Occupy Wall Street: Support or Oppose? (OWS vs. Nativity)

[saxitoxin]

I look at the whole bailout mess in this way, agree or disagree, im curious. When they bailed out the banks with their multi billion bailout, they said that would have amounted to about 300-400 thousand dollars for each American. Now, if all of us would have received even 200K, we could do as us Americans have always done, spend, spend spend, even the drug dealers who actually paid taxes on their cover businesses would spend....then money would have been flowing like crazy,

This has been pointed out more than once. If each of us was just given a share of the bail out, we would not be having the problems we are today.

but NO, they help their friends and fund more crooked businesses to make things like solar panels ♥.

Except... solar panels are actually one of the things we should be investing in. That one company was a cheat doesn't mean the whole industry is undeserving.

The issue isn't that Solyndra cheated. The issue is that the Obama regime accepted a bribe.

[PLAYER57832]

I look at the whole bailout mess in this way, agree or disagree, im curious. When they bailed out the banks with their multi billion bailout, they said that would have amounted to about 300-400 thousand dollars for each American. Now, if all of us would have received even 200K, we could do as us Americans have always done, spend, spend spend, even the drug dealers who actually paid taxes on their cover businesses would spend....then money would have been flowing like crazy,

This has been pointed out more than once. If each of us was just given a share of the bail out, we would not be having the problems we are today.

but NO, they help their friends and fund more crooked businesses to make things like solar panels ♥.

Except... solar panels are actually one of the things we should be investing in. That one company was a cheat doesn't mean the whole industry is undeserving.

The issue isn't that Solyndra cheated. The issue is that the Obama regime accepted a bribe.

In this context, the issue should be solar energy. I think that gets lost in the shuffle. Politicians will cheat. Its wrong, but in this case the subject has turned to solar energy much more than anything else.

[AndyDufresne]

I'm disappointed the Poll did not include a mixed option for 'Supp-ose'.

But I can now vote for support and oppose, so thanks for my new Supp-ose stance.


--Andy

[jimboston]

I look at the whole bailout mess in this way, agree or disagree, im curious. When they bailed out the banks with their multi billion bailout, they said that would have amounted to about 300-400 thousand dollars for each American. Now, if all of us would have received even 200K, we could do as us Americans have always done, spend, spend spend, even the drug dealers who actually paid taxes on their cover businesses would spend....then money would have been flowing like crazy, this would have put the bank crooks out of business, and maybe honest banks would have opened, ones that loan money to people who could actually afford them,and the government would have made their money back in all the taxes they would have raped us for....but NO, they help their friends and fund more crooked businesses to make things like solar panels ♥.
I support a total over throw of the US government by the people.....our fore fathers are probably rolling their in their graves

I doubt those numbers.

That said... most of the "bail-out" that people talk about were loans to banks. Many of which have since been repaid. So the net expenditure was never as high as originally estimated by the media.

[jimboston]

I look at the whole bailout mess in this way, agree or disagree, im curious. When they bailed out the banks with their multi billion bailout, they said that would have amounted to about 300-400 thousand dollars for each American. Now, if all of us would have received even 200K, we could do as us Americans have always done, spend, spend spend, even the drug dealers who actually paid taxes on their cover businesses would spend....then money would have been flowing like crazy,

This has been pointed out more than once. If each of us was just given a share of the bail out, we would not be having the problems we are today.

A bad idea based on misinformation

[jimboston]

In this context, the issue should be solar energy. I think that gets lost in the shuffle. Politicians will cheat. Its wrong, but in this case the subject has turned to solar energy much more than anything else.

How the f*ck did this thread become a debate about the value of Solar Energy?

[saxitoxin]

I look at the whole bailout mess in this way, agree or disagree, im curious. When they bailed out the banks with their multi billion bailout, they said that would have amounted to about 300-400 thousand dollars for each American. Now, if all of us would have received even 200K, we could do as us Americans have always done, spend, spend spend, even the drug dealers who actually paid taxes on their cover businesses would spend....then money would have been flowing like crazy,

This has been pointed out more than once. If each of us was just given a share of the bail out, we would not be having the problems we are today.

but NO, they help their friends and fund more crooked businesses to make things like solar panels ♥.

Except... solar panels are actually one of the things we should be investing in. That one company was a cheat doesn't mean the whole industry is undeserving.

The issue isn't that Solyndra cheated. The issue is that the Obama regime accepted a bribe.

In this context, the issue should be solar energy. I think that gets lost in the shuffle. Politicians will cheat. Its wrong, but in this case the subject has turned to solar energy much more than anything else.

Solar energy has nothing to do with anything. The issue is that Obama took a $200,000 bribe (bribe, not campaign donation) from a corporation in exchange for $500,000,000 in taxpayer money.

Bribery would be the issue if Solyndra made solar panels, ball bearings or hand lotion. The commodity they manufactured was irrelevant to the decision to accept a bribe. The U.S.' secret police (FBI) are investigating the regime for other bribes reportedly taken from companies in a wide variety of sectors and industries.

It appears you're not familiar with this story.

