• 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!

Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

j-mac said:
No, that is you being disingenuous as usual. Government is limited, and should be more so.

j-mac
Click to expand...

Like I said, I linked something for you earlier that you ignored. It laid out for you that if you really believed what you say, you'd want more government.

That said, if you argue government can and should FIX the economy, you ARE arguing that government is the answer. There is not a really a logical way around that.
 
Boo Radley said:
Like I said, I linked something for you earlier that you ignored. It laid out for you that if you really believed what you say, you'd want more government.

That said, if you argue government can and should FIX the economy, you ARE arguing that government is the answer. There is not a really a logical way around that.
Click to expand...

More isn't better and the govt. can help the economy by doing less. Stop the social engineering,, stop the demonization of private business and individual wealth creation, stop with the burdensome regulations, and put the power back where it belongs, at the state and local levels.
 
Conservative said:
More isn't better and the govt. can help the economy by doing less. Stop the social engineering,, stop the demonization of private business and individual wealth creation, stop with the burdensome regulations, and put the power back where it belongs, at the state and local levels.
Click to expand...

You are correct that more isn't better, but again, you have to show specific areas where there is more and that it seriously hinders business. As expected,regulations will always come up, and if a regulation has no real purpose, one not needed, I might well agree that we shouldn't have it. But blanket statements concerning regulation are usually too vague and meaningless. Many regulations serve a real purpose, and history has shown that business will not regulate themselves well.

But, again, if you blame Obama, blame congress, you are in fact suggesting government controls the economy. And if they control the economy, they are the answer.
 
Boo Radley said:
You are correct that more isn't better, but again, you have to show specific areas where there is more and that it seriously hinders business. As expected,regulations will always come up, and if a regulation has no real purpose, one not needed, I might well agree that we shouldn't have it. But blanket statements concerning regulation are usually too vague and meaningless. Many regulations serve a real purpose, and history has shown that business will not regulate themselves well.

But, again, if you blame Obama, blame congress, you are in fact suggesting government controls the economy. And if they control the economy, they are the answer.
Click to expand...

The market is showing that by not hiring people but the point is there is a lot of duplication at the Federal and State level in the budget items. That is the first place to start, eliminate departments like the Dept. of Education, Department of Commerce, the EPA, reduce the Dept. of Energy, all Departments that are duplicated at the State level. Then remove SS and Medicare from the budget and separate the revenue and the expense from the budget along with dissolving the Unified budget pulling out infrastructure items like roads and bridges which is funded by excise taxes on gasoline.

To deny that the govt. controls the economy and Presidential policies are part of the problem is simply naive.
 
Conservative said:
The market is showing that by not hiring people but the point is there is a lot of duplication at the Federal and State level in the budget items. That is the first place to start, eliminate departments like the Dept. of Education, Department of Commerce, the EPA, reduce the Dept. of Energy, all Departments that are duplicated at the State level. Then remove SS and Medicare from the budget and separate the revenue and the expense from the budget along with dissolving the Unified budget pulling out infrastructure items like roads and bridges which is funded by excise taxes on gasoline.

To deny that the govt. controls the economy and Presidential policies are part of the problem is simply naive.
Click to expand...

Actually, that's not true. Markets don't work that way. Where there is a buyer, there will be a seller. If your view was correct, we'd have people with a lot of money standing around with nothing to buy. It doesn't work that way.

And with no EPA, for example, do you believe the evinoment will get along just fine. I mean like it did when rivers caught on fire, and LA was too poluted to breath the air? Not having regulations has consequences. Business does not alway, if ever, police itself.

Again, if you think they control the economy, it is you who is arguing that government is the answer. Not liberals. You.
 
Boo Radley said:
Actually, that's not true. Markets don't work that way. Where there is a buyer, there will be a seller. If your view was correct, we'd have people with a lot of money standing around with nothing to buy. It doesn't work that way.

And with no EPA, for example, do you believe the evinoment will get along just fine. I mean like it did when rivers caught on fire, and LA was too poluted to breath the air? Not having regulations has consequences. Business does not alway, if ever, police itself.

Again, if you think they control the economy, it is you who is arguing that government is the answer. Not liberals. You.
Click to expand...

Do you not get the news in Iowa? People are sitting around holding their cash because of the poor leadership of this Administration. People and businesses are keeping their cash and will until this Administration is fired.

Didn't say no EPA, every state has an EPA, what do they do? You put a lot of faith in the Federal Govt. overseeing 50 states so what exactly do they do?

We have enough regulations on the books, where is the enforcement. We have a 3.7 trillion dollar Federal Govt today and apparently that isn't enough for you. You really are naive and don't seem to understand the role of the Federal and State Governments. I support states rights and not the massive central govt we have today. I gave you the solution, you ignored it.
 
Conservative said:
Do you not get the news in Iowa? People are sitting around holding their cash because of the poor leadership of this Administration. People and businesses are keeping their cash and will until this Administration is fired.

Didn't say no EPA, every state has an EPA, what do they do? You put a lot of faith in the Federal Govt. overseeing 50 states so what exactly do they do?

