. Serisously... they do. Who doesn't agree with you are the liberal democrats, the labor unions, and pretty much all of hollywood. they just want you to think they do. Just ask the $30,000 dollar a plate fundraisers in hollywood earlier this month.


Further the people running them, have no morals. They hide behind flowery phrases, like "what's best for the shareholder", when they pay the shareholder a pittance, while they scoop up millions, using the shareholders money to do it. They say it was purely a business decision, when the company could have made a little less, and kept the jobs onshore in the USA.


Incorrect. It does not make sense that the head of IBM is without morals. It does not make sense that the head of Disney has no morals. How would you know to truly judge them anyway. The phrase, ‘what’s best for the shareholder,' does have a special meaning. Especially since any person is free to own shares in any publicly held company. There is no discrimination in the stock market. There really isn't. Also, it is not in a company’s best interest to be without morals. There is a social stigma against that which would lead to a devaluation of the company. Your inference that corporate leaders are somehow depraved in general is without merit or rational logic.

I understand the dilemma between social justice and business. A business is an engine that must generate income to survive and its ultimate goal is to generate income for its owners "the shareholders" and sometimes that can conflict with the stake holders. The community, employees, and customers, are stakeholders. It's truly a complex balancing act.

I personally think that business should include as a charter a provision that allows for this social contract because the only thing holding society together and keeping us from killing each other in the streets is this ability to generate a vast amount of income and create an economy that sustains a large population. However, that social responsibility cannot exceed the primary responsibility of the company to itself of maintaining a responsible level of profit for its stockholders. Without it there is no company to uphold a social contract. So, it really is not as simple as you state and having the federal government take over these things will not improve anyone’s lot in life.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 595
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/10/2011 12:06:09 PM

Also, it is not in a company’s best interest to be without morals. There is a social stigma against that which would lead to a devaluation of the company.


Oh plueeese...BP comes to mind...disregard for employee safety and protection of the environment...and I've noticed little devaluation going on there.

There's a reason companies send their production to thrid world countries....there are no employee protections to worry about and little enviromental controls to be concerned with....so, of course the cost of production goes to ziltch....I fail to see the impeccable morals of companies abandoning America's work force.


EDIT

The example was a bit on the ridiculous side but so is your assertion that BP wasn't made to suffer enough


WTF???exactly what assertion that BP didn't suffer enough was that again??? My assertion was that BP didn't have their share prices affected...that was my only assertion....
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 596
view profile
History
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/10/2011 12:20:03 PM

There's a reason companies send their production to thrid world countries


Yep. There is a reason for it. It became difficult to grow locally. It also provided a benefit to other nations and helped bring those places to a higher degree of a standard of living... Something liberals should technically think was a good thing...

As for BP... You think shutting down oil production and blocking the opening of new facilities was the correct answer for a company short cutting regulations that were not followed up on. They stamped the papers approved. Well so did the regulators. And how would you like to see them punished. Maybe the entire company shut down? So, I would assume you would also be willing to accept jail time if your car has a flat tire and you cause an accident. It was entirely avoidable if you had better tires. In fact I think the laws may require that your tires be suitable for driving conditions.

The example was a bit on the ridiculous side but so is your assertion that BP wasn't made to suffer enough.
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 597
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/10/2011 12:34:16 PM
"There is no discrimination in the stock market."

HUH?? You can't be serious? The stock market is the ultimate discriminator! It is the driving force behind the way business operates now, and how it operated pre1980!

What do you think is the driver of the difference between the darlings and the dogs? Forward earnings projections! Miss you numbers for a quarter and the stock gets a 5% haircut. Miss it for a few and you'll be lucky if the selloff is only 25%. Miss a dividend, the ERISA laws kick in, and most or all pension plans must sell it.

Therefore it becomes a foregone conclusion that you make your numbers, at any cost, and damn the stakeholders! Do you think it was an accident that Ford kept selling the exploding Pinto? A bean counter figured out it would be cheaper to pay for the few deaths they were actually sued for, and lost, than to recall the car and fix it! Now while that was years ago, the same thing goes on today.

Think BP, it was more important to save 250K a day on the drill ship lease, than to use safegaurds, or take the time to do it right. What was the grand puba's reaction at BP? He was upset he couldn't sail his yacht! Fuk the 50,000 fishermen he affected, he wanted to sail his boat.

While all will condem these mistakes, how many others roll the bones with your life and you never know? This is what has become of corporate greed. Enron, BP, Citibank, the list goes on and on. Everytime you think, you've heard it all, there is some new scumbum with a better way to shaft the public and his workers.

As for those celebrities, like Vick, movie stars, Tiger Woods, that schmuck A Rod, and all the rest. Frankly I don't get it, never will. Paying some jackwad 1 billion dollars over 5 or 7 years to chase a little ball all over the course. Then those "fans" or golfers go into the pro shop and pay 90 or $100 for a shirt with his name on it? Never understood it, never will.

