The Cellar
Page 7 of 15 123456 7 891011121314 Last »
Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)
-   Current Events (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   Wall Street Protests (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=26025)

Flint 10-27-2011 11:04 AM
Ya, but...

The boogeyman.

Stormieweather 10-27-2011 11:13 AM
The rest of that article:

Quote:
that slice down to just under 17% for 2009.

While those at the top have seen their incomes soar over time, middle-class incomes have stagnated.

"The higher up the income distribution you go, the more your income rose and the larger the share of total income gains went to your group," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

But as corporate profits and productivity have increased, workers aren't reaping the benefits, said Edward Wolff, a New York University economics professor who specializes in income inequality. That's helping spark the movement, which has spread across the country.

"There is a lot of anger and it's for a very good reason," Wolff said. "If all of the income gain goes to the top, there's not much left to go to the rest of the people."
In 2010, there were 46.2 million American's living in poverty. That is the largest number since the census began keeping track, 56 years ago. 1 in 5 children is now living below the poverty level (22%). How is that acceptable on any level?

Undertoad 10-27-2011 11:21 AM
That's merely Mr. Wolff's opinion, and in my previous post I took his last sentence behind the barn and shot it, and then quartered it for the dogs to eat.

BigV 10-27-2011 11:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad
(Also, these numbers are for households instead of per-capita, which is misleading, as the household income may be a household of one, or an extended family.)
Quote:
See the "earners per household" row.
Ok, respectfully, what's your point here by breaking out the per capita numbers? Are you trying to illustrate the idea that in the high earning households that there are multiple earners? Or that in a per capita illustration, the amount that the high earners make is not as much? Both are true of course.

SamIam 10-27-2011 12:19 PM
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicman (Post 766987)
hmm...
"hmmmm..." indeed. Note the year that this gentleman became "sick of living in poverty" - 1996. Those were the days, my friend. Clinton was still in office then, we actually had a budget SURPLUS, zillionaires still had not yet been handed tax decreases, and unemployment was nothing like it is today. Presumably, the man in the picture graduated around 2000 before W. had a chance to launch his various wars and before the Financial Institutions got a chance to tank the economy. How clever of him to have been born at the right time.

Sadly, he is obviously the product of an institution of higher education where critical thinking was neither taught nor encouraged. He is attempting to take credit for being 10 years or so older than the kids coming out of college today. That's about it. Oh, and if he's so smart, why did he wait to have 3 kids before going to college?

And PS - Did he go to a state supported school? GOVERNMENT HANDOUT Did he go to an expensive private school with the help of government backed student loans? GOVERNMENT HANDOUT

Sorry, I am not impressed. :rolleyes:

infinite monkey 10-27-2011 12:23 PM
Whether they are the 99%, the 1%, or this arbitrarily stupid 53%, about 75% of all of them are still uneducated, uninformed, and irrelevant morons.

Undertoad 10-27-2011 12:27 PM
I'm saying that I think the original graph producers decided on households because it shows a wider disparity. This stuff is hard for us laymen to figure.

classicman 10-27-2011 01:44 PM
Easy Sam ...
I just thought his was an interesting tale. Primarily BECAUSE of when he went to school. (president at the time irrelevant)

I can associate with him on a couple things. I too went back to school that year and graduated in 2000 with 2 degrees. I worked 3 jobs to support my family and pay my own way at the time. Yet here I sit day after day looking for a real job and trying to figure out wtf I did wrong.


ETA - thanks for helping to support me Mr. noideawhoyouare. ;)

infinite monkey 10-27-2011 02:18 PM
1 Attachment(s)
..

TheMercenary 10-27-2011 03:22 PM
1 Attachment(s)
That picture rocks....

SamIam 10-27-2011 03:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 767140)
That picture rocks....
Oh, you graduated from that same institution of higher learning which discourages critical thinking, too? That explains much. :right:

BigV 10-27-2011 03:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad
I'm saying that I think the original graph producers decided on households because it shows a wider disparity. This stuff is hard for us laymen to figure.
Ok. I think the original graph producers decided on households and not per capita because that's how income taxes are filed, how the data's collected. Not to show a greater disparity, but neither of us is one of the graph producers nor likely to meet them and ask them, so the point's rather moot.

