Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Occupy Wall Street

578 replies to this topic
TheCacti
  • TheCacti

    l'administration vous emmerde

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 12 Sep 2010
  • Macau

#1

Posted 30 September 2011 - 02:17 PM Edited by TheCacti, 05 October 2011 - 02:31 PM.

Personally, I'm expecting this protest to gain a lot of momentum and very soon, especially since the NYC transit union has recently committed their support. link

I really think the average Americans are fed up and tired of tolerating corporate fat cats and big banks playing with the economy, and getting off scot-free, while we are the ones to shoulder the burden of its consequences. I think the USA is in a pretty dire situation right now. As long as politicians are working with a bought congress, the laws and policies emerging from Washington will continue to have no interest in us or our well being. And it's f*cked up.

Some Info:
https://occupywallst.org/

Spreading to San Francisco:
http://www.huffingto...o_n_988180.html

Relevant Videos







sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Empty Pleasures and Desperate Measures since 1994

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#2

Posted 30 September 2011 - 02:26 PM

What these people seem to fail to grasp is that their jobs, their livelihoods and their savings are entirely dependent on the so-called "fat cats" they hate so much. Periods of recession and economic woes are swings and roundabouts, part of the rise and fall of the general economy and nothing to get unduly worked up about. Sensationalism has more to do with the media's portrayals of these relatively natural peaks and troughs than it does about the economics in general.

Also, direct action is often extremely unsuccessful- the principal reason being that the perception of it is that it's undertaken by a small minority, who chose to use direct forms of action rather than the due political process as they know that their actions only represent a tiny proportion of public thought. It is generally disregarded by policy makers as it's drama and disruption are seen in the same light as many union disputes- an attempt to bypass the proper political process and force the hand of an administration not by strength of support, but by physical action. Whether that is the actual case in examples like this is a completely separate issue; however, direct action is often extremely poorly received by those who actually have the power to make any kind of difference- and not, as some may suggest, because of some kind of taciturn or covert approval for the actions of (in this example) the bankers, but because the individuals involved in action such as this are generally too heavily driven by vitriol and selfish desire rather than what may or may not be good for an economy as a whole.

TheCacti
  • TheCacti

    l'administration vous emmerde

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 12 Sep 2010
  • Macau

#3

Posted 30 September 2011 - 03:41 PM Edited by TheCacti, 30 September 2011 - 03:44 PM.

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Friday, Sep 30 2011, 14:26)
What these people seem to fail to grasp is that their jobs, their livelihoods and their savings are entirely dependent on the so-called "fat cats" they hate so much. Periods of recession and economic woes are swings and roundabouts, part of the rise and fall of the general economy and nothing to get unduly worked up about. Sensationalism has more to do with the media's portrayals of these relatively natural peaks and troughs than it does about the economics in general.

I see what you're saying here, and agree. "Fat cats" are not the problem per se, they've always been around and always will be (I hesitated to use that expression in the first place because I knew it'd garner attention tounge.gif ) But I think it's fair to say that their increasingly greedy behaviors and actions are a problem (e.g. using federal bailout money in a time of economic turmoil to shower themselves with bonuses instead of using it to alleviate a problem that they helped create). They're able to get away with it because they practically own congress. That's a problem, too.

I must say this too: I'm not going to sit behind my keyboard and pretend like I know everything about the economy. I simply don't. Although I certainly want to learn as much as I can. But it doesn't take an economist to see that major corporations are pretty much running the show, and as long as they're allowed to, the average American will never have any say Washington and voting will continue to be a farce.

Despite the labeling of the protest, it's not entirely germane to just the economy:
QUOTE

OccupyWallStreet
OUR GRIEVANCES
1.Campaign Finance Reform
All votes are no longer equal in our Democracy. Money must be put outside of politics, or politicians willcontinue to pander to those who contribute the most totheir campaigns, rather than their own constituencies.Specifically, we abhor the decision by the SupremeCourt in Citizens United v. FEC. Corporations are
NOT
people.

2.True Shared Sacrifice
While corporate profits have been skyrocketing and thewealthy have been getting wealthier, the averageworker’s income has dramatically dropped. While thecost of living has exponentially increased, wages havenot followed. It has been shown time and time againthat tax cuts for the wealthy are NOT effective. Taxeson those who practice greed should be raised.

3.Equality in Justice
This great nation was founded on liberty, but also, onequality. When the balance of justice is swayed in favorof those with wealth, the very fabric of this nation istorn apart. The decision of a judge should not be basedupon the race, creed, or wealth of an individual, butrather, the content of the case.

4.The End of the Revolving Door
The Obama administration was supposed to bring change and hope to our country, but instead, brought us into despair and insecurity. Those working in hisadministration are the very people whom we arefighting against. Those who enter Washington shouldnot be representatives of the elites, but representatives of the people. One cannot simply enter anadministration, reap its benefits, and simply exit.

source

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Empty Pleasures and Desperate Measures since 1994

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#4

Posted 30 September 2011 - 03:59 PM

QUOTE (TheCacti @ Friday, Sep 30 2011, 16:41)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Friday, Sep 30 2011, 14:26)
What these people seem to fail to grasp is that their jobs, their livelihoods and their savings are entirely dependent on the so-called "fat cats" they hate so much. Periods of recession and economic woes are swings and roundabouts, part of the rise and fall of the general economy and nothing to get unduly worked up about. Sensationalism has more to do with the media's portrayals of these relatively natural peaks and troughs than it does about the economics in general.

