• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Labor Unions Join Wall Street Occupiers for "Mass Rally'

If a little bit taking from the top creates more wealth for everyone (and more total wealth for society as a whole), then its a good thing

of course-stealing from some to slake the envy of others is the liberal mantra but all that does is make rich dem politicians richer because people like you will worship them and give them votes for doing that

giving the slothful and unproductive money they didn't earn tends to cause them to vote for those who give them handouts but really doesn't motivate them to become productive

In fact it often deters that
 
of course-stealing from some to slake the envy of others is the liberal mantra but all that does is make rich dem politicians richer because people like you will worship them and give them votes for doing that

giving the slothful and unproductive money they didn't earn tends to cause them to vote for those who give them handouts but really doesn't motivate them to become productive

In fact it often deters that

Its not about envy, its about how to make society be as functional, wealthy, and as efficient as possible, given the constraints of human nature.

This is a question of engineering more than it is about anything else.

Any good engineer will compensate for flawed materials if that is what they have to work with. One can complaint that x steel is not as good as y steel, but if x steel is what they got, they find a way to make it work. Human nature is flawed, so we must account for it and build a system that works within those flaws.
 
Last edited:
Its not about envy, its about how to make society be as functional, wealthy, and as efficient as possible, given the constraints of human nature.

This is a question of engineering more than it is about anything else.

well the last 50 years has been marked with massive income redistribution and it sure hasn't done much good

SYL
 
well the last 50 years has been marked with massive income redistribution and it sure hasn't done much good

SYL

As a society, we have built more wealth and advanced more quickly than at any other time in human history over the last 50 years.
 
There is nothing wrong with corporations, but there is something very wrong with a lack of social responsibility.

"Lack of social responsibility" according to whom?

How much do major U.S. corporations donate to charity, Mega? Most people don't even know the number. I've looked up some stats, and it's pretty impressive. Example...Pfizer (in 2004) gave 21% of its income to charity; they have programs specially designed for people who can't afford to pay for their medicine; they employ 110,000 people; and, at least here in the US, I think it's safe to assume these are damn good jobs. WalMart, in 2010, announced plans to donate $250 million in cash and $1.75 billion worth of food over the next five years to fight hunger in the United States. In 2009 113 companies donated cash totalling over $4.9 billion. Goldman Sachs increased its giving by 353% in 2010, to $315.4 million; other financials followed suit as their profits began to rebound. Citigroup -- $100 million in cash. Pfizer topped the list in 2010, giving more than $3 billion in cash and products (and, btw,l Pfizer is the largest researcher of medicines on planet earth); Oracle $2.3 billion; Merck $1.2 billion; Wells Fargo $219-million; and these numbers I'm throwing out are just the tip of the iceburg.

Big Businesses Won

Big bad WalMart has brought affordable goods to rural areas that were being gouged by local shopkeepers. For years, Chicago politicians blocked WalMart's store on the south side in support of unions who were determined to bring WalMart employees into their fold. This is an area where people have to drive 15-20 miles for a chain store and affordable prices. And fresh produce. Yes, in Chicago. The community clamored for the store....for the 400 jobs...for the cost-savings WalMart would allow And finally the community won.

Do the CEOs of these companies make a lot of money? Yeppers. But if the guy who heads the largest medicinal research company in the world isn't worth $13.7 million (in '09), then tell me how A Rod is worth $27.5 million; Tiger Woods $110 million; in 2004, Payton Manning received the largest signing bonus in sports history: $34.5 million; his yearly income for ten years? $42 million.

Maybe these demonstrators should be at playing fields protesting those salaries.

Capitalism is a wonderful thing...
 
in my opinion, the 99 percenters are concerned about this disparity and that it is widening since the financial meltdown:
View attachment 67116490

These same types of people have been protesting long before these current disparities came about and will still be protesting for their "fair share" even after a more reasonable distribution because they want something for nothing. They want it for simply living a breathing. They will never be satisfied.
 
..........

you kinda posted a little... weird, but i'll try to address what seemed to be your key points.