I paid for my education, both in school and on the street, put in my time, so I could understand how to trade the market, and make my dough. I pay my taxes, live my life. If they change the rules, no problem I adapt. But I see that not everyone can do what I do. I'm not against capitalism, as I've said I cheer twice a day with the opening and closing bell.

But some of these guys are stealing, breaking the law, and being paid damn well to do it.

edit to add: Hey just saw the little debate on BP. Do you realize what your saying? Punished enough? Hahahaha! 20 billion represents 1/3 of their annual gross income. Not only that, but they get to deduct that from their taxes. Using generally accepted accounting prinicipals they can write it off over a few years. They end up paying less than 20 cents on the dollar. Never mind the years it will take to recoup the health of the gulf, and no one knows for sure what that means. Are you gonna be eating clams, oysters and shrimp from the gulf, if it MAY poison you?

You want suffer enough? They should have been fined 10 or 20 billion, NOT tax deductable AND made to pay for the cleanup! Yes it would have hamstrung the company for a number of years. BUT it with that as a precedent, NO oil company would ever take the risk ever again
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 598
view profile
History
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/10/2011 12:52:01 PM

I paid for my education, both in school and on the street, put in my time, so I could understand how to trade the market, and make my dough. I pay my taxes, live my life. If they change the rules, no problem I adapt. But I see that not everyone can do what I do. I'm not against capitalism, as I've said I cheer twice a day with the opening and closing bell.

But some of these guys are stealing, breaking the law, and being paid damn well to do it.


Good way of saying it. And you know what. It is much easier to deal with these cases and bad individuals than it is to deal with a bad and corrupt government which is what is OWS does not grasp. If these individuals are being protected by ‘our leaders’ and ‘government’ and not held to the standards of existing laws then where does that lead you for the real corruption?

You yourself are the example of what I mean by saying that it does not discriminate. No one stopped you. You may not like the details of what you learned but there was no class wall. There was no door with a sign that said, "your kind is not allowed." In fact I bet if you really wanted to you could figure out something to increase your personal wealth even more without corrupting any morals or violating the law. You are free to participate in the system. So is anyone else that has a motivation to do so.

No one in their right mind would expect every individual in every company to be a saint. Not every corporation is a model of perfect social responsibility. Life is like that.

All I hear your asking for is some better regulation and maybe a bit of standards enforcement and checkups. Seems reasonable.
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 599
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/10/2011 1:49:23 PM
"Capitalism and socialism are two sides of the same coin."

HUH? Sorry pal, you got that wrong. At least in my book. Only socialism has elements of taking money from one to the other. Personally I think you are thinking communism. That's where all goes into a common pot to be shared by all(in theory).

Never quite works that way. The ones in charge, carve out the best pieces for themselves.

Socialism, can be good or bad, depending on who administers what. I think social security is OK, same with socialized medicine.(gawd I know that will rub some the wrong way). It works in England, Canada and about 12 other countries around the world. Why this country has such a problem with it, I will never understand. It would create a floor of medical attention for all. The rich could still do as they please, opting for paying for better care. Still would leave the total population with care, so they don't die.

But capitalism is an outgrowth of democracy. You are free to seek your own level. In other words, you build a better mousetrap, your entitled to profit from it. Then the people who work for you, building those mousetraps, get a wage for the work they do.

Sorry, as I see it, it's based on your ability, not a collective effort.

Nothing wrong with a Bill Gates, building the IPOD. He deserves to profit from his idea, but not at the expense of others. The only problem with Apple to my mind, is building the IPOD in China, why not here?

Get it?
 Cdn_Iceman
Joined: 12/1/2010
Msg: 600
Occupy Wall Street
Posted: 11/10/2011 2:23:18 PM

Capitalism is what happens when wealthy people are able to buy political influence.
WRONG.



Once your system of free enterprise degenerates into capitalism, with the rich buying politicians, it's only a matter of time before other politicians figure out how to sell themselves to the poor people, by offering socialist welfare programs.
WRONG AGAIN



Capitalism and socialism are two sides of the same coin. Both are predicated on the belief that it is OK to use the state to take money from one group of people, and give it to another.
You have proof of this? other than that you're WRONG again


If you're middle class, you're getting screwed on both ends. Supporting the rich capitalists who charge us extortionist rates for commodities like petroleum. And you pay more taxes to support the poor people who want socialist welfare programs so they don't have to work.
by the way who do you think is providing the jobs in the private sector?


At the end of the day, the ones getting hurt the most are the middle class, which is just what the capitalist system wants. To eliminate the up-and-comers who would be a threat to them in a system of genuine free enterprise, and use taxation and corruption to reduce us all down into a class of slaves
hey you can always move to Cuba or North Korea you never have to worry about unemployment and you get free health care too.

Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Occupy Wall Street