We have enough regulations on the books, where is the enforcement. We have a 3.7 trillion dollar Federal Govt today and apparently that isn't enough for you. You really are naive and don't seem to understand the role of the Federal and State Governments. I support states rights and not the massive central govt we have today. I gave you the solution, you ignored it.
Click to expand...

No they're not. That's just you drinking the koolaid again. Business never spends without a buyer. You can tax cut them until hell freezes over, and if people aren't spending, they won't spend. You have the process backwards.

As for the EPA, states were in control back when rivers caught on fire and air was unfit to breath. Things are better now for a reason.

As for enforcement, care to predict how much influence a local business might have with a local government concerning enforcement? We do have history you know.
 
Boo Radley said:
No they're not. That's just you drinking the koolaid again. Business never spends without a buyer. You can tax cut them until hell freezes over, and if people aren't spending, they won't spend. You have the process backwards.

As for the EPA, states were in control back when rivers caught on fire and air was unfit to breath. Things are better now for a reason.

As for enforcement, care to predict how much influence a local business might have with a local government concerning enforcement? We do have history you know.
Click to expand...

Arguing with you is a waste of time. You are out of touch with reality and don't understand how business works.
 
Conservative said:
Arguing with you is a waste of time. You are out of touch with reality and don't understand how business works.
Click to expand...

Back to step 5 again I see?

:2funny: :2funny: :2funny:
 
j-mac said:
Then you should not be wasting yours, and everyone else's time in a message board. I would have to say that 90% of what is given is opinion driven by the MSM in some sort or another. And since this opinion is what you seem to have disdain for, then you are really doing little here but derision.

j-mac
Click to expand...


Oh - I find plenty of educated people to discuss things with everywhere. Do you yourself spend time having learned discussionsions with parrots? If so, that is very democratic of you, but I myself prefer people.
 
Penderyn said:
Oh - I find plenty of educated people to discuss things with everywhere. Do you yourself spend time having learned discussionsions with parrots? If so, that is very democratic of you, but I myself prefer people.
Click to expand...

OK, I'm a bad forum member. I laughed. :2funny:
 
Boo Radley said:
Business never spends without a buyer.
Click to expand...

If your point is that if a business' product is not desired you're right and if it did spend it wouldn't for long as it would go bankrupt. But if the product is desirable then yes they do spend on increasing inventory to a level they predict on future sales. No there is not a point of sale buyer but yes there will be, presumably.
 
Dickieboy said:
If your point is that if a business' product is not desired you're right and if it did spend it wouldn't for long as it would go bankrupt. But if the product is desirable then yes they do spend on increasing inventory to a level they predict on future sales. No there is not a point of sale buyer but yes there will be, presumably.
Click to expand...

Exactly, prediction of future sales. They have to have a reasonable expectation that there will be people willing and able to buy. When the economy is down, there is concern about that, and there is reluctance to grow. Tax cuts won't overcome that reluctance.
 
I noted early on that Obama would not be able to benefit from this. I imagine their popularity is about to take another major hit when they step up their attacks on Obama. I'm glad to see them finally get around to the other side of the problem.

Perhaps, thinking about this, this might give them a slight bump from the other side.

10:06 p.m. | Updated More than 100 Occupy Wall Street protesters marched to a Midtown hotel on Wednesday night to protest a fund-raising event for President Obama.

Escorted by police vehicles as they helped snarl traffic across the Times Square area, beginning at Bryant Park, the group settled in front of barricades on the southwest corner of 53rd Street and Seventh Avenue, in view of the Sheraton hotel at which Mr. Obama was expected to appear by 9 p.m.

Demonstrators held signs that leveled some of the Occupy protest’s most pointed criticism to date of the president. “Obama is a corporate puppet,” one said. “War crimes must be stopped, no matter who does them,” read another, beside head shots of President George W. Bush and President Obama.


Occupy Protesters Mobilize for Obama's Visit - NYTimes.com

Despite some bumpy spots, I'm still hanging in there.
 
1Perry said:
I noted early on that Obama would not be able to benefit from this. I imagine their popularity is about to take another major hit when they step up their attacks on Obama. I'm glad to see them finally get around to the other side of the problem.

Perhaps, thinking about this, this might give them a slight bump from the other side.

10:06 p.m. | Updated More than 100 Occupy Wall Street protesters marched to a Midtown hotel on Wednesday night to protest a fund-raising event for President Obama.

Escorted by police vehicles as they helped snarl traffic across the Times Square area, beginning at Bryant Park, the group settled in front of barricades on the southwest corner of 53rd Street and Seventh Avenue, in view of the Sheraton hotel at which Mr. Obama was expected to appear by 9 p.m.

Demonstrators held signs that leveled some of the Occupy protest’s most pointed criticism to date of the president. “Obama is a corporate puppet,” one said. “War crimes must be stopped, no matter who does them,” read another, beside head shots of President George W. Bush and President Obama.


Occupy Protesters Mobilize for Obama's Visit - NYTimes.com

Despite some bumpy spots, I'm still hanging in there.
Click to expand...


Glad to have the OWS as surrogate progressives to primary the centrist Obama, otherwise many of the progressive issues would not have been voiced during the campaign.
 