Gallup: Seniors Most Favorable to Ryan Budget

I have siblings on Medicaid. roughly a quarter of the uninsured qualify for Medicaid - including 69% of uninsured children. Another 43% have incomes above 250% of the poverty line - 55K for a family of 4. the CBO reports that roughly 60% of them are under the age of 35, and 86% report that they are in good or excellent health; many can probably be assumed to be uninsured by choice.

with the large job losses of the current recession, obviously, many have lost their insurance because they have lost their employment. which is argument #1,487 for making health insurance a portable individual market rather than employer-provided.

I currently live abroad as well (Japan), courtesy of the USMC. My experiences thus far with government healthcare have been atrocious. Waiting times are indeed much higher in UHC nations, and care is indeed much less available. for example, in Canada, the total median waiting time for patients between referral from a general practitioner and treatment, averaged across all 12 specialties and 10 provinces surveyed, increased to 18.3 weeks from 17.8 weeks observed in 2006, and the median waiting time period for an MRI was 10.1 weeks. In Britain, you can wait around 10 months to start getting treated after you are diagnosed with cancer. It seems this helps especially to keep healthcare costs down with respect to lung and prostrate cancer patients, as a higher percentage of them die in the meantime, thereby saving the state the expense. Incidentally, they don't have a death panel. Instead, they have the Orwellian-named N.I.C.E., which serves the same function:

...A woman dying of breast cancer has been denied the only treatment which could prolong her life because the NHS deems it too expensive....

generally speaking, if you get cancer, you want to get as far away from a UHC system as possible.
 
"Lack of social responsibility" according to whom?

How much do major U.S. corporations donate to charity, Mega? Most people don't even know the number. I've looked up some stats, and it's pretty impressive. Example...Pfizer (in 2004) gave 21% of its income to charity; they have programs specially designed for people who can't afford to pay for their medicine; they employ 110,000 people; and, at least here in the US, I think it's safe to assume these are damn good jobs. WalMart, in 2010, announced plans to donate $250 million in cash and $1.75 billion worth of food over the next five years to fight hunger in the United States. In 2009 113 companies donated cash totalling over $4.9 billion. Goldman Sachs increased its giving by 353% in 2010, to $315.4 million; other financials followed suit as their profits began to rebound. Citigroup -- $100 million in cash. Pfizer topped the list in 2010, giving more than $3 billion in cash and products (and, btw,l Pfizer is the largest researcher of medicines on planet earth); Oracle $2.3 billion; Merck $1.2 billion; Wells Fargo $219-million; and these numbers I'm throwing out are just the tip of the iceburg.

Big Businesses Won

Big bad WalMart has brought affordable goods to rural areas that were being gouged by local shopkeepers. For years, Chicago politicians blocked WalMart's store on the south side in support of unions who were determined to bring WalMart employees into their fold. This is an area where people have to drive 15-20 miles for a chain store and affordable prices. And fresh produce. Yes, in Chicago. The community clamored for the store....for the 400 jobs...for the cost-savings WalMart would allow And finally the community won.

Do the CEOs of these companies make a lot of money? Yeppers. But if the guy who heads the largest medicinal research company in the world isn't worth $13.7 million (in '09), then tell me how A Rod is worth $27.5 million; Tiger Woods $110 million; in 2004, Payton Manning received the largest signing bonus in sports history: $34.5 million; his yearly income for ten years? $42 million.

Maybe these demonstrators should be at playing fields protesting those salaries.

Capitalism is a wonderful thing...

And that certainly helps, but when people are opposing the very infrastructure that makes this country great, such as public schooling, our retirement system, necessary changes to our health system, and other things that allow people to focus on what makes them successful as opposed to just getting by day to day, they are not performing their responsibilities.
 
"Lack of social responsibility" according to whom?