I see what you're saying here, and agree. "Fat cats" are not the problem per se, they've always been around and always will be (I hesitated to use that expression in the first place because I knew it'd garner attention tounge.gif ) But I think it's fair to say that their increasingly greedy behaviors and actions are a problem (e.g. using federal bailout money in a time of economic turmoil to shower themselves with bonuses instead of using it to alleviate a problem that they helped create). They're able to get away with it because they practically own congress. That's a problem, too.

I must say this too: I'm not going to sit behind my keyboard and pretend like I know everything about the economy. I simply don't. Although I certainly want to learn as much as I can. But it doesn't take an economist to see that major corporations are pretty much running the show, and as long as they're allowed to, the average American will never have any say Washington and voting will continue to be a farce.

Personally, I don't think the behaviour of the economic heavyweights is any worse these days than it has been at any other time in history. The only real difference is that, thanks to the proliferation of the mass-media, it's more widely known and understood. The same goes for the concept that the "major corporations run the show" as you put it. Now, it's a point of contention, but one of the principal parts of the US political system is that due to the separation of powers and the lack of actual, fundamental policy capability for each branch of government, the onus must fall onto other organisations to advise and decide on policy. Historically, it was the bureaucracy, but for the last five decades or so it's been businesses. Unfortunately, you can't have a separation of powers without other organisations coming to fill in the void, be they pressure or lobby groups, a large, bloated leviathan of a public sector (as is experienced in many more socialist-leaning European countries) or corporations. That's the way that the balance of power works- if a vacuum appears somewhere, someone will fill it. What I'm basically saying that the entire US political system operates almost as if it's designed to discourage "economic democracy"- that is, actively resisting the idea of economic power resting with a large base of public stakeholders, instead choosing to throttle the public sector and outsource literally everything. It's also the way it's going to stay unless the US Neo-right accept that a properly functioning political and economic system needs to balance public and private sector- in my view, a ratio of about 3:1 in favour of the private sector- and stops labelling anything that vaguely resembles and attempt to dismantle the current plutocracy as "socialism" (*shudder*). And that's never going to happen.

As far as I can see it, there are two choices. Scrap the separation of powers entirely and massively ramp up the decision making power of the executive branch of government, or live with the current status quo.

lil weasel
  • lil weasel

    Shoot Looters, Hang Pirates!

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2006
  • United-States
  • Contribution Award [San Andreas]

#5

Posted 30 September 2011 - 04:33 PM

In a 'Capitist' society the Politicans are the problem. As they work for the Fat Cats, not the ordinary people, unless it's election time.
I just heard that the US Postal Service is going out of business because it has to fund a Retirement plan that is 'forward' based 75 years.
So if it goes out of business the politicians get to keep that 'billions' of dollars to play with, as there won't be anyone to collect it.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Empty Pleasures and Desperate Measures since 1994

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#6

Posted 30 September 2011 - 04:41 PM

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Friday, Sep 30 2011, 17:33)
In a 'Capitist' society the Politicans are the problem. As they work for the Fat Cats, not the ordinary people, unless it's election time.
I just heard that the US Postal Service is going out of business because it has to fund a Retirement plan that is 'forward' based 75 years.
So if it goes out of business the politicians get to keep that 'billions' of dollars to play with, as there won't be anyone to collect it.

That's not a trend across capitalism in general, just US capitalism. As I said, its your own fault for having and continuing to reinforce the separation of powers. If you didn't have them and the branches of government- particularly the executive- had some legislative ability instead of just bickering and taking years for policies to be enacted, or just filibustered to death, then you wouldn't experience the same problems.

TheCacti
  • TheCacti

    l'administration vous emmerde

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 12 Sep 2010
  • Macau

#7

Posted 30 September 2011 - 05:27 PM Edited by TheCacti, 30 September 2011 - 05:52 PM.

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Friday, Sep 30 2011, 15:59)
Unfortunately, you can't have a separation of powers without other organisations coming to fill in the void, be they pressure or lobby groups, a large, bloated leviathan of a public sector (as is experienced in many more socialist-leaning European countries) or corporations. That's the way that the balance of power works- if a vacuum appears somewhere, someone will fill it.

As far as I can see it, there are two choices. Scrap the separation of powers entirely and massively ramp up the decision making power of the executive branch of government, or live with the current status quo.

What void, exactly? I think what the Occupy Wall Street protestors ultimately want is to fill this void you're talking about, or at least to fairly participate in the process, instead of just the extremely wealthy. And with ownership of big business being consolidated more and more, it's reached a point where the 'balance of power' is practically non-existent. I agree with you that the balance of power has always been tilted in the favor of wealth and we're just more informed today, but has it always been so extreme?

Scrapping the political system in exchange for another won't ever be an option, in my opinion. I think the country was founded on a good system, and it's partly why I'm extremely proud to be an American. That we developed so rapidly as a nation seems to suggest that the system works well, too. But it seems to be sick with money and greed at this point - and I hate saying that because it sounds so damned cliché. But there is certainly something not right. The nation has become so extremely divisive in the most superficial of ways, and I think a testament to that is just look at the current crop of politicians. We've descended from the calibre of Jefferson, Washington, Lincoln, to people like Sarah Palin, Kerry, Obama, Bush, Perry, and the fact that someone like Bachmann is even giving it a go is just downright pathetic and embarrassing.