As for what's hard for us laymen to figure .... figuring the intentions of absent and anonymous graph producers is hard, I agree. Figuring the arithmetic behind such illustrations is not as hard. For example, the arithmetic behind your per capita expansion of the income figures still demonstrates the extremely disproportionate distribution of income. Let's take the values in your chart. Here is what the per capita income numbers work out to:
HTML Code:
              Average Per Capita Income by Income Quartile 2010

Lowest fifth  Second fifth  Middle fifth  Fourth fifth  Highest fifth
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
  $4,634      $25,636        $38,224        $46,494        $86,108
This breakout *STILL* shows an extreme disparity. It is the magnitude of this disparity that I believe is both a cause and a symptom of the serious trouble in our society. You used the phrase "greater disparity", and I ask you, does this per capita perspective show greater or less disparity? Of course it depends on what you choose as your measure.

Actual dollars is a measure we could agree on, using these figures. By this measure, each of the people in a given household, on average, has this amount of money. At the top there, each member of the household has $86k to spend. That's a lot of coin. At the other end of the scale, just one-eighteenth of that amount. Not a lot of coin. A delta of about 18 times. So when you talk about how much the big fish lose when the line on the graph tips down, like you do in your subsequent post, I would point out that though their dollar loss is great, it is on par with the ENTIRE annual income for the bottom quintile in many cases. So saying "I lost 5% or 10%" gives a comparative value. Saying "I lost $10,000 or I lost $500"... how does that inform the reader? Those are similar percentages, but the impact on the lives of the losers is not the same.

liars figure and figures lie... cute.

But I think a far more important question to ask and answer is about the lowest two quintiles. Forty percent of our population is living on these kinds of dollars. Your table doesn't say gross or net income, even if we take the most favorable position, net income, that's not a lot of money for almost half the population. Half the consumers for the goods and services produced in our economy have just this small amount of money to spend. The more they have the more they'll spend.

TWO THINGS

OUR REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT REPRESENT THESE PEOPLE. Do you see forty percent of our Congress among this economic demographic? Of course not. Do you see anything close to forty percent of our elected representatives talking about this large chunk of the electorate? No. Do you see or hear anything like forty percent of our legislation focused on the segment of our population with such limited means? No way. How is this "representative"? It's not.

IT IS ENTIRELY IN OUR SELF INTEREST, ALL OF US, TO RAISE THE STANDARD OF LIVING FOR OUR FELLOW CITIZENS AT THIS END OF THE SCALE, THE "LESS FORTUNATE". It costs a certain amount to live. That's what we all spend our first dollar on. And our second dollar. And the next several thousand dollars. That is direct consumption all of us make and spend. But for lots of folks, especially at this lower end, the have no more to spend. Isn't that what our economy needs? More spending? Then we should work to get more money into the hands of the poorest among us.

If you're making $4,600 a year, you spend it all, no doubt. If you make $86,000, maybe you spend it all, maybe you save some. Don't we want more people spending more money, or even saving some? Then these are the people who are most likely to spend whatever increase they see.

How do we measure what's valuable, what's important, what is the minimum needed to live? That number will not be zero. That cost will be borne by someone, even if the person who's incurring the costs has NO money. Where will he eat? Jail? Under a bridge? At a shelter? We don't just let people shrivel up and die. We do, some of us, shoo them away to become someone else's "problem", someone else's cost. I don't live in an America where that's done, where that's right. You don't either.

I don't know how best to do this, there's definitely not just one way, no one thing that will make it happen. BUT. No problem can be solved, and we most definitely have a very big, very important problem here, until that problem is acknowledged. We must all acknowledge that having so many so less fortunate than the most fortunate is a problem we must confront and solve as a nation.

TheMercenary 10-27-2011 04:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamIam (Post 767152)
Oh, you graduated from that same institution of higher learning which discourages critical thinking, too? That explains much. :right:
No, but thanks for the pic!

TheMercenary 10-27-2011 04:16 PM
The wealth envy protests are not going to change a dam thing.

Wealth redistribution is a failed plan to fix what ails us.

DanaC 10-27-2011 04:19 PM
How is it a failed plan?

TheMercenary 10-27-2011 04:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaC (Post 767156)
How is it a failed plan?
Even if you confiscate all the money from the top 1% it will not pay for the spending that has happened since Obama took office. We have become an entitlement society. Everyone wants the federal government to provide everything for them, free healthcare, free education, free, free, free. As long as someone else pays for it. But when you talk about a consumption tax or a tax where everyone pays into it then you get the whine about making someone else to pay. Yea, lets get the 53% who already pay the most pay more, just don't take it out of my pocket. These protests are becoming more comical by the day with some knew rant or some group wanting more...