How much do major U.S. corporations donate to charity, Mega? Most people don't even know the number. I've looked up some stats, and it's pretty impressive. Example...Pfizer (in 2004) gave 21% of its income to charity; they have programs specially designed for people who can't afford to pay for their medicine; they employ 110,000 people; and, at least here in the US, I think it's safe to assume these are damn good jobs. WalMart, in 2010, announced plans to donate $250 million in cash and $1.75 billion worth of food over the next five years to fight hunger in the United States. In 2009 113 companies donated cash totalling over $4.9 billion. Goldman Sachs increased its giving by 353% in 2010, to $315.4 million; other financials followed suit as their profits began to rebound. Citigroup -- $100 million in cash. Pfizer topped the list in 2010, giving more than $3 billion in cash and products (and, btw,l Pfizer is the largest researcher of medicines on planet earth); Oracle $2.3 billion; Merck $1.2 billion; Wells Fargo $219-million; and these numbers I'm throwing out are just the tip of the iceburg.

Big Businesses Won

Big bad WalMart has brought affordable goods to rural areas that were being gouged by local shopkeepers. For years, Chicago politicians blocked WalMart's store on the south side in support of unions who were determined to bring WalMart employees into their fold. This is an area where people have to drive 15-20 miles for a chain store and affordable prices. And fresh produce. Yes, in Chicago. The community clamored for the store....for the 400 jobs...for the cost-savings WalMart would allow And finally the community won.

Do the CEOs of these companies make a lot of money? Yeppers. But if the guy who heads the largest medicinal research company in the world isn't worth $13.7 million (in '09), then tell me how A Rod is worth $27.5 million; Tiger Woods $110 million; in 2004, Payton Manning received the largest signing bonus in sports history: $34.5 million; his yearly income for ten years? $42 million.

Maybe these demonstrators should be at playing fields protesting those salaries.

Capitalism is a wonderful thing...

i know i've told you this before.... but you? you. are awesome.
 
Its not about envy, its about how to make society be as functional, wealthy, and as efficient as possible, given the constraints of human nature.

This is a question of engineering more than it is about anything else.

Any good engineer will compensate for flawed materials if that is what they have to work with. One can complaint that x steel is not as good as y steel, but if x steel is what they got, they find a way to make it work. Human nature is flawed, so we must account for it and build a system that works within those flaws.

This analogy must make you feel good, but is otherwise absurd to the n'th degree. The better analogy would be that the bad steel ends up where little is expected of it. It can carry little burden, and so it will carry none of consequence. Just fill in the space while the better steel gets the better part of the job.

Here's a much simpler analogy for you, and its spot on with these free-loading bums: "You get what you pay for".

Pay for sloth, you get more sloth. ;)
 
"Lack of social responsibility" according to whom?

How much do major U.S. corporations donate to charity, Mega? Most people don't even know the number. I've looked up some stats, and it's pretty impressive. Example...Pfizer (in 2004) gave 21% of its income to charity; they have programs specially designed for people who can't afford to pay for their medicine; they employ 110,000 people; and, at least here in the US, I think it's safe to assume these are damn good jobs. WalMart, in 2010, announced plans to donate $250 million in cash and $1.75 billion worth of food over the next five years to fight hunger in the United States. In 2009 113 companies donated cash totalling over $4.9 billion. Goldman Sachs increased its giving by 353% in 2010, to $315.4 million; other financials followed suit as their profits began to rebound. Citigroup -- $100 million in cash. Pfizer topped the list in 2010, giving more than $3 billion in cash and products (and, btw,l Pfizer is the largest researcher of medicines on planet earth); Oracle $2.3 billion; Merck $1.2 billion; Wells Fargo $219-million; and these numbers I'm throwing out are just the tip of the iceburg.

Big Businesses Won

Big bad WalMart has brought affordable goods to rural areas that were being gouged by local shopkeepers. For years, Chicago politicians blocked WalMart's store on the south side in support of unions who were determined to bring WalMart employees into their fold. This is an area where people have to drive 15-20 miles for a chain store and affordable prices. And fresh produce. Yes, in Chicago. The community clamored for the store....for the 400 jobs...for the cost-savings WalMart would allow And finally the community won.