Nonetheless, you make some good points on the balance of power that are difficult to refute. In capitalism, money will always be synonymous with power, and so big business and the elite class will undoubtedly have the upper hand. And so how can we really expect a level playing field where disparity of wealth is encouraged by the economic system that we love?

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Empty Pleasures and Desperate Measures since 1994

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#8

Posted 30 September 2011 - 06:07 PM

QUOTE (TheCacti @ Friday, Sep 30 2011, 18:27)
What void, exactly? I think what the Occupy Wall Street protestors ultimately want is to fill this void you're talking about, or at least to fairly participate in the process, instead of just the extremely wealthy. And with ownership of big business being consolidated more and more, it's reached a point where the 'balance of power' is practically non-existent. I agree with you that the balance of power has always been tilted in the favor of wealth informed today, but has it always been so extreme?

Scrapping the political system in exchange for another won't ever be an option, in my opinion. I think the country was founded on a good system, and it's partly why I'm extremely proud to be an American. That we developed so rapidly as a nation seems to suggest that the system works well, too. But it seems to be sick with money and greed at this point - and I hate saying that because it sounds so damned cliché. But there is certainly something not right. The nation has become so extremely divisive in the most superficial of ways, and I think a testament to that is just look at the current crop of politicians. We've descended from the calibre of Jefferson, Washington, Lincoln, to people like Sarah Palin, Kerry, Obama, Bush, Perry, and the fact that someone like Bachmann is even giving it a go is just downright pathetic and embarrassing.

Your right, that's exactly what they are seeking to do. The actions of groups like this are as much an attempt to stake a claim to their own political influence as they are a rebellion against those that do have it. It's an interesting conundrum- those that actively attack the existing balance of power often become enormously enamoured by it once they gain a position of power, and often cast aside their true ideology to pursue selfish megalomania. This seems to be especially prevalent with left-leaning, anti-capitalist organisations; just look at the rise of Communism and how the principals of equality and revolution against political and economic hierarchy disintegrated into an even more autocratic version of the system that existed before. If you look back to more archaic times, then the balance of power has often been even more heavily favoured towards the wealthy. Serfdom and peasantry are perfect examples of this, where not only did the landowners have control of the land, but also the individuals who lived on it. Of course, things are much better these days and I would personally say that wealth and power equality is better now than it ever has been. In the olden days, it was rare to the point of almost being a fairy tale for someone to rise from poverty to a position of power. Nowadays, it occurs, albeit rarely- there is still far to go in terms of offering people at least equality of opportunity (I'm under no illusions that everyone is in any way equal).

Granted, it's difficult for an outsider to say "the separation of powers is the problem" and avoid being heckled or lampooned, but that really is how I see it. A political system in which no branch of government holds a decisive amount of power is a recipe for the active promotion of "alternate political interest"- the pressure groups, both single-issue and general, the business lobby, welfare-supporters, the Green movement. It's not helped by the lack of viable alternatives when it comes to actual elections- either vote for a main party, or waste it on a nonentity. Nations who possess viable third, forth (ad infinitum) parties who have a realistic chance of gaining some kind of political sway generally suffer from less of a business-centric intrusion into politics. It's much easier to judge the successfulness of politicians with hindsight. Look at Reagan as a perfect example- I doubt many who grew up and matured under his stewardship would have kind words to say about him, yet he's consistently ranked amongst the ten best presidents the United States have ever had. LBJ ranks quite highly, as does Jimmy Carter, neither of whom were afforded that much popular support for swathes of their presidencies. It's difficult to see the effects of long-term political and economic decisions without experiencing those decisions in their entirety. Though, to some extent you are right- the contenders for the 2012 election are of poor quality. Whilst I cant' fault Obama on his foreign policy, I hear a never-ending stream of criticism of his domestic policy (though it has to be said, much of it is not actually his). Remember, presidents are figureheads first and politicians second, and they don't command anywhere close to as much sway over policy formulation and exaction as the executive branches of other, non-federal governments.

spaceeinstein
  • spaceeinstein

    巧克力

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Jul 2003
  • None

#9

Posted 01 October 2011 - 01:29 AM Edited by spaceeinstein, 01 October 2011 - 01:35 AM.

This looks like just another protest, but more widespread. Unlike other countries where protests aren't allowed and voting is rigged, I doubt this is anywhere close to a revolution. Why do this now and not earlier, when they could have more obvious influence? If the American people hate the government for being influenced by Wall Street, should they also hate themselves for voting them?

For me, I would blame the average American person instead for being short-sighted and unknowledgeable. Problems like this happened before and to other countries, but it seems like the average American person lacks the knowledge to vote for the right person - accepting, choosing, and voting for the wrong person with the wrong policies that allowed this mess to happen. How many voters are benefiting from Wall Street compared to voters who suffer from this? If money can actually buy votes, does that mean the average American is easily influenced by money to vote for the wrong people?

From what I've read, financial institutions used to be heavily regulated so that they couldn't take unnecessary risks (see Great Depression). Then the rise of the idea of less government interference and deregulation being good allowed financial institutions to take huge risks that cost the country. North Dakota's state-run banking system doesn't seem to have many problems. Looking at the grievances, why blame Obama on this situation? Sorry if I'm repeating what sivispacem said, Obama has many proposals that would prevent events like this from happening again, but he has no legislative power. Congress is the one who has the power to regulate financial institutions, yet the American people voted for those who oppose government regulation. An inactive and polarized Congress gets nothing important done, so I doubt the protests would affect the government until at least the next election year.

E.A.B.
  • E.A.B.

    Group: Leone Mafia Family

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005

#10

Posted 01 October 2011 - 07:39 AM Edited by E.A.B., 01 October 2011 - 07:44 AM.

Is this that protest were they were gonna decide what exactly they're for and what their demands are when they got there?

It's all a bunch of retarded ''fight the power, maaaan'' sh*t. Until they can come up with actual arguments and points other than ''f*ck da fat cats yo'' I'll not be listening.

They were passing off this sh*t in my college the other day. It's f*cking funny, to me.

I mean, the only argument they have is that they actively (bankers, financers, etc) f*cked over people with mortgages and got off while everyone else got screwed. They can argue that the bail out money should have helped the bottom, instead of the top. Prosperity (or at least, security) at the bottom of the hierarchy can ensure the well-being of the top. Basically; an argument consisting of the miscarriage of the bail out money.

But no, instead its just vague and general ''man my sociology teacher talked about this on wednesday and he's right f*ck capitalism brah gooo radiohead''

AlexGTAGamer
  • AlexGTAGamer

    Time flies when you throw a clock.

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2010
  • None

#11

Posted 01 October 2011 - 06:11 PM

Here are a few videos on these protests:






Tchuck
  • Tchuck

    Grey Gaming

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 20 Dec 2002
  • Japan

#12

Posted 01 October 2011 - 06:40 PM

QUOTE (E.A.B. @ Saturday, Oct 1 2011, 04:39)
I mean, the only argument they have is that they actively (bankers, financers, etc) f*cked over people with mortgages and got off while everyone else got screwed. They can argue that the bail out money should have helped the bottom, instead of the top. Prosperity (or at least, security) at the bottom of the hierarchy can ensure the well-being of the top. Basically; an argument consisting of the miscarriage of the bail out money.

But no, instead its just vague and general ''man my sociology teacher talked about this on wednesday and he's right f*ck capitalism brah gooo radiohead''

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the whole housing crisis that brought everything down caused by both sides?
I mean, people were playing the system by taking out mortgage after mortgage as if it was some infinite money cheat, and bankers were giving these people money because they thought they could always get it back no problem. So blaming the bankers without assuming part of the blame is just ridiculous.

In my opinion, if they want to protest, protesting at Wall Street will accomplish nothing. Capitalism is not to blame here. If they want stricter regulations and things of that sort, they should go to the government and have them do it. Protest Washington. But, like you said, it seems these people don't know what the hell they're really protesting for, and are only doing it for the sake of protesting.

I disagree that prosperity at the bottom ensures the well-being of the top. The top in this case are banks, if they crash, people have no money, no more investments in tons of areas, jobs will be cut, people will be unemployed, financial system will collapse. All the money in the world given to those people at the bottom would make 0 difference as they'd probably rather save it while the economy is uncertain than spend it to keep the wheels in motion. Whereas money as the top will ensure banks keep alive, providing the servers they always have and investing in the areas they always did and not resulting in a financial collapse, which would suck. Sounds like people are just butt-hurt about it all and want some compensation for it.

PacketOVerload_x64Bit
  • PacketOVerload_x64Bit

    ENB Puritan

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2010
  • Canada

#13

Posted 01 October 2011 - 09:51 PM

http://www.livestrea...lobalrevolution

Protestors stopped and being arrested mid-walk on the Brooklyn Bridge. US Marines reportedly being deployed to protect the protestors. NYPD arresting peaceful protestors during the Occupy Wallstreet rally.

I figured as Liberty City is our playground, this might be interesting to you. Protestors stopped on the Brooklyn Bridge.

user posted image

-I started another thread b/c I didn't see this one smile.gif Adding from my thread. Good to see info here. icon14.gif

PacketOVerload_x64Bit
  • PacketOVerload_x64Bit

    ENB Puritan

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2010
  • Canada

#14

Posted 01 October 2011 - 10:36 PM

Another feed as the main feed is dead.

http://qik.com/video/44724201

Corrections buses and two or more ambulances making their way to the Brooklyn Bridge during the live feed outage.

K^2
  • K^2

    Vidi Vici Veni

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2004
  • United-States
  • Most Knowledgeable [Web Development/Programming] 2013
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA Series] 2011
    Best Debater 2010

#15

Posted 01 October 2011 - 10:57 PM

QUOTE (TheCacti @ Friday, Sep 30 2011, 11:41)
QUOTE
OccupyWallStreet
OUR GRIEVANCES
1.Campaign Finance Reform
All votes are no longer equal in our Democracy.

They never were. And if you read federalist papers, they never meant to be. Equal votes lead to many problems, with tyranny of majority being one of the worst. I don't think people who are protesting understand how the system is supposed to work. There are problems, granted. But before you try to fix the problems, try reading the f*cking instruction book.

AlexGTAGamer
  • AlexGTAGamer

    Time flies when you throw a clock.

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2010
  • None

#16

Posted 01 October 2011 - 11:06 PM

I hope that this doesn't turn violent like what happened in London for the last G20 Summit and what happened across the UK for the tuition fees protests. confused.gif They started out peacefully and then they turned violent, very violent.

PacketOVerload_x64Bit
  • PacketOVerload_x64Bit

    ENB Puritan

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2010
  • Canada

#17

Posted 01 October 2011 - 11:33 PM

Protesting the problems in the face of a system that ignores the people footing the bill is the only way. We all read the instruction book. Unfrotunately, the people who wrote the instruction book forgot to tell us no matter how hard we try, we will always owe them more and they find new ways of taking more from us via prohibition, taxing and one-sided business.

The only way to avoid violence in my opinion is for MORE people to show up. Why is that nobody from Wallstreet or the big banks were put in jail for the billions written in bonuses after the government bail out? For starters.


Typhus
  • Typhus

    OG

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2007

#18

Posted 01 October 2011 - 11:35 PM

Ah, blessed disorder. Soon you Americans will know how wonderful these protestors are when they're pissing on your war memorials and trying to destroy your entire civilisation, just like ours.

AlexGTAGamer
  • AlexGTAGamer

    Time flies when you throw a clock.

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2010
  • None

#19

Posted 01 October 2011 - 11:42 PM

QUOTE (PacketOVerload_x64Bit @ Sunday, Oct 2 2011, 00:33)
The only way to avoid violence in my opinion is for MORE people to show up. Why is that nobody from Wallstreet or the big banks were put in jail for the billions written in bonuses after the government bail out? For starters.

In my opinion having more people there would make it even worse. The police would begin to feel more threatened that at any moment the demonstrators can become violent and that they would be outnumbered if it turns violent, meaning more officers would then be brought in to prevent that from happening, and then with more officers there they would begin to push the demonstrators back even further and start to become more heavy handed.

K^2
  • K^2

    Vidi Vici Veni

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2004
  • United-States
  • Most Knowledgeable [Web Development/Programming] 2013
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA Series] 2011
    Best Debater 2010

#20

Posted 01 October 2011 - 11:45 PM

QUOTE (PacketOVerload_x64Bit @ Saturday, Oct 1 2011, 19:33)
Protesting the problems in the face of a system that ignores the people footing the bill is the only way. We all read the instruction book. Unfrotunately, the people who wrote the instruction book forgot to tell us no matter how hard we try, we will always owe them more and they find new ways of taking more from us via prohibition, taxing and one-sided business.

Really? Why don't you explain to me how the system in place is meant to look after the minority groups? Or specifically under which conditions the founding fathers have seen it fit for the people to revolt against their government. Naturally, a protest is a minor form, but the reasoning applies. It's all there in the papers you claim to have read.

The list of grievances is idiotic. The nation was not founded on equality. It never meant to have equal votes. To meet these demands would bring on collapse of the system, with suggested replacements being nothing more than rambling of ignorant fools. The system needs to be protected from the likes of these who started this protest, and if it means arresting people by busloads, so long as due process is respected afterwards, I completely support it.

Iminicus
  • Iminicus

    Something witty, something sh*tty

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 18 Apr 2004
  • Pitcairn-Islands

#21

Posted 02 October 2011 - 03:09 AM

QUOTE (K^2 @ Saturday, Oct 1 2011, 15:45)
QUOTE (PacketOVerload_x64Bit @ Saturday, Oct 1 2011, 19:33)
Protesting the problems in the face of a system that ignores the people footing the bill is the only way. We all read the instruction book. Unfrotunately, the people who wrote the instruction book forgot to tell us no matter how hard we try, we will always owe them more and they find new ways of taking more from us via prohibition, taxing and one-sided business.

Really? Why don't you explain to me how the system in place is meant to look after the minority groups? Or specifically under which conditions the founding fathers have seen it fit for the people to revolt against their government. Naturally, a protest is a minor form, but the reasoning applies. It's all there in the papers you claim to have read.

The list of grievances is idiotic. The nation was not founded on equality. It never meant to have equal votes. To meet these demands would bring on collapse of the system, with suggested replacements being nothing more than rambling of ignorant fools. The system needs to be protected from the likes of these who started this protest, and if it means arresting people by busloads, so long as due process is respected afterwards, I completely support it.

I think the whole thing is f*cking stupid. These are people with too much time on their hands who don't understand the whole system. They think they are making some huge impact but really they are ignoring everything that has lead up to the Economic collapse, which predates Bush and Obama by 80 years and more.

So, I say f*ck the protestors. They need to go get jobs.

Pico
  • Pico

    cinnamon ropes

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 18 Feb 2009
  • None

#22

Posted 02 October 2011 - 04:38 AM

QUOTE (K^2 @ Saturday, Oct 1 2011, 17:45)
QUOTE (PacketOVerload_x64Bit @ Saturday, Oct 1 2011, 19:33)
Protesting the problems in the face of a system that ignores the people footing the bill is the only way. We all read the instruction book. Unfrotunately, the people who wrote the instruction book forgot to tell us no matter how hard we try, we will always owe them more and they find new ways of taking more from us via prohibition, taxing and one-sided business.

Really? Why don't you explain to me how the system in place is meant to look after the minority groups? Or specifically under which conditions the founding fathers have seen it fit for the people to revolt against their government. Naturally, a protest is a minor form, but the reasoning applies. It's all there in the papers you claim to have read.

The list of grievances is idiotic. The nation was not founded on equality. It never meant to have equal votes. To meet these demands would bring on collapse of the system, with suggested replacements being nothing more than rambling of ignorant fools. The system needs to be protected from the likes of these who started this protest, and if it means arresting people by busloads, so long as due process is respected afterwards, I completely support it.

While I'm not too up to date on all the details and happenings as of... well, the past 5 years, I have a strong feeling to point out a flaw I see in your argument. While plenty of the demands from protesters are outrageous and downright stupid, the point being equality is not moot.

Nobody is demanding everyone to be paid equally. Nobody is demanding flat tax rates. The problem lies in the fact that over the past one to two decades our economic classes have bridged such a huge gap. Now, normally it may not have been such a slap in the face for the top earners to keep increasing their net worth over time so long as everyone below were able to keep an increase or even steady pay to fund our lifestyles. But that's not the case. Mass lay-offs, decrease in pay with the increase of out-sourcing and cost of living overall is what's bringing about this protest. The top earners keep increasing their worth while everyone below keeps getting worse and worse. The money isn't trickling down, they're holding it for themselves.

Now, I'm one that hates the "[insert thing] is taking our jobs" stance. I understand that companies are finding more efficient ways to make their products and as a member of society we need to provide a useful service. With that, we need to stay with the demand of employers or consumers. We cannot expect companies to keep paying, or paying well for that matter, for a job that took "extra skill" 10-15 years ago like computer data entry. We most definitely need to stay with the times and keep ourselves useful.

Another thing that caught my attention was a picture of the Great Depression where men were standing in full-length coats waiting for soup, then a picture of the "Depression of 2011" where an Apple store was packed with people, hands in the air. We are definitely making things hard for ourselves. We've grown to expect a certain standard of living. We demand a high-tech, advanced, and comfortable lifestyle. Some may argue we live in a materialistic world where we're told what we want, but I find it the opposite. We know damn well what we want and the companies supply it to us. Our want, I feel, is our biggest downfall in this situation. We can't seem to stop consuming products left and right. Hell, I was at Fry's Electronics today and some weirdo started rambling on about how he's buying the new Nvidia 560 because they removed the aluminum plate at the bottom edge so he's hoping it won't "run as hot" as the previous. Really? You need to spend $200 on a new graphics card when yours works ok? I understand the want part of it, but he didn't need it. What he needed was a haircut and some new clothes first. Not to bash him, but just proof that our priorities are playing a large role in this issue.

While the protests are focused on the (in)equality of the economy, I think there's more going on. We're starting to wake up and realize that we have been granted our right to protest to get what we want. Growing up I remember reading and seeing videos of protests decades past. I never expected it to comeback in such a way. I don't want to flat out state that I'm glad these protests are happening as I'm a bit uneducated on the subject. But I like the visible awareness of current affairs. With these protests there have been plenty and plenty of videos of police officers harassing and abusing citizens, and that's what I like to see. Not because I want people to get hurt, I want to see the officers in this light on camera. It happens all the time, day after day. Our country is turning into a police-state more and more as time passes. This year has seen tons of corruption and violence enacted by officers. It's calling attention to the abuse. Government, local, state, and federal, are all abusing the powers they have.

In reference to the abuse of power, I feel the federal government is the largest offender by far. They need to disband the TSA. They need to accept their role as a facilitator of public service, law-making for the better of the people, and justice, not public oppression, foreign affairs, and deceit. They need to be held accountable for their actions, open or covert, including their spending. How can billions of dollars flown into another country go missing? How can you not foresee with any decent measure a possible shutdown of the government, nationally, due to a lack of funds?

I don't know if the protests in New York will become a revolution. It almost definitely will not grow into one. Over time I hope it'll have an impact for us to change our perception and reaction to government actions. If need be, and I feel there is, there might just be a revolution. How that will go through, I wouldn't know. We've given our government over half a century to build a world-wide police force, capable of decimating and oppressing other countries as a whole. We've given them the keys to our only understanding of quick communication, monetary transfer, and modes of travel. They own the banks and they own the infrastructure we use to commute, and communicate. They can cut it off from us at any moment and bring in the big guns and there'd be nothing we can do about it. The only hope that we'd have is if the majority our military personnel held their arms in the name of the people and not the government and joined in the revolution.

So do we have the right to complain about this inequality? Do we need to come to terms with reality and quit demanding more so we can consume at the rate we desire, and for the most part continue to do? And on another note, will the combined anger across all of the issues that root back to big government be enough to start a national revolution? I can't answer these, and I dare not to. My ignorance on the subjects, while embarrassing, is too large and the required triggers are too vast to even get a good prediction for those well informed. I just hope that if anything comes from these protests, it leads to a better tomorrow for all of us, not just the US but the world. It can make changes, let's hope it's for the best.

E.A.B.
  • E.A.B.

    Group: Leone Mafia Family

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005

#23

Posted 02 October 2011 - 05:30 AM

QUOTE (Tchuck @ Saturday, Oct 1 2011, 13:40)
QUOTE (E.A.B. @ Saturday, Oct 1 2011, 04:39)
I mean, the only argument they have is that they actively (bankers, financers, etc) f*cked over people with mortgages and got off while everyone else got screwed. They can argue that the bail out money should have helped the bottom, instead of the top. Prosperity (or at least, security) at the bottom of the hierarchy can ensure the well-being of the top. Basically; an argument consisting of the miscarriage of the bail out money.

But no, instead its just vague and general ''man my sociology teacher talked about this on wednesday and he's right f*ck capitalism brah gooo radiohead''

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the whole housing crisis that brought everything down caused by both sides?

Pretty much

but you can't say the masses of people had as much authority and power as the bankers in this situation. It isn't an equal plane, and those in power should have been more responsible.

As for Pico; if the protesters talked like you, I'd take them much more seriously. Unfortunately, they have those guy fawkes anonymous queers holding up ''Y U MAD'' signs instead.

I f*cking hate Anonymous with a passion. Anytime they're involved, for me, it takes a huge swipe to legitimacy.

JOSEPH X
  • JOSEPH X

    Boss

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2008

#24

Posted 02 October 2011 - 06:29 AM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Friday, Sep 30 2011, 14:26)
What these people seem to fail to grasp is that their jobs, their livelihoods and their savings are entirely dependent on the so-called "fat cats" they hate so much.

The hell they are. Nobody on earth's job is dependent on hedge fund managers and the like. It's THEIR livelihoods that are dependent on hard working people setting up businesses, being employees, building properties and generally making enough money for them to cream off their "share" - not vice versa.

Slamman
  • Slamman

    Smote

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 29 Nov 2003
  • United-States

#25

Posted 02 October 2011 - 07:19 AM

They should all spend some time homeless, without means, and try and see what the f*** it's like, it'd do 'em all good

K^2
  • K^2

    Vidi Vici Veni

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2004
  • United-States
  • Most Knowledgeable [Web Development/Programming] 2013
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA Series] 2011
    Best Debater 2010

#26

Posted 02 October 2011 - 08:19 AM

QUOTE (Pico @ Sunday, Oct 2 2011, 00:38)
Nobody is demanding everyone to be paid equally. Nobody is demanding flat tax rates. The problem lies in the fact that over the past one to two decades our economic classes have bridged such a huge gap.

I lean strongly towards technocracy, so I'm not entirely sure that large class gap is inherently a bad thing, so long as it favors development of science, technology, and medicine. Yes, the way it's currently distributed is not productive either way. But lets set all that aside. Suppose we look at it from social perspective, and agree that large class gap is definitely a bad thing and needs to be drastically reduced.

Does it make sense to go out there and simply demand economic equality? No. It won't work. You try to force any kind of class equality, you end up having to resort to planned economy. You just can't force income distributions to be closer together by simply waving equality laws at corporations. Do you want a socialist revolution and a completely new and different government and economy? If yes, present some form of a plan. Revolutions just to overthrow a government don't usually result in a better government. They result in a whole bunch of mess that takes decades to resolve. Present a clear alternative where you outline what sort of political system you'll have, how it will influence the economy, and how it will influence social equality. Then rally support.

On the other hand, I suspect that a lot of people, probably majority, that aren't happy with class gap don't want to take down the system. They see the system as stagnant and rusty, requiring a lot of cleaning and adjustment. This is a position I completely agree with. But if this is where you are, you can't just ask for equality. Economic or otherwise. Why is the class gap there? What actions have resulted in it growing out of control? What measures can we actually take to bring it back under control? You can't simply protest it and hope it will go away because of that.

The only "good" thing about simply asking for economic equality is that it draws a larger crowd. It gets idiots from both camps on board without discriminating between fixing and rebuilding. It's easy to get a bunch of people to simply demand reforms. It's a lot harder to suggest something constructive and get a lot of people to back that up. And that's exactly what needs to be done.

I don't think the system is so corrupt that these changes can't be forced by working from inside, but it's not a requirement. Protest, in itself, isn't a bad thing. If people would want a revolution, I can even understand that. But only if these people know exactly what they are overthrowing and know exactly what they want to build in its place.
QUOTE
They need to disband the TSA.

You have my axe.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Empty Pleasures and Desperate Measures since 1994

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#27

Posted 02 October 2011 - 08:40 AM

QUOTE (JOSEPH X @ Sunday, Oct 2 2011, 07:29)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Friday, Sep 30 2011, 14:26)
What these people seem to fail to grasp is that their jobs, their livelihoods and their savings are entirely dependent on the so-called "fat cats" they hate so much.

The hell they are. Nobody on earth's job is dependent on hedge fund managers and the like. It's THEIR livelihoods that are dependent on hard working people setting up businesses, being employees, building properties and generally making enough money for them to cream off their "share" - not vice versa.

All that demonstrates is that you have literally no understanding of the interconnected nature of financial institutions, or of economic globalisation. The financial success of the Western world over the last few decades has been born entirely from the tertiary sector of the economy- basically, the financial services sector is the only thing that kept the West from going under when China overtook it in basic, then high-technology, manufacturing. Supply and demand is a two way street. I never said that the tertiary sector of the economy wasn't entirely dependent on the activities of the general public for it's operation, but the same can be said of the general public's dependency on the successful operation of the financial services sector.

Tuff Luv Capo
  • Tuff Luv Capo

    We must find Ansama Benlanden

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Oct 2002

#28

Posted 02 October 2011 - 09:32 AM

QUOTE (K^2 @ Sunday, Oct 2 2011, 03:19)
QUOTE (Pico @ Sunday, Oct 2 2011, 00:38)
Nobody is demanding everyone to be paid equally. Nobody is demanding flat tax rates. The problem lies in the fact that over the past one to two decades our economic classes have bridged such a huge gap.

I lean strongly towards technocracy, so I'm not entirely sure that large class gap is inherently a bad thing, so long as it favors development of science, technology, and medicine. Yes, the way it's currently distributed is not productive either way. But lets set all that aside. Suppose we look at it from social perspective, and agree that large class gap is definitely a bad thing and needs to be drastically reduced.

Does it make sense to go out there and simply demand economic equality? No. It won't work. You try to force any kind of class equality, you end up having to resort to planned economy. You just can't force income distributions to be closer together by simply waving equality laws at corporations. Do you want a socialist revolution and a completely new and different government and economy? If yes, present some form of a plan. Revolutions just to overthrow a government don't usually result in a better government. They result in a whole bunch of mess that takes decades to resolve. Present a clear alternative where you outline what sort of political system you'll have, how it will influence the economy, and how it will influence social equality. Then rally support.

On the other hand, I suspect that a lot of people, probably majority, that aren't happy with class gap don't want to take down the system. They see the system as stagnant and rusty, requiring a lot of cleaning and adjustment. This is a position I completely agree with. But if this is where you are, you can't just ask for equality. Economic or otherwise. Why is the class gap there? What actions have resulted in it growing out of control? What measures can we actually take to bring it back under control? You can't simply protest it and hope it will go away because of that.

The only "good" thing about simply asking for economic equality is that it draws a larger crowd. It gets idiots from both camps on board without discriminating between fixing and rebuilding. It's easy to get a bunch of people to simply demand reforms. It's a lot harder to suggest something constructive and get a lot of people to back that up. And that's exactly what needs to be done.

I don't think the system is so corrupt that these changes can't be forced by working from inside, but it's not a requirement. Protest, in itself, isn't a bad thing. If people would want a revolution, I can even understand that. But only if these people know exactly what they are overthrowing and know exactly what they want to build in its place.
QUOTE
They need to disband the TSA.

You have my axe.

user posted image


Anyways, whenever there is a meeting at work telling everyone to stop doing a certain thing that anyone could be doing, everyone acts and convinces themselves that they are talking about someone else and continue to go about doing it. The only way to truly convince someone to change is to draw the spotlight on them exclusively, one by one.

Otherwise they are just doing what they need to do to stay competitive, and they will keep doing it until it works against instead of for them. That goes for pretty much anything, hence why companies use sh*tty advertising that would make the average viewer shudder. That's where the term selling your soul comes from.

This is all a VERY basic view on a MUCH more complicated subject that would take way more than a couple posts by us undereducated forum users to cover.

Slamman
  • Slamman

    Smote

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 29 Nov 2003
  • United-States

#29

Posted 02 October 2011 - 10:45 AM

I want good chances for jobs, training, programs, something one can implement ASAP to get people back to work, that's what helps people move on with their lives, if things get harder, it gets worse. Share the Wealth, sure, Give back to the community, Sure. Pay your fair share, sure, but give everyone the chance to live reasonable, to ply a trade, get a needed job and ability to pay the bills, taxes, etc. It's not at all like I remember it in my early life, Times are indeed tough, and the recovery is far, far too slow and "taxing"

Pico
  • Pico

    cinnamon ropes

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 18 Feb 2009
  • None

#30

Posted 02 October 2011 - 03:29 PM

QUOTE (K^2 @ Sunday, Oct 2 2011, 02:19)
QUOTE (Pico @ Sunday, Oct 2 2011, 00:38)
Nobody is demanding everyone to be paid equally. Nobody is demanding flat tax rates. The problem lies in the fact that over the past one to two decades our economic classes have bridged such a huge gap.

I lean strongly towards technocracy, so I'm not entirely sure that large class gap is inherently a bad thing, so long as it favors development of science, technology, and medicine. Yes, the way it's currently distributed is not productive either way. But lets set all that aside. Suppose we look at it from social perspective, and agree that large class gap is definitely a bad thing and needs to be drastically reduced.

Does it make sense to go out there and simply demand economic equality? No. It won't work. You try to force any kind of class equality, you end up having to resort to planned economy. You just can't force income distributions to be closer together by simply waving equality laws at corporations. Do you want a socialist revolution and a completely new and different government and economy? If yes, present some form of a plan. Revolutions just to overthrow a government don't usually result in a better government. They result in a whole bunch of mess that takes decades to resolve. Present a clear alternative where you outline what sort of political system you'll have, how it will influence the economy, and how it will influence social equality. Then rally support.

On the other hand, I suspect that a lot of people, probably majority, that aren't happy with class gap don't want to take down the system. They see the system as stagnant and rusty, requiring a lot of cleaning and adjustment. This is a position I completely agree with. But if this is where you are, you can't just ask for equality. Economic or otherwise. Why is the class gap there? What actions have resulted in it growing out of control? What measures can we actually take to bring it back under control? You can't simply protest it and hope it will go away because of that.

The only "good" thing about simply asking for economic equality is that it draws a larger crowd. It gets idiots from both camps on board without discriminating between fixing and rebuilding. It's easy to get a bunch of people to simply demand reforms. It's a lot harder to suggest something constructive and get a lot of people to back that up. And that's exactly what needs to be done.

I don't think the system is so corrupt that these changes can't be forced by working from inside, but it's not a requirement. Protest, in itself, isn't a bad thing. If people would want a revolution, I can even understand that. But only if these people know exactly what they are overthrowing and know exactly what they want to build in its place.
QUOTE
They need to disband the TSA.

You have my axe.

Those are some good points. I think you got my point, but I want to clarify in my last post I meant to point out a increased gap in income classes, as there hasn't been any bridging.

It is true that this protest seemed disorganized from the beginning. Most people that I talk to about it ask "what's it about?" The clearest answer of course is going to be economic equality. But reading around at some lists of demands or desired outcomes from it, you begin to see the varying, and at times wildly mindless, requests some protesters are making. Keep in mind, they could be going for a Libertarian socialism which would suit many conditions of demands being made. However, it would be a drastic change if enacted. As you pointed out, any revolution isn't a smooth, quick transition from the old to the new. And really, I don't see any type of socialism sweeping over the US.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users