Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SmartyPants]

The protesters don't need to know what they are talking about in order to protest, but needed to be well informed to be taken seriously.

That certainly didn't stop the Tea Party protesters.

I and alot other people have a hard time taking some of the tea party protesters seriously, but at least we know the Tea Party is against high federal spending and against raising taxes.  No one, including the protesters themselves, know what occupying wall street is actually protesting.

[CraigStern]

I think the fact that they've chosen to locate the protest on Wall Street, of all places in the United States, is probably a pretty big clue as to what they're protesting, particularly given the events of the last few years. Hence: "The protesters are expressing anger at a corrupt political system that favors the wealthy investor class and ignores their interests."

Or, you know, you could just read what they say on their website:

Our nation, our species and our world are in crisis. The US has an important role to play in the solution, but we can no longer afford to let corporate greed and corrupt politics set the policies if our nation.

[Deagonx]

But what is the point? Is obama just going to make a press conference and state

"Well, since people have been protesting on wall street about basically nothing. Everyone's life will now get better with this super awesome job plan that fixes the economy and keeps everyone happy."


No. It doesn't work that way. We can't just hold hands and sing Kum Ba Ya to fix the economy. They should spend their time doing something rather than asking the government to. We the people, not we the government.


"whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it"

Protesting is not this. ^

[SmartyPants]

Our nation, our species and our world are in crisis. The US has an important role to play in the solution, but we can no longer afford to let corporate greed and corrupt politics set the policies if our nation.

That is so vague that they might as well say "America needs to rise above all the evil people and their evil deeds."  No news organization has been able to figure out what the wall street people are protesting.  The only thing consistent about the protesters is that they hate rich people.

This is starting to look like liberals are astroturfing protests to have a populist group to oppose the Tea Party.

[CraigStern]

Astroturfing is a term for hiring private firms to give the illusion of support to their views. I can't imagine what liberal group would have the money or inclination to do such a thing--and even if one did, do you really think they'd pay people to sit around wall street and make literally no concrete demands?

They should spend their time doing something rather than asking the government to.

The government makes the laws; they want a change in the laws. I have a hard time seeing how they could accomplish that without galvanizing the government to act. (Short of going all People's Resistance of Ravinale on them, I mean.)

[SmartyPants]

These anti-capitalist protesters don't make any sense.  They complain about "unemployment" and "corporate greed".  If corporations aren't making money, then they can't provide jobs.  I think New York mayor Bloomblerg explains it best, "You can't have it both ways. If you want jobs, you have to assist companies and give them confidence to go and hire people."

Astroturfing is a term for hiring private firms to give the illusion of support to their views. I can't imagine what liberal group would have the money or inclination to do such a thing--and even if one did, do you really think they'd pay people to sit around wall street and make literally no concrete demands?

The Unions do it all the time.  They are doing it now.

...people to sit around wall street and make literally no concrete demands?

They should spend their time doing something rather than asking the government to.

The government makes the laws; they want a change in the laws. I have a hard time seeing how they could accomplish that without galvanizing the government to act.

How is the government suppose to change anything when the protestors, in your words, "make literally no concrete demands"?

[CraigStern]

These anti-capitalist protesters don't make any sense.  They complain about "unemployment" and "corporate greed".  If corporations aren't making money, then they can't provide jobs.  I think New York mayor Bloomblerg explains it best, "You can't have it both ways. If you want jobs, you have to assist companies and give them confidence to go and hire people."

I'm afraid this argument just doesn't comport with reality. Corporate profits hit a record high last year. By your logic, hiring should have followed suit. It didn't.

"Corporate profits have been doing extremely well for a while. Since their cyclical low in the fourth quarter of 2008, profits have grown for seven consecutive quarters, at some of the fastest rates in history. As a share of gross domestic product, corporate profits also have been increasing, and they now represent 11.2 percent of total output. That is the highest share since the fourth quarter of 2006, when they accounted for 11.7 percent of output."

So corporate profits are back to pre-crash levels, and yet corporate hiring is not even close. The protesters are accusing the corporations of greed. Based on the facts, I find that pretty plausible.

Astroturfing is a term for hiring private firms to give the illusion of support to their views. I can't imagine what liberal group would have the money or inclination to do such a thing--and even if one did, do you really think they'd pay people to sit around wall street and make literally no concrete demands?

The Unions do it all the time.  They are doing it now.

Can you cite an example of a union hiring an outside firm to pay people to show up and pretend to care about the issues they protest? I would be greatly interested to see it.

How is the government suppose to change anything when the protestors, in your words, "make literally no concrete demands"?

It's not like people in Congress need the protesters to tell them what legislation to write to address Wall Street abuses and favorable treatment of the wealthy. They know that complex derivatives need to be regulated. They know that banks need to be prohibited from owning investment companies so they aren't tempted to make bad loans, turn them into derivatives, and sell them as AAA investments. They know that capping the payroll tax makes no sense, and they know that the 15% capital gains tax results in a lower marginal tax rate for wealthy investors than it does for ordinary working people who make dramatically less money.

I could go on, but you get the point. The solutions are there, and have been known for years now. The thing that's missing isn't solutions: it's the political will to actually vote them through. To the extent that the Occupy Wall Street protestors can exert pressure on their elected officials to act, they could end up being highly effective.

[SmartyPants]

These anti-capitalist protesters now have support from people like Hugo Chavez and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

How is the government suppose to change anything when the protestors, in your words, "make literally no concrete demands"?