DanaC 10-27-2011 04:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 767160)
Even if you confiscate all the money from the top 1% it will not pay for the spending that has happened since Obama took office. We have become an entitlement society. Everyone wants the federal government to provide everything for them, free healthcare, free education, free, free, free. As long as someone else pays for it. But when you talk about a consumption tax or a tax where everyone pays into it then you get the whine about making someone else to pay. Yea, lets get the 53% who already pay the most pay more, just don't take it out of my pocket. These protests are becoming more comical by the day with some knew rant or some group wanting more...
But you don't have all that stuff for free. And the wealthy haven;t been subjected to higher taxes. What redistribution of wealth has occurred in the last ten years has done so in the other direction. What the protestors are seeking hasn't been tried in America for a very long time, therefore it isn't a 'failed' anything. It's a hypothetical maybe.

TheMercenary 10-27-2011 04:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaC (Post 767161)
But you don't have all that stuff for free. And the wealthy haven;t been subjected to higher taxes. What redistribution of wealth has occurred in the last ten years has done so in the other direction. What the protestors are seeking hasn't been tried in America for a very long time, therefore it isn't a 'failed' anything. It's a hypothetical maybe.
The wealthy pay almost all of the total tax in this country now, federal, state, and local combined.

What are the protesters seeking? There are a hundred answers to that question.

TheMercenary 10-27-2011 04:43 PM
Occupy Wall Street in chaos: Money disputes, freeloaders imperil protest

Quote:
CHICAGO, October 25, 2011 – Organizing a global anti-capitalist revolution is not as easy as one might think – at least that is what Occupy Wall Street leaders are discovering.

From money squabbles and freeloading ex-cons to the complaints of New Yorker residents and the specter of public health code violations, protesters are being given a crash course in Government 101, whether they like it or not.

Recently, Occupy Wall Street organizers have found themselves besieged with problems from all corners. Questions are now being raised about the $500,000 in donations Occupy Wall Street’s Finance Committee has collected since the protests began.

The irony of the situation is not lost on Occupy Wall Street campers, who claim that Finance has yet to “redistribute the wealth.” According to news sources, drummers requested $8,000 to replace musical instruments that had been destroyed by vandals in Zuccotti. Occupy Wall Street leadership denied the request and now some protesters are threatening a split


Associated Press
“I hope Mayor Bloomberg gets an injunction and demands to see the movement’s books. We need to know how much money we really have and where it’s going,” said disgruntled protester Bryan Smith.

Smith, who has been raising money for Occupy Wall Street, also criticizes the lack of basic provisions for his fellow protesters. “So many people need things, and they should not be going without basic comfort items -- and I was told to fill out paperwork. Paperwork! Are they the government now?” said Smith.

But Occupy Wall Street’s financial red flags and internal conflicts are just the tip of the protester iceberg. By offering free food, shelter, and medical care to anyone who signs up, the organization has also made itself a beacon to every homeless person - and every freeloader.

Scores of vagrants and criminals have unofficially joined the protesters’ ranks. One of them, ex-con Matthew Maloney, 49, was released from prison on September 30. Maloney, a convicted thief, has spent the last three decades in and out of prison and says he learned about the protests on television.

But others are here because they cannot afford their rent or do not like the homeless shelters.

The strange brew of humanity has created unexpected security issues for the "Occupiers." Public drunkenness, knife fights, and theft are more and more commonplace. With the seasonal shift, campers are also dealing with dropping temperatures and rain. Dry clothing – even socks – are in short supply, and protesters are irritated with the "takers."

"If you're going to come here and get our food, bedding and clothing, have books and medical supplies for no charge, they need to give back," said Lauren Digioia, 26, told the New York Daily News."There's a lot of takers here and they feel entitled."

But, Tea Party leaders argue, isn’t this socialism at work? Inadvertently, Occupy Wall Street has created what it says it is demanding, albeit on a much smaller scale: free food and shelter for the less fortunate and free medical care for all. It is a system where some are working and others, taking. Even theft, arguably, is a “redistribution of wealth” the campers have listed in their anti-Wall Street demands.

