View Poll Results: Is the OWS Movement against Capitalism?

Voters
96. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    50 52.08%
  • No

    41 42.71%
  • I don't know

    5 5.21%
Page 39 of 54 FirstFirst ... 29373839404149 ... LastLast
Results 381 to 390 of 531

Thread: Is the OWS against Capitalism?

  1. #381
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Is the OWS against Capitalism?

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    I am sorry, but you make no sense what so ever.

    Your question was, how many of the 1% died during work as construction worker. I said that it was the same as for the bottom 1%, which is 0%. Because neither work in construction. Which is true.

    However, you are really an untrustworthy person. I asked you a question, you then chose to misunderstand the question on purpose. I told you that you misunderstood, and rephrased my question. Then you gave me this question and demanded that I respond before you will respond. Then I do answer the question, and guess what.

    You chose to not answer the question. Can I trust anything you say?
    I didn't ask about the bottom 1%. It was dishonest for you to answer a question that wasn't asked

    But you did answer my question and said that 0% of the top 1% died during construction. Thanks for agreeing with me that workers have put more at risk than any owner has!!!

    Now ask your second question
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  2. #382
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Last Seen
    07-07-16 @ 08:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    2,854

    Re: Is the OWS against Capitalism?

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    The US has one of the lowest tax rates in the developed world. What you call "countries with welfare states" the rest of call "developed nations". If you want the US to be a third world nation, then low taxes are the way to go

    http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...mg/low_tax.jpg
    I am not against higher taxes. So your arguments are completely irrelevant. I believe the taxes should increase for everyone. The problem with the left, is that they only want to increase taxes for the very rich. That is not going to give enough revenue, and will have bad long term implications.

    It's not really about taxes, it is about balancing the budget. Some other countries with lower taxes are in order from lowest to highest. Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and close you will find Australia, Switzerland, and Japan. Not bad countries.

    So, no you do not need high taxes to be a developed nation, as long as spending is under control. The countries who are not able to control spending, are the ones who are becoming third world.

  3. #383
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Is the OWS against Capitalism?

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    I am not against higher taxes. So your arguments are completely irrelevant. I believe the taxes should increase for everyone. The problem with the left, is that they only want to increase taxes for the very rich. That is not going to give enough revenue, and will have bad long term implications.
    I did not say you are. Please not the word "If" at the beginning of the 2nd sentence.

    And the left wants to repeal the bush* tax cuts and often calls for a return to the rates we had under Clinton.


    It's not really about taxes, it is about balancing the budget. Some other countries with lower taxes are in order from lowest to highest. Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and close you will find Australia, Switzerland, and Japan. Not bad countries.

    So, no you do not need high taxes to be a developed nation, as long as spending is under control. The countries who are not able to control spending, are the ones who are becoming third world.
    Umm, yes you do. The tax rates of developed nations are almost always higher than in undeveloped ones. And spending alone does not cause debt. Debt is created when spending outpaces tax revenues, so your focus on spending alone is one-sided.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  4. #384
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,045

    Re: Is the OWS against Capitalism?

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    Gee, suddenly you know who the teabaggers are!!!

    Your disingenous posts are not fooling anyone

    WRT your question, you are free to donate your labor is you choose. However, the price of labor should not be determined using coercive means. Both labor and capital should be regulated by a democratic govt that is not corrupt.

    I was hoping that you would give an intelligent response. How disappointing that you chose to address myself instead of the example and the questions that I had for you. Then turn around throw a tired dogmatic statement out.


    And I have no clue what the **** you are talking about here: "Gee, suddenly you know who the teabaggers are!!!"

    In fact your entire post was Non sequitur.

    Simply put when somebody agrees to do work for someone else they make an agreement to what or how much money will make up for the energy used by the person and their time used. When the employer gives the employee whatever it is agreed to and the employee did whatever it was required of them both parts of the agreement has been full filled.

    If an employee or an group of employees want more than what they agreed to for compensation for their time and energy, they can ask the employer for more. But I do not think that any any employer or any court or the Constitution will agree with you that the employees are entitled to owning the building that they work in, just because they work there. This is where Marx has no logic and is only designing conflict. See it is obvious (and I do mean obvious) that Marx designed a method to enrage the working class in order to manipulate them to become an army that is hell bent on destroying Capitalism to put the historical leaders of his time out of business. The ploy worked so good that now in this modern world people are still enraged. Now that I think about it Marx was smarter than I thought. He created an endless conflict cycle that has kept his philosophies alive.
    Last edited by FreedomFromAll; 12-15-11 at 06:06 PM.