[jimboston]

I look at the whole bailout mess in this way, agree or disagree, im curious. When they bailed out the banks with their multi billion bailout, they said that would have amounted to about 300-400 thousand dollars for each American. Now, if all of us would have received even 200K, we could do as us Americans have always done, spend, spend spend, even the drug dealers who actually paid taxes on their cover businesses would spend....then money would have been flowing like crazy,

This has been pointed out more than once. If each of us was just given a share of the bail out, we would not be having the problems we are today.

but NO, they help their friends and fund more crooked businesses to make things like solar panels ♥.

Except... solar panels are actually one of the things we should be investing in. That one company was a cheat doesn't mean the whole industry is undeserving.

The issue isn't that Solyndra cheated. The issue is that the Obama regime accepted a bribe.

In this context, the issue should be solar energy. I think that gets lost in the shuffle. Politicians will cheat. Its wrong, but in this case the subject has turned to solar energy much more than anything else.

Solar energy has nothing to do with anything. The issue is that Obama took a $200,000 bribe (bribe, not campaign donation) from a corporation in exchange for $500,000,000 in taxpayer money.

Bribery would be the issue if Solyndra made solar panels, ball bearings or hand lotion. The commodity they manufactured was irrelevant to the decision to accept a bribe. The U.S.' secret police (FBI) are investigating the regime for other bribes reportedly taken from companies in a wide variety of sectors and industries.

It appears you're not familiar with this story.

What does Solyndra and Solar Power and one administrations purported corruption have to do with the Occupy Wall Street movement?

I am a familiar with the story... but this one example of corruption or bad judgement does not warrant inclusion in a thread about the value or lack thereof of the OWS movement?

[Lootifer]

Except... solar panels are actually one of the things we should be investing in. That one company was a cheat doesn't mean the whole industry is undeserving.

Should we?

Really?

As in right now?

How about you supply me with business case that will "work" (i.e. doesn't contain around ~50% of it's revenue from govt subs) and we'll talk.

[Phatscotty]

I look at the whole bailout mess in this way, agree or disagree, im curious. When they bailed out the banks with their multi billion bailout, they said that would have amounted to about 300-400 thousand dollars for each American. Now, if all of us would have received even 200K, we could do as us Americans have always done, spend, spend spend, even the drug dealers who actually paid taxes on their cover businesses would spend....then money would have been flowing like crazy, this would have put the bank crooks out of business, and maybe honest banks would have opened, ones that loan money to people who could actually afford them,and the government would have made their money back in all the taxes they would have raped us for....but NO, they help their friends and fund more crooked businesses to make things like solar panels ♥.
I support a total over throw of the US government by the people.....our fore fathers are probably rolling their in their graves

YAH! The only problem the 99% have is that with all the spending of 200k per citizen, guess where all that money ends up in the end? that's right the richest get the most of it back. It has long been a theory and probably even common sense that if you took everyones money, split it up equally among the citizenry, and then started everything over again, all the previously rich people would be rich again, and all the poor people would be poor again. On the other hand, some people would end up richer (people who value money and have good business morals) an some of the rich would end up worse off or even poor (nobody wants to help the rich pricks that fucked up so bad last time). The point you make is a common sense point about how stupid any bailout is, because people/banks that make bad decisions are not going to start making better decisions with the money after they were forgiven for the previous errors, making them worse. It's a moral hazard if there ever was one.

They don't want to put the crooks out of business because the crooks are so very useful to them. The government has them by the balls, why would the government give that up? It was a power purchase, and it's the greedy kind of power.

[Timminz]

I wonder what Fox News thinks about all this...

[tkr4lf]

So, I haven't read anything in this thread. I don't care to either.

I just wanted to say that while on the bus today I saw a bunch of people with OccupyAustin signs up at City Hall. I didn't even realize this thing was here too. I mean I knew about big cities and whatnot, but I didn't realize it was in a place like Austin. Crazy.

[Symmetry]

So, I haven't read anything in this thread. I don't care to either.

I just wanted to say that while on the bus today I saw a bunch of people with OccupyAustin signs up at City Hall. I didn't even realize this thing was here too. I mean I knew about big cities and whatnot, but I didn't realize it was in a place like Austin. Crazy.

It's an interesting one, there's a load of conservatives saying that it's meaningless and has no point, and then it keeps spreading as if a lot of people think there is a point to it, almost as if those original people were wrong. Anyway, it's outside St Paul's Cathedral in the UK at the moment, and police wanted it moved on as a threat to public order.

The canon of St Pauls pointed out that they were peaceful, and welcome to stay, and preached a sermon on Christian values versus greed. Police are leaving them alone.

[Phatscotty]

I think the occupiers are on the wrong street.

I have some stuff I think you should see

MSNBC http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789//vp ... 5#44901285

[Symmetry]

I think the occupiers are on the wrong street.

I have some stuff I think you should see

MSNBC http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789//vp ... 5#44901285

Oh they are, realistically, but the protests are kind of symbolic, no? Did anyone seriously think they were protesting the street?