Do the CEOs of these companies make a lot of money? Yeppers. But if the guy who heads the largest medicinal research company in the world isn't worth $13.7 million (in '09), then tell me how A Rod is worth $27.5 million; Tiger Woods $110 million; in 2004, Payton Manning received the largest signing bonus in sports history: $34.5 million; his yearly income for ten years? $42 million.

Maybe these demonstrators should be at playing fields protesting those salaries.

Capitalism is a wonderful thing...

are you sure about your stats? pfizer's donations are 90% drugs. that's not a bad thing, btw, just difficult to value.

anyway, corporate giving results in a 2 to 1 return.

TaxProf Blog: Corporate Charitable Giving Increases Profits
 
And that certainly helps, but when people are opposing the very infrastructure that makes this country great, such as public schooling, our retirement system, necessary changes to our health system, and other things that allow people to focus on what makes them successful as opposed to just getting by day to day, they are not performing their responsibilities.

I'm not sure I understand your post, Mega. Corporations are opposing our infrastructure? I'm thinking we're pretty much on the same page, but I'm confused.

i know i've told you this before.... but you? you. are awesome.

Wow!!! Thank you, CP!!!!!!! :thanks
 
of course-stealing from some to slake the envy of others is the liberal mantra but all that does is make rich dem politicians richer because people like you will worship them and give them votes for doing that

giving the slothful and unproductive money they didn't earn tends to cause them to vote for those who give them handouts but really doesn't motivate them to become productive

In fact it often deters that

I don't think our economy is the biggest problem facing America today, I think it is the in fighting that is going on not only in Washington but as can be seen here, debaters should be looking for resolution not making personal attacks against one another.

American's working towards a common goal can achieve miracles. Differences of opinion should lead to the best out come for all Americans. United in common cause means strength, division only strengthens those who want to remove America from the leader of the free world. Whether a person sweeps the street or provides medical care they are a part of what it takes to keep America great. As long as we the people confirm to the partisan ideology of the parties we support the gridlock that has stymied our recovery will prevail.
 
And that certainly helps, but when people are opposing the very infrastructure that makes this country great, such as public schooling, our retirement system, necessary changes to our health system, and other things that allow people to focus on what makes them successful as opposed to just getting by day to day, they are not performing their responsibilities.

What significant political movement wants to literally abolish public schools?
Retirement? (at most they want to keep it private)
Health care? (at most they want to keep it private)

My retirement is private and the largest sink on my money is the tax rate and the recession. Health care is a private insurance and I'm told by them that the recent legislation will increase my rates.
And none of them took significant effort. Retirement is about 2 hours a year and living below ones means. Insurance is a 2-4 page application, picking a plan (1 hour?) and sending a check.

Oh the horror of taking the adult resopnsibility of handling things that are important to you! And maybe just maybe if you are involved with them directly, you'll value them more and understand more about federal laws that revolve around retirement/insurance? Isn't part of becoming a mature adult, taking on the responsibility to get things done that you didn't want to do when growing up? Mommy and Daddy took care of that when you're young (if you're lucky), with the societal assumption that those kids will grow up and THEY will take care of it (and the parents!). So you dont' want people to grow up? You want Wall Street to fill the role of Mommy and Daddy and fund the government to wipe their asses?

They want all that handed to them on a silver platter, while they simply go to work 9-5 and leave all the responsibilities of life to someone else? What a crock! That's lazy and irresponsible if then lable that as an "entitlement". It's a luxury. Having a 9-5 job where you go in, work, and collect a check and leave work at work, is a luxury. Someone else is handling everything else, at a cost.

I would argue the exact opposite. People who are forcing other people to pay for their enjoyment of the luxuries of automatic and subsidized education, health care, retirement, among other things, are not performing their responsibilities. How can anyone value retirement, if they never give it a second thought and just pound their fist and demand it? I don't get it, at all.
 
If they could have stayed on message (Bank bailouts) and not swayed into the obvious liberal chant, then they might have been offered donuts and coffee at their local Tea Party gathering. :)

What we have in New York, and various other cities is the result of 40 years of liberalism in our schools.