"People are waking up to the plain facts that socialism does not work. There is only so much you can "redistribute" before there is nothing left," said Joe Terrell of Northern Illinois Tea Party. "A popular paraphrase of Prime Minister Thatcher says, 'The only problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of everyone else's money.' I think that quote sums it up perfectly."

Associated Press
http://communities.washingtontimes.c...es-freeloader/

Undertoad 10-27-2011 04:48 PM
Quote:
But I think a far more important question to ask and answer is about the lowest two quintiles. Forty percent of our population is living on these kinds of dollars.
ME!!! My income, for the last three years, has been lowest quartile. This year, though a good deal of effort -- starting a business with no money down, during a recession -- I will move into the second one. I have gotten through by family and other charity. When you imagine the lowest quartile, think of me, won't you?

Quote:
OUR REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT REPRESENT THESE PEOPLE
SAME AS IT EVER WAS, but speaking as one of them, I voted and had more of my selections win than ever before in my life! Wheeeee!!

Quote:
IT IS ENTIRELY IN OUR SELF INTEREST, ALL OF US, TO RAISE THE STANDARD OF LIVING FOR OUR FELLOW CITIZENS AT THIS END OF THE SCALE, THE "LESS FORTUNATE".
THE ONLY WAY TO DO THAT IS THROUGH ECONOMIC GROWTH, as a rising tide lifts all boats.

Quote:
Where will he eat? Jail? Under a bridge? At a shelter?
Well, tonight it will be in front of the TV, watching "Jeopardy!" like everyone else. Thanks for asking!

BigV 10-27-2011 04:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 767155)
The wealth envy protests are not going to change a dam thing.

Wealth redistribution is a failed plan to fix what ails us.
It's not wealth envy.

It's poverty antipathy.

Be wealthy! Yay! But your country, your economy, your society, your future and mine will be better in every way if we're successful in reducing the ranks of the "less fortunate", as UT so delicately puts it.

Is the wealth redistribution from 2007 to 2009 illustrated in UT's chart an example of a failed wealth plan? Is the wealth redistribution from 1986 to 2007 an example of a failed plan?

Wealth redistribution... It's reviled as "wealth redistribution" when a person's relative share goes down; it's hailed as "upward mobility" when a person's relative share goes up. More hypocrisy.

TheMercenary 10-27-2011 04:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigV (Post 767168)
More hypocrisy.
Absolutely, as long as I don't have to pay for it I don't care how much it costs, tax the shit out of them! :D Just get me my free stuff!

SamIam 10-27-2011 04:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicman (Post 767116)
Easy Sam ...
I just thought his was an interesting tale. Primarily BECAUSE of when he went to school. (president at the time irrelevant)

I can associate with him on a couple things. I too went back to school that year and graduated in 2000 with 2 degrees. I worked 3 jobs to support my family and pay my own way at the time. Yet here I sit day after day looking for a real job and trying to figure out wtf I did wrong.


ETA - thanks for helping to support me Mr. noideawhoyouare. ;)
That's nice that you found a pic of someone who could have been in your graduating class. But the man in the pic HAS a job and calls those who DON'T have a job in these difficult times worthless blood suckers he resents having to support. I'm supposed to give up MY social security and MY medical care for this spiteful jerk? I don't think so. I have paid into social security faithfully since the age of 16, and I still pay into it now. I worked to get through college - BA in Biology from the University of Colorado, then an MA in Library and Information Science from the University of Denver. Not only did I work, I got scholarships, and my parents helped when they could.

After I got my degrees, I worked for another 30 years in my profession, and I put aside money for my retirement, had IRA's, savings, the whole nine yards. Then I got sick. No one could figure out what was wrong, and I got sicker. I eventually was forced to quit my fairly high paying job. I used up all my reserves on medical expenses and living expenses until I was left with nothing but a small disability check.

Now the Republican Party wants to take that, too, along with my medicaid and my housing assistance. They don't just want to put the old girl to pasture, they want to send her to the glue factory. Me and thousands if not millions like me. Mad? Mad doesn't even begin to describe my feelings. :mad:

BigV 10-27-2011 05:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 767162)
The wealthy pay almost all of the total tax in this country now, federal, state, and local combined.

What are the protesters seeking? There are a hundred answers to that question.
I want to say "Liar", but I'll content myself by saying "Cite".