Or more what it symbolically represents?

I've got to be honest, I didn't look at the link, we argue a lot, and I try to make a point of saying what my links are going to, just so people can know what they're seeing. You don't have to do a full explanation, but maybe a quick line about its relevance isn't too much to ask.

[Phatscotty]

I think the occupiers are on the wrong street.

I have some stuff I think you should see

MSNBC http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789//vp ... 5#44901285

Oh they are, realistically, but the protests are kind of symbolic, no? Did anyone seriously think they were protesting the street?

Or more what it symbolically represents?

I've got to be honest, I didn't look at the link, we argue a lot, and I try to make a point of saying what my links are going to, just so people can know what they're seeing. You don't have to do a full explanation, but maybe a quick line about its relevance isn't too much to ask.

its a link with a bunch of democrats and one uber moderate republican. I shared it because they are all speaking reasonably. I don't think I could condense it, but they lay the whole thing out in about 4 minutes. Krugzy Wugzy statement is the teaser.

[Baron Von PWN]

While I am skeptical to their effectiveness, I am somewhat supportive of their general message. Which is a sort-off generalized disenchantment from our economic system. Is it really reasonable that 1% of society take in nearly a quarter of its wages? Does it seem right that the top 10% of earners have seen their wages increase dramatically while the rest's wages have remained stagnant? This is despite the significant economic growth in the past few decades, when is the wealth going to trickle down? So far it seems to mostly be vacuumed up.

[PLAYER57832]

While I am skeptical to their effectiveness, I am somewhat supportive of their general message. Which is a sort-off generalized disenchantment from our economic system. Is it really reasonable that 1% of society take in nearly a quarter of its wages? Does it seem right that the top 10% of earners have seen their wages increase dramatically while the rest's wages have remained stagnant? This is despite the significant economic growth in the past few decades, when is the wealth going to trickle down? So far it seems to mostly be vacuumed up.

Remained stagnent and now dropping. Plus, our opportunities and those of our children to move up have been curtailed becuase now there is "no money" for schools and the like.

Yep.. something definitely smells, but it is not about too high taxes.

[thegreekdog]

I'm going to leave this here for your perusal.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66259.html

[BigBallinStalin]

While I am skeptical to their effectiveness, I am somewhat supportive of their general message. Which is a sort-off generalized disenchantment from our economic system. Is it really reasonable that 1% of society take in nearly a quarter of its wages? Does it seem right that the top 10% of earners have seen their wages increase dramatically while the rest's wages have remained stagnant? This is despite the significant economic growth in the past few decades, when is the wealth going to trickle down? So far it seems to mostly be vacuumed up.

Be careful with using statistical categories and median incomes to describe reality.

Even individuals within the 10% lose vast amounts of money during an economic downturn, while those below the 10% can earn more. It works both ways, but the statistical categories don't capture individual mobility.


Regarding averages, think of them this way: "Nearly all humans on average have one testicle."

Median income has been decreasing for males since the 1970s (or maybe 1960s), but for women, it's been on the rise. So again, the median of all incomes fails to describe what's going.

Besides, median income is just average income, which doesn't calculate purchasing power as measured in labor-hours.

[Phatscotty]

While I am skeptical to their effectiveness, I am somewhat supportive of their general message. Which is a sort-off generalized disenchantment from our economic system. Is it really reasonable that 1% of society take in nearly a quarter of its wages? Does it seem right that the top 10% of earners have seen their wages increase dramatically while the rest's wages have remained stagnant? This is despite the significant economic growth in the past few decades, when is the wealth going to trickle down? So far it seems to mostly be vacuumed up.

off the subject. Is the top 1% taking 25% of the wages really that bad when they pay 32% of the taxes? I think that's fair, possibly even more than fair. When I look at it, I wonder who the hell is supposed to cover that 32% of gov't revenue if we didn't have a top 1%.

[CreepersWiener]

Here is Olberman interviewing protester that was punched:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bXKzzU4 ... ture=feedu

[CreepersWiener]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSoYJ3xa ... re=related

[Phatscotty]

the NY times reports that the crowd at OWS is about 6,000 people

[Baron Von PWN]

While I am skeptical to their effectiveness, I am somewhat supportive of their general message. Which is a sort-off generalized disenchantment from our economic system. Is it really reasonable that 1% of society take in nearly a quarter of its wages? Does it seem right that the top 10% of earners have seen their wages increase dramatically while the rest's wages have remained stagnant? This is despite the significant economic growth in the past few decades, when is the wealth going to trickle down? So far it seems to mostly be vacuumed up.

off the subject. Is the top 1% taking 25% of the wages really that bad when they pay 32% of the taxes? I think that's fair, possibly even more than fair. When I look at it, I wonder who the hell is supposed to cover that 32% of gov't revenue if we didn't have a top 1%.

That isin't true. The top tax bracket pays 32% which includes the top 1%. This isn't really the point though, the main thrust of the protest isn't about any specific policy, its more about a protest against a system which allows 1% to own a quarter of the wealth its a complaint against the perceived abuses of capitalism.