I went to my son's middle school curriculum night a couple of weeks ago, and in one of the classes the (teacher) was talking about how they were going to incorporate social justice into their everyday curriculum on current events. Well, after she was done speaking and asked if anyone had questions, I put up my hand and asked (As my wife was digging her nails into my arm) how she defined social justice. After some umm, hmm, ummm she gave the usual talking points to which I replied, "well, I said, how can you teach something objectively if by definition the term is 100% subjective"? She didn't know what to say, but finally stated that they encourage discussion in the classroom from all students, and that all students points of view were to be respected.. I couldn't leave it there (As the nails in my skin began to draw blood :) ) I offered a scenario.. I asked if the death penalty was a form of social justice, I asked her if abortion on demand was a form of social justice? At this point (time was limited as we had to ove on to the next class) she stated that she'd be happy to discuss my concerns offline via email, and I stated to her that I would be eagerly reading my child's homework, and monitoring what he's learning in this class with great anticipation for a fair and balanced approach..

Interesting that I got a few really evil looks from some of the other parents. I live in a predominantly reform Jewish neighborhood, and I'm sort of the outcast in my area, a title I wear with great pride I might add. :)

Anyway... I'm sure the misfits on Wall St. will refine their message now that the unions are officially involved, but it won't matter. No one is taking them seriously as they seem to be a collection of fools who when pressed really have no clue why they're even protesting, nor how our system of government works.. They're mostly kids who have nothing better to do.


Tim-
 
:lamo Congratulations, guys. You could not have picked a more inchoate, idiot group of hippies to tie your public image too. Half these people want to destroy your jobs... but you can't help yourself, and rush to join in with anyone yelling about the rich.


:) alternate headline for this story: Unions Jump Shark.

Why are Republicans rushing to defend the beneficiaries of big government? Why are the Republicans rushing to defend those who have been insulated from their failures in the market?

The typical Republican response to this protest demonstrates that they do not understand the nature of big government or free markets.
 
Why are Republicans rushing to defend the beneficiaries of big government?

Most likely for the same reasons Democrats defended Obama's role in enriching the same.

Why are the Republicans rushing to defend those who have been insulated from their failures in the market?

The typical Republican response to this protest demonstrates that they do not understand the nature of big government or free markets.

We see one person that does. Ron Paul.
 
WHat does that even mean "the 99% have been left out"? You do realize I am certain that a good number of that '99%' are pretty damn wealthy...making millions. Another very healthy chunk of that '99%' makes well over 250k. A significant portion of that '99%' make 50k or better. Lord...toss people a slogan and they will jump on that beeeyotch like its steak. Left out? Then maybe you ought to look at yourself and YOUR role.

I see no conflict with members of the overseer class challenging the "master" class on behalf of the overseen.

Chivalry and all that.
 
View attachment 67116489

It was only a matter of time 'til someone pointed this out.

Massa sets a MEAN table, that he does.

Bread and circuses for all.

I'm willing to bet anti slavery protesters wore clothes made from slave harvested cotton too.

And don't get me started on the founders and their tea.
 
Its not about envy, its about how to make society be as functional, wealthy, and as efficient as possible, given the constraints of human nature.

This is a question of engineering more than it is about anything else.

Any good engineer will compensate for flawed materials if that is what they have to work with. One can complaint that x steel is not as good as y steel, but if x steel is what they got, they find a way to make it work. Human nature is flawed, so we must account for it and build a system that works within those flaws.

Very well said!

Thank you!
 
Why are Republicans rushing to defend the beneficiaries of big government? Why are the Republicans rushing to defend those who have been insulated from their failures in the market?

The typical Republican response to this protest demonstrates that they do not understand the nature of big government or free markets.

That is NOT the part of the message that Republicans take issue with. Many Republicans and Libertarians were opposed to all bail-outs, all concepts of "too big to fail". Many of us have it as a basic tenant of capitalism that failure must be allowed to happen with no impediment, so that something better will take its place. As we saw with Stimulus, three yeras of UI, and any number of other liberal boondoggles, to include throwing good money after bad with green energy, it is the liberal dogma to subsidize failure. Just so long as it secures votes.

I was one Conservative who held my nose and supported TARP. It worked, and almost all that money has been paid back. But I would have been fine with letting all things fail, to include such as GM, and keeping UI at one year max.

The bottom line with these parasites on Wall Street and elsewhere, besides being pure astro-turf, is that they are for redistribution of wealth. Just so long as they are on the receiving end. They want free stuff.
 
That is NOT the part of the message that Republicans take issue with. Many Republicans and Libertarians were opposed to all bail-outs, all concepts of "too big to fail". Many of us have it as a basic tenant of capitalism that failure must be allowed to happen with no impediment, so that something better will take its place. As we saw with Stimulus, three yeras of UI, and any number of other liberal boondoggles, to include throwing good money after bad with green energy, it is the liberal dogma to subsidize failure. Just so long as it secures votes.

Bush signed the bill to subsidize the bank failure. McCain supported it. If he had won he would have blown the money all the same.

I was one Conservative who held my nose and supported TARP. It worked, and almost all that money has been paid back. But I would have been fine with letting all things fail, to include such as GM, and keeping UI at one year max.

The bottom line with these parasites on Wall Street and elsewhere, besides being pure astro-turf, is that they are for redistribution of wealth. Just so long as they are on the receiving end. They want free stuff.

So really, while you support failure, you really don't. I was against TARP from day one. To say it's all been paid back is spin. Freddie and Fannie was a part of TARP and we are going to lose who knows, billions upon billions? Trillions?
 
So really, while you support failure, you really don't. I was against TARP from day one. To say it's all been paid back is spin. Freddie and Fannie was a part of TARP and we are going to lose who knows, billions upon billions? Trillions?

It's also disengenious because the collapse of the value of CDO's were really just transferred to AIG. AIG is required so many bailouts because they were directly paying Goldman/Morgan Stanley etc due to the collapse of value of the CDO's.

I disagree with you regarding TARP though. I think it was needed because there would of been a total collapse of credit markets.
 
Bush signed the bill to subsidize the bank failure. McCain supported it. If he had won he would have blown the money all the same.

Of course. It was a partisan effort, coordinated with the incoming Obama camp via the Senate. I never said it was not. What I stated was a fact-based opinion to counter the absurd notion that Republicans are somehow more "pro-bailout" than Democrats. The Tea Party is quite opposed to such bailouts.

So really, while you support failure, you really don't. I was against TARP from day one. To say it's all been paid back is spin. Freddie and Fannie was a part of TARP and we are going to lose who knows, billions upon billions? Trillions?

Cut the crap. I explained that my notion of "failure" is to not cherry pick. To not have government pick the winners and losers. Which is what Obama has done with the auto-bailouts, closing of dealerships, subsidies to green energy, excessive regulation, etc.

And don't bitch to me because Fannie and Freddie are GSE's (Government Sponsored Enterprises). I am not for such nonsense, but they didn't ask me when they created them, then expanded them. To not back their debt now would be to have the government default. In many ways they are similar to us being on teh hook for Social Security and Medicare. All buy-now, pay-later schemes that mortgaged the future. The best we can do is to not repeat such stupidity moving forward.
 
that's correct - they are currently camping out in the street somewhere.

so let's see if we have this right:

thus far, you have accused me of making stuff up, so I cited NPR. then you offered that i could be lying, but it was linked. Then you argued that we were linking right wing sites to give off left-wing talking points, so maybe those sites were making things up. Then it turned out that the site linked was a left wing site which had put up the Statement of Facts because they were excited about and supported the OWS protests...

your continued attempts to deny that they released this are getting bizzare. as it is precisely the kind of mumbo-jumbo that you'd expect out of these crowds, i'll admit I'm confused as to why you persist.

If you supplied a link, I missed it and apologize for claiming you had not supplied a link. The only links I saw where to a claim of some random guy on the message board, and some group that is not the group on Wall Street. I have seen from you no link from OccupyWallStreet that states their goals that matches what you claim those goals are.
 
Back
Top Bottom