The OWS movement is still complaining about wealth distribution and few are actually doing anything about it. You want to redistribute wealth, stop giving it to the top 1%. What good do the OWS people think sleeping in parks is going to do when these companies products are still flying off shelves?
 
Conservative said:
I can show you how many jobs the Obama Administration has lost since they took office and added 4.4 trillion to the debt. Will that do? You think that things would be worse?
Click to expand...
I'm sure you're still counting the ones that are Bush's fault, but like typical conservatives lump all of them along with the spending on Obama. When will we see some honesty from the right? Don't bother answering, I know it's never.
 
Conservative said:
Newest talking point from the liberals, the Congress is controlled by the Republicans? amazing loyalty far too many have for the failed ideology that they would promote that lie. Couple of things wrong, first of all the House which is half of the Congress is controlled by the Republicans and the House passed 15 bills that are sitting on the desk of Harry Reid who will not even allow debate on the bills which makes the Senate do nothing not the House

15 House bills not considered by Senate
Senate and House in a Blame Game Over Stalled Jobs Legislation - ABC News

Then there is the issue of Norquist which is another strawman and diversion from the obama record. Here is a great article that the Democrats want people to forget

Democrats stuck on tax rates: Democrats are stuck on tax rates while GOP seeks reform - OrlandoSentinel.com

All this in an attempt to divert from the fact that Obama had total control of the Congress and WH his first two years and we do we have to show for it. Liberal lies and distortions along with a very poor record


How about some liberal honesty for a change?
Click to expand...

We already know what kind of reform the Republicans are suggesting - that's why their bills aren't going anywhere - Thanks to God!

They want to stick it to seniors and the poor, but continue to protect the rich and corporations. I wonder when the middle-class Reps are going to figure it out? Nah, they're too dumb to do so.
 
mertex said:
We already know what kind of reform the Republicans are suggesting - that's why their bills aren't going anywhere - Thanks to God!

They want to stick it to seniors and the poor, but continue to protect the rich and corporations. I wonder when the middle-class Reps are going to figure it out? Nah, they're too dumb to do so.
Click to expand...

Don't forget starving kids as well as polluting the air in your rants, all of which diverts from the Obama record. Amazing how Obama's economic policies were passed in early February 2009 but for some reason still haven't generated positive results and still isn't his fault
 
muciti said:
The OWS movement is still complaining about wealth distribution and few are actually doing anything about it. You want to redistribute wealth, stop giving it to the top 1%. What good do the OWS people think sleeping in parks is going to do when these companies products are still flying off shelves?
Click to expand...

The OWS movement was not formed to end capitalism, it came about to increase awareness of the economic injustice that has been institutionalized over the last 30 years. Its all about increasing public debate, which they are doing. Look at the number of threads on this forum alone about the OWS protests that has grown from NY to nationwide, to worldwide, in just a couple months.
 
Last edited:
muciti said:
The OWS movement is still complaining about wealth distribution and few are actually doing anything about it. You want to redistribute wealth, stop giving it to the top 1%. What good do the OWS people think sleeping in parks is going to do when these companies products are still flying off shelves?
Click to expand...

That is not how the 1% is taking their money (sorry, while I do support OWS I have to use "1%" in the loosest terms). If they buy a product they are freely "giving" them their money. The problem is the Fed taking it from them and giving it to the 1% with their monetary policies.
 
Catawba said:
The OWS movement was not formed to end capitalism, it came about to increase awareness of the economic injustice that has been institutionalized over the last 30 years. Its all about increasing public debate, which they are doing. Look at the number of threads on this forum alone about the OWS protests that has grown from NW to nationwide, to worldwide, in just a couple months.
Click to expand...

Adam Carolla Talks About Occupy Wall Street | Video | TheBlaze.com
 
Conservative said:
Adam Carolla Talks About Occupy Wall Street | Video | TheBlaze.com
Click to expand...

LOL!!! You are a fan of Adam Carolla???

I think this helps explain why Republicans are so alarmed about the OWS protests:

"After riding the Tea Party wave, Republicans are on the defensive as the movement draws attention to income inequality—an issue that the GOP has done little to address. If Occupy continues to stoke public anger against the wealthy, Republicans could see a favorable election forecast quickly turn against them."
What's Next for Occupy Wall Street? - The Daily Beast
 
Catawba said:
LOL!!! You are a fan of Adam Carolla???

I think this helps explain why Republicans are so alarmed about the OWS protests:

"After riding the Tea Party wave, Republicans are on the defensive as the movement draws attention to income inequality—an issue that the GOP has done little to address. If Occupy continues to stoke public anger against the wealthy, Republicans could see a favorable election forecast quickly turn against them."
What's Next for Occupy Wall Street? - The Daily Beast
Click to expand...

I believe as usual you attack the messenger and ignore the message. Far too many have forgotten that this entitlement mentality today destroys self reliance and initiative. I cannot believe what I keep reading from you. You ought to know better. The jealousy of people camping out on Wall Street shows just how bankrupt the liberal ideology is and the entitlement mentality that has been created in the youth attending those rallies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom