I put my uniform on, the protests are designed to be peaceful and draw attention to the role of the wall street parasites played and are playing in the recession and what party do you think fights financial regulation, regulations that FDR put in place to avoid exactly what happened and regulations that President Obama wants to prevent this from happening again. 2012. The wall street demonstrators as well as demonstrators setting up around the country represent the real American Tea Party.Why There Are Protests On Wall Street: Their Actions Impoverished More Than 60 Million People | ThinkProgress
As demonstrators converged on Wall Street — with police blocking them from reaching the New York Stock Exchange — much of the news media paid little attention to the protests. Meanwhile, much of the conservative punditry has taken to mocking the demonstrations, with conservative Twitter users lambasting the “hippies” in New York City. CNN contributor and RedState blogger Erick Erickson labeled the protesters as “profoundly dumb.”
Certainly, debates about the tactics and strategy behind an anti-Wall Street campaign are warranted. But in a country where much of the populist energy has been absorbed by a movement that compared expanding access to private insurance to “death panels,” it’s worth reviewing why Americans and others should be protesting against Wall Street.
While many of the conservative defenders of Wall Street may be quick to portray protests against the American financial establishment as driven by envy of its wealth or far-left ideologies, the truth is that people have a very simple reason to be angry — because Wall Street’s actions made tens of millions of people dramatically poorer through no fault of their own. In 2010, the International Monetary Fund and World Bank conducted studies of the effects of the global recession — caused largely by Wall Street financial instruments that were poorly regulated by government policies — and found that the recession threw 64 million people into extreme poverty:
That's simply not true. Companies could still employ people without becoming incorporated. Establishing a legal entity with the the legal powers of a citizen may easily lead to serious problems when that person is able to raise tremendous amounts of capital and by so doing is able to have its product or service reach millions while employing thousands. Also, while the citizen has the power to vote, the corporation as an individual has the resources to contribute substantial campaign funding and push special interests to more easily put or keep who they want in power.Without corporations there aren't jobs although those evil big corporations constitute about 20% of the labor force leaving the majority to small corporations and individual proprietors and other entities.
I wouldn't absolutely make absolute statements that aren't so absolute. Deriving profit from activities that cause a detriment to society aren't exactly right (pollution, harmful products, fraudulent services, etc.).Corporations and all businesses are in business to make money and drive the bottomline. That is the way our economy works and there is absolutely nothing wrong with profit.
Our government was specifically created to concentrate power to a central, federal government after the Articles of Confederation failed so horrendously while enumerated powers and the election of representatives gave power to states to request funding and argue for rules that best served the people collectively. The biggest problem, of course, with lobbying for any special interests is that money will often times be funneled where it isn't needed but where a representative is able to craftily argue for it. Took my Government course in college over 3 years ago so I might be a bit rusty, but I'm pretty sure that's the basic idea.I would love for you and all others to define for me the role of the Federal Govt, the state govt, and local governments, then tell me why we need a 3.7 trillion dollar budget? What exactly does a federal bureaucrat know about a social problem in your state and town? Why should we send tax dollars to D.C. so they can turn around and send it where they want instead of where is needed.
Again, I'm not for the sheer vastness of the government; however, what you may consider wasteful spending was considered a key point of states' rights to get their bite at the apple.
I said "much," not vast majority. 20% of the government budget goes to "Defense Discretionary." Mandatory spending makes up 55% of total expenditures, of which Social Security (35%), Medicare (27%), and Medicaid (13%) made up 76% (i.e. ~42% of the total spending) in 2011.To answer this you need to define the role of the Federal Govt. and then look at the Federal Budget line items. Get back to me when you have done that for when you do you will find that the vast majority of the budget ISN'T military spending. Stop buying what you are told and actually getting the facts.
Congressional Budget Office - Budget and Economic Information
Defensive spending has increased to 2.25 times its amount in 2001 whereas it actually decreased in the 1990s. I'll give you one guess as to the last decade that saw similar growth.
So, does 20% of the country's major outlays constitute much of the Fed's expenditures?
Last edited by muRda; 10-02-11 at 11:18 PM.
9/10/2001: Rumsfeld says $2.3 TRILLION Missing from Pentagon - YouTube
(this one had a very short news cycle as it was released in a 9/10/2001 press conference)
Then there is the War in Iraq (and Afghanistan) which has current direct cost estimate of $1T and an indirect estimate of $3T....
9/10/2001: Rumsfeld says $2.3 TRILLION Missing from Pentagon - YouTube
So, our military has had unnecessary expenditures of $5T (now we are talking 5 years of current Bush style annual deficits or 1/3 of the total existing debt)
Our annual military expenditures are just about $700B. This is more than 6 times that of any other country. It seems if act to curtail our imperialism (the need to have bases in every little podunk country and reduce our involvement in the squabbles of others) plus cut back on all of these weapon systems designed to fight symmetric wars (that have become substantially obsolete) you could achieve a near term savings of $400B to $500B without hurting security (which arguably is compromised by having so many wars to begin with)
JPRI Critique Vol. X No. 5
Sorry, our economy is substantially in the tank because we feel compelled to buy these incredible toys, which then motivates us to actually use them (no point in having the toy just sit in the hanger), but are unwilling to raise the taxes to pay for them. Sorry again, but Bush's idea of starting two wars and cutting taxes to pay for them goes beyond irresponsible. Given that he took our economy from a functionally balanced budget to annual deficits of more than $1T in eight years is so beyond incompetence, it borders on treason.... that is the Bush record (oh, but you voted for him twice).... Yes, you can criticize the Obama, its fair game, but the previous guy's drunken taxcut and spend orgy caused problem, the current guy just hasn't been able to fix it.
Last edited by upsideguy; 10-03-11 at 12:58 AM.
You see, the grass is always greener on the other side with people like you as you let the weeds grow in your own yard. The massive growth of the Federal Govt. into the 3.7 trillion dollar monstrosity we have today is ignored because that seems to be your goal, a large Central Govt. Tell me what you vision is for the role of the Federal Govt. and then the state and local governments?