And while you're at it, why don't you give us all *your* answer to your oft-repeated question "What constitutes 'wealthy'"?

Here's my cite.

Quote:
But how many people know that households making less than $75,000 collectively paid more federal income tax than those making $1 million or more?

Or that income taxed at the next-to-lowest rate, 15 percent, brought in more government revenue than all capital gains taxes plus the two top brackets, which apply only to the top 2 percent of earners?

Or that almost half of the top 1 percent made less than $500,000? Or that five out of six made less than $1 million?

The fact is that the government relies far more on the bottom 99 percent than the top 1 percent for federal income taxes.

TheMercenary 10-27-2011 06:08 PM
So let me ask you, we should redistribute wealth to the government so Obama can send money to Solyndra? How about to GE? They paid little to no tax, and Obama employs the CEO with our tax dollars. Maybe they should give them to the public sector unions?

Wealthy in this day and age is anyone who has more than "you" or has more stuff than "you" that you could never hope to have. If you are unemployed, wealthy may be the person who has a job while you have none. Wealthy may be the person who makes 2 million a year while you make 600k. Wealthy may be the welfare mother who has 6 children from 6 different babies daddies and gets more in public assistance than you, since you only have one kid. It is wealth is wealth envy.

Quote:
The wealthy pay almost all of the total tax in this country now, federal, state, and local combined.
In 2009 Federal Income tax paid:

Top 1% PAID an adjusted rate of 24.01%

Bottom 50% paid 1.85%
(source IRS)

Total Income tax paid 1980 - 2009:

In 1980 the top 1% paid 19.05%, in 2009 they paid 36.73% (this is nearly a 100% increase in the amount of taxes paid)

In 1908 the bottom 50% paid 7.05%, in 2009 they paid 2.25% (this is more than a 100% reduction)

Look at percent of AGI paid by top 1% and the bottom 50%!

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

Yea, I am correct.


Quote:
What are the protesters seeking? There are a hundred answers to that question.
There is no single group or person who can elicit what these people want. None. This is, as I have said numerous times before, just like the WTO protests. It is comical.

Quote:
I want to say "Liar", but I'll content myself by saying "Cite".
Why would anyone question the Great and Powerful Oz?:D

classicman 10-27-2011 08:51 PM
1 Attachment(s)
Is anyone else getting nervous that these protests are going to lead to something like this?

classicman 10-27-2011 08:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamIam (Post 767171)
But the man in the pic HAS a job and calls those who DON'T have a job in these difficult times worthless blood suckers he resents having to support.
referring to me.
Quote:
I'm supposed to give up MY social security and MY medical care for this spiteful jerk? I don't think so.
Where did you get that opinion? Did I lead you too think that was how I felt somehow? (confused)
Quote:
Me and thousands if not millions like me. Mad? Mad doesn't even begin to describe my feelings. :mad:
I gathered that long ago. You must have me confused with someone else. I am not exactly the happy guy right now either.

Pico and ME 10-27-2011 09:27 PM
Classic, she is just referring to the picture, not you because you posted it.

classicman 10-27-2011 09:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 767181)
BLAH BLAH BLAH ...
Take it to the tax thread. >>>>>>

TheMercenary 10-27-2011 10:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicman (Post 767224)
Take it to the tax thread. >>>>>>
Just answering the Great and Wonderful Oz! ;)

Ummmm... and no. I will take this fight to where ever it may take me to make sure OBAMA is never re-elected. BY ANY LEGAL MEANS!:D

SamIam 10-27-2011 10:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pico and ME (Post 767220)
Classic, she is just referring to the picture, not you because you posted it.
Exactly, Pico! I was referring to the comments on the sign that guy held - not Classic, personally.

classicman 10-27-2011 10:10 PM
Lucky for you, or I'd have you voted outta the club. ;)

TheMercenary 10-27-2011 10:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamIam (Post 767229)
Exactly, Pico! I was referring to the comments on the sign that guy held - not Classic, personally.
Cry me a GD River......

classicman 10-27-2011 10:14 PM
Dude - that's uncalled for.

TheMercenary 10-27-2011 10:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicman (Post 767235)
Dude - that's uncalled for.
Actually no, that is how I feel.

Sling it, expect it to be slinged back.

Times are tough for a lot of people. I am completely sympathetic to that.