It's not like people in Congress need the protesters to tell them what legislation to write to address Wall Street abuses and favorable treatment of the wealthy. They know that complex derivatives need to be regulated. They know that banks need to be prohibited from owning investment companies so they aren't tempted to make bad loans, turn them into derivatives, and sell them as AAA investments. They know that capping the payroll tax makes no sense, and they know that the 15% capital gains tax results in a lower marginal tax rate for wealthy investors than it does for ordinary working people who make dramatically less money. I could go on, but you get the point. The solutions are there, and have been known for years now. The thing that's missing isn't solutions: it's the political will to actually vote them through. To the extent that the Occupy Wall Street protestors can exert pressure on their elected officials to act, they could end up being highly effective.

I tired of explaining why increasing captial gains and uncapping payroll taxes is stupid, and then have nobody dispute my sound reasoning. It is just incorrect to think that the Obama admistration hasn't added new regulations to Wall Street.  The Dodd–Frank Act alone added 243 new rules.

These anti-capitalist protesters don't make any sense.  They complain about "unemployment" and "corporate greed".  If corporations aren't making money, then they can't provide jobs.  I think New York mayor Bloomblerg explains it best, "You can't have it both ways. If you want jobs, you have to assist companies and give them confidence to go and hire people."

"Corporate profits have been doing extremely well for a while. Since their cyclical low in the fourth quarter of 2008, profits have grown for seven consecutive quarters, at some of the fastest rates in history. As a share of gross domestic product, corporate profits also have been increasing, and they now represent 11.2 percent of total output. That is the highest share since the fourth quarter of 2006, when they accounted for 11.7 percent of output."  So corporate profits are back to pre-crash levels, and yet corporate hiring is not even close. The protesters are accusing the corporations of greed. Based on the facts, I find that pretty plausible.

Explain to me how a company opperates without providing jobs and earning profits.  Because of uncertainty partly created by the government, companies aren't able to expand and remain profitable.  Companies are becoming profitable not through increasing revenue, but by reducing liabilities by refinancing at lower interest rates.  When a bunch of new regulation is added or could be added in the near future, it creates uncertainty.  After the government adds hundreds of new regulations, businesses can't do anything untill they learn and study all the rules.  If they don't have complete understanding of all the new rules, then they might end up breaking the law. 

[CraigStern]

So you think that rich people should continue paying a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than everyone else does. That doesn't mean that the protesters don't know what they're protesting. They pretty clearly do.

Explain to me how a company opperates without providing jobs and earning profits.

The protesters are not protesting the fact that corporations are earning profits--they are protesting the fact that the corporations (1) responded to the crash by slashing jobs, and (2) are not creating new jobs now that they are back to making record profits. That, in their view, is an example of "corporate greed."

[SmartyPants]

I am not going to debate the captial gains tax and payroll tax in this topic.  If you want to talk about, then make a new topic.

Good news, some of the main players who caused the economic downturn are losing money.

Explain to me how a company opperates without providing jobs and earning profits.

The protesters are not protesting the fact that corporations are earning profits--they are protesting the fact that the corporations (1) responded to the crash by slashing jobs, and (2) are not creating new jobs now that they are back to making record profits.

(1) Can you really blame them for cutting jobs when the economy went bad?  When the economy is bad, people are spending less.  When people are spending less, companies bring in less revenue.  To remain profitable, companies respond to the loss of revenue by reducing expenses aka cutting jobs.  (2) The political uncertainty (created by both parties) makes companies unwilling to hire more, because they are unsure if they can remain profitable if they hire more.  Lets take Obamacare for example: Companies are unsure if the law will remain or if the courts will strike it down.  If the health care law goes in effect, the companies will have to pay for health insurance for every employee.  At the companies' current employment levels they can afford to buy health insurrance for their employees and remain profitable, but if they can't afford to pay for health insurance for new employees.  So you don't think I am picking on Democrats, lets take the deficit standoff as another example: If Obama called the Republicans' bluff and the US defaulted, then the economy would get worst and companies will lose revenue.  Companies couldn't afford to have hired more employees and still stay profitable after a default on the national debt. (3) Companies are owned by stockholders who demand companies to be profitable, so the stockholders can get paid in dividends.  I get that the protesters don't like that companies opperate that way, but I don't see how the protests are going to change that.

That, in their view, is an example of "corporate greed."

It seems like you are saying more of your views then the protesters' views.  Unlike most of the protestors, you have practical and legitimate reasons for your grievances.  Based on the Reuters and AP articles I read, it seems like there are two main groups of protestors.  The first group are socialist who are againt corporations and all other forms of private ownership.  The second group doesn't seem to know why they should be mad at the wealthy and corporations.  The second group is angry at the economic and unemployment situation, so they turn the wealthy into scapegoats in order to direct their frustrations at something. 

[SmartyPants]

The rich got richer compared to everyone else, because the rich invested better.  Many in the middle class put a lot of their money into home ownership, while the rich invested in foreign stock.  Instead of homes increasing in value like they have for the last two decades, the housing bubble busted.  The middle class ended up losing money on their investment; because they paid more for their homes then they are currently worth.  Third world countries such as China, India, and Brazil had a huge economic boom in the last decade, so the rich who own the foreign stock ended up earning a lot of money.  I don’t understand how some people think the rich are nefarious for earning more money by having good financial sense.

[ArtDrake]

Of course: there's nothing wrong with being the 1%.

[SmartyPants]

Of course: there's nothing wrong with being the 1%.

For a college humor video, that was pretty disappointing.  I don't care that all their facts are incorrect, yet I do care that the video was boring and corny.  The premise is funny, but it seems to be poorly done.

Tom Clancy is going to have a new Rainbow Six game where the terrorist group was going to be people fed up with economic inequality.  The game was going to use real footage of occupy wall street in the game, but they decided against it after looking at the occupy wall street footage.  Apparently, it is hard to believe that the pot smoking drum circles would become a sophisticated terrorist organization.