This country is heading for the shitter. And it has not a GD thing to do with me. But watch out for the back lash in 2012, there may be a few surprises on the horizon.

classicman 10-27-2011 10:24 PM
w/e
If you want to address her previous post and have something of value to add or would like to counter that, fine. She didn't sling any shit on/at you. Why'd you have to take it immediately personal?
To just take that post which really had NOTHING to do with that which you are, I assume, slinging shit about is kinda just, well assholy.

TheMercenary 10-27-2011 10:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicman (Post 767239)
She didn't sling any shit on/at you. Why'd you have to take it immediately personal?
Dude, are you kidding me!?!?!

Anyway that is not the point. "Cry me a GD river", was and is the point...

classicman 10-27-2011 10:44 PM
No, READ - she even quoted me and then responded. YOU were not anywhere near the conversation she and I were having.
YOU interjected a cry me a GD river outta nowhere.
And yet again I ask it is your point that has NOTHING to do with anything. Seriously.

DanaC 10-28-2011 01:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 767237)

Times are tough for a lot of people. I am completely sympathetic to that.
.
Really? Cause you don't sound like you have a fucking ounce of sympathy. Cry me a river? She did it all right. She followed the fucking master plan and did it all right until fate, or fortune or random chance threw an impassable block into her path.

Cry me a river? Her career, her health, her future and current security, all snatched from her leaving her wholly and inextricably bound up in state assistance, and there's almost nothing she can do about it.

The Right want to strip her of what little assistance society has deemed she 'deserves' and you have the fucking brass balls to say cry me a river?


Fuck Merc. You just took a nose dive in my estimation. Seriously, where's your human warmth gone?

I am done with this discussion. I'm not coming in here any more, it just winds me the fuck up.

TheMercenary 10-28-2011 04:50 AM
1 Attachment(s)
NO MASS JUSTICE, NO PLANETARY PEACE!

TAX THE MASS-RICH!

"Sooner or later, you have enough mass." - Barack Obama

"No planet gets massive on its own!" - Elizabeth Warren

"Hey, I'm not massive. I'm for equal distribution of mass." - Micheal Moore


Comrades, the solar system is unfair! Why do some planets, like Jupiter, have so much mass and others, like Mercury, have so little? Is it because Mercury is mostly black? Join the #OCCUPY JUPITER movement and demand a more equal solar system!

ZenGum 10-28-2011 05:46 AM
Sorry, Merc, but that's false accounting, trying to pin the blame on Jupiter.

The Sun makes up 99% of the solar system's mass. Jupiter is just a distraction pushed by the uber-massive to make us forget the real issue.

:D

Aliantha 10-28-2011 07:05 AM
:lol2:

Spexxvet 10-28-2011 10:03 AM
I don't know where idiots come up with this "wealth distribution" goal for OWS. They started by saying that we American Taxpayers bailed out Wall Street's ass, increasing our debt. Now it's time for Wall Street to pay back and lower our debt. Nowhere have I heard that the money should go to the poor. Sure, it's been suggested that increased tax revenue should be used to rehab our attrocious infrastructure and whatnot, but not be given to the poor.

Spexxvet 10-28-2011 10:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaC (Post 767273)
Really? Cause you don't sound like you have a fucking ounce of sympathy. Cry me a river? She did it all right. She followed the fucking master plan and did it all right until fate, or fortune or random chance threw an impassable block into her path.

Cry me a river? Her career, her health, her future and current security, all snatched from her leaving her wholly and inextricably bound up in state assistance, and there's almost nothing she can do about it.

The Right want to strip her of what little assistance society has deemed she 'deserves' and you have the fucking brass balls to say cry me a river?


Fuck Merc. You just took a nose dive in my estimation. Seriously, where's your human warmth gone?

I am done with this discussion. I'm not coming in here any more, it just winds me the fuck up.
Use the ignore button, Luke.

BigV 10-28-2011 10:16 AM
yeah, Dana, I like that suggestion too if you must. I value your contributions all over the cellar, and here is no exception. Well, kind of an exception. This subject is very important to me, and I *highly* value the insight of intelligent articulate people, like you, especially about stuff that's important to me.

Do what's right for you. I hope you can hang in here.

Lamplighter 10-28-2011 10:35 AM
Take a deep breath, Dana.
Sometimes it's like white noise... to be ignored

tw 10-28-2011 10:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaC (Post 767273)
You just took a nose dive in my estimation. Seriously, where's your human warmth gone?
Simply worship what Hannity, Beck, and Limbaugh order you to believe. All the warmth you will ever need. Hate always creates heat.

SamIam 10-28-2011 11:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 767233)
Cry me a GD River......
So, there we have it. Merc's final comment on low income children, seniors, and disabled who will be forced onto the streets in great numbers with no where to go and nothing to eat and no medical care. I'm beginning to think that you are very clueless or very mean. For your sake. I hope its clueless, although ignorance can often cause as much or as more harm as anything else.

SamIam 10-28-2011 11:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 767154)
No, but thanks for the pic!
While that pic was interesting, I cannot claim responsibility for it. Classic is the one who first posted it.

Pico and ME 10-28-2011 11:40 AM
Dana, your posts in this forum always give me hope. Dont let the Mercs of the world take yours away - I think thats their motive anyway.

SamIam 10-28-2011 11:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaC (Post 767273)
Really? Cause you don't sound like you have a fucking ounce of sympathy. Cry me a river? She did it all right. She followed the fucking master plan and did it all right until fate, or fortune or random chance threw an impassable block into her path.

Cry me a river? Her career, her health, her future and current security, all snatched from her leaving her wholly and inextricably bound up in state assistance, and there's almost nothing she can do about it.

The Right want to strip her of what little assistance society has deemed she 'deserves' and you have the fucking brass balls to say cry me a river?


Fuck Merc. You just took a nose dive in my estimation. Seriously, where's your human warmth gone?

I am done with this discussion. I'm not coming in here any more, it just winds me the fuck up.
Thank you very much, Dana. You are spot on. I am stunned how much hate some people direct at the poor, simply for being poor. Merc is a prime example of that mindset. He'd rather crow about how well he is doing rather than address the very real problem of poverty in the US and how the gap between rich and poor continues to widen.

And please don't let cretins like Merc prevent you from posting here. Unlike him, you always have good things to say.

Undertoad 10-28-2011 01:47 PM
making the rounds. here is the middle ground.

http://cellar.org/2011/venndiagram.jpg

piercehawkeye45 10-28-2011 01:58 PM
Shhh! Don't tell them they have something in common Undertoad. Then they couldn't actually hate each other (as much).

DanaC 10-28-2011 02:32 PM
Oh guys, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to sound like a drama queen. I meant this thread, not the forum as a whole ;P

The Occupy Wall Street conversation occasionally makes me want to throw my computer through the window.

Just so fucking frustrating ya know?


Signed:

GD Fool

Lamplighter 10-28-2011 03:45 PM
What makes this Wall Street Journal article newsworthy
enough to be highlighted by Google News ?

Occupy Wall Street tackles crime in protest camp
Quote:
NEW YORK — The "Occupy" protest sites are becoming preoccupied
by another urgent issue: growing crime, from assault and robbery to groping.
There's been a spate of unsavory acts — from New York to New Mexico and California.

It highlights the challenge of monitoring an anti-establishment movement with no formal leadership.
In New York, demonstrators are mixed with people who drop by solely for food and comfort.

They camp out under the watchful eyes of a security force.
Besides the police, there's a volunteer safety patrol.
It even includes former gang members, turned into security consultants.
This smacks of "headline pandering"
WSJ's use of "They" and "even includes former gang members" stirs the juices.
Go into any city park at any other time and you'll come across the same sort of "urgent issue".

I expect higher quality reporting from WSJ.
.

classicman 10-28-2011 04:09 PM
I've been reading a lot of articles about theft and crime in their camps.
Is it any different statistically than any other place where there are a large number of people camping/living in a smaller amount of space? I doubt it.

sexobon 10-28-2011 05:03 PM
The point is that living like a refugee doesn't enhance one's appearance as a force to be reckoned with (i.e. beggars can't be choosers).

Lamplighter 10-28-2011 05:19 PM
As in the anti-war/civil rights/feminism movements of the 60's, appearances can be deceiving. ;)

Pico and ME 10-28-2011 08:59 PM
Wonderful discussion about OWS on the Charlie Rose Show.

classicman 10-28-2011 09:06 PM
corrected link here

Mod - please fix and delete my post thanks

This is also a good one


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:35 AM.
Page 7 of 15 123456 7 891011121314 Last »
Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.