  5. #385
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Is the OWS against Capitalism?

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    I was hoping that you would give an intelligent response. How disappointing that you chose to address myself instead of the example and the questions that I had for you. Then turn around throw a tired dogmatic statement out.


    And I have no clue what the **** you are talking about here: "Gee, suddenly you know who the teabaggers are!!!"
    I did address your question by pointing out that you are free to decide to donate your labor.

    As to the rest, I pointed out that agreements made under duress or coercion are considered unfair. The mere fact that the two parties agreed does not gaurantee it's legality, nevermind its' fundamental fairness. This concept existed long before Marx was born, so your implication there is sophistic

    IOW, your entire post was Non sequitur.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  6. #386
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Last Seen
    07-07-16 @ 08:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    2,854

    Re: Is the OWS against Capitalism?

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    And the left wants to repeal the bush* tax cuts and often calls for a return to the rates we had under Clinton.
    I do not hear a lot of people on the left want to repeal all of bush tax cuts, and not just the ones for the rich.

    And spending alone does not cause debt. Debt is created when spending outpaces tax revenues, so your focus on spending alone is one-sided.
    There is a reason I focus on spending. I focus on spending, because revenue is much harder to get out of control. Americas revenue has increased. Government Taxes and Revenue Chart: United States 1950-2015 - Federal State Local Data Generally revenue have a tendency to stay flat or increase slowly if people do not accept tax increases, and can't afford tax cuts.

    However, when I say spending is out of control. It does not mean spending do not increase. If the spending increase is done on purpose coupled with tax increases for everyone, then spending is not out of control.

    However, if spending increases, but no one is willing to pay for it, then spending is out of control. That is what is happening in the US right now. Spending has been increasing for a long time. No one is willing to cut spending, no one is willing to accept higher taxes. The solution from the left is to let the rich pay for all of the spending, but that is not possible.

    Umm, yes you do. The tax rates of developed nations are almost always higher than in undeveloped ones.
    Have you ever stopped and asked the question, "why?". Remember, correlation, do not mean causation.

    When these people come to the US, they want more spending, not less like in their homeland.

    The reason revenue is low in many developing nations is because they can't afford it. The people with very low incomes, can not be forced to pay taxes, and they don't think they get enough back to pay taxes from their small incomes. They want rich people to pay taxes. But the richest groups can't be forced to pay much taxes either, because they are very mobile. In effect, poor countries have low revenue because they can't afford it, not because they don't want it.

    There are some poor countries with high revenue, and I can tell you those countries are some of the worst countries in the world.
    1. Kiribati 69.7
    2. Zimbabwe 49.3
    3. Cuba 44.8
    4. Lesotho 42.9
    5. Swaziland 39.8
    6. Ukraine 38.1

    Zimbabwe is considered the worst country in the world. So the reason countries with low GDP per capita, also have low revenue and hence governmental spending is because they can't afford any bigger state.

    Countries who actively chooses to have a small government, such as Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong is working fine, and certainly are not becoming third world.
    Last edited by Camlon; 12-15-11 at 06:53 PM.

  7. #387
    Guru
    99percenter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    4,076

    Re: Is the OWS against Capitalism?

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    I do not hear a lot of people on the left want to repeal all of bush tax cuts, and not just the ones for the rich.


    There is a reason I focus on spending. I focus on spending, because revenue is much harder to get out of control. Americas revenue has increased. Government Taxes and Revenue Chart: United States 1950-2015 - Federal State Local Data Generally revenue have a tendency to stay flat or increase slowly if people do not accept tax increases, and can't afford tax cuts.

    However, when I say spending is out of control. It does not mean spending do not increase. If the spending increase is done on purpose coupled with tax increases for everyone, then spending is not out of control.

    However, if spending increases, but no one is willing to pay for it, then spending is out of control. That is what is happening in the US right now. Spending has been increasing for a long time. No one is willing to cut spending, no one is willing to accept higher taxes. The solution from the left is to let the rich pay for all of the spending, but that is not possible.


    Have you ever stopped and asked the question, "why?". Remember, correlation, do not mean causation.

    When these people come to the US, they want more spending, not less like in their homeland.

    The reason revenue is low in many developing nations is because they can't afford it. The people with very low incomes, can not be forced to pay taxes, and they don't think they get enough back to pay taxes from their small incomes. They want rich people to pay taxes. But the richest groups can't be forced to pay much taxes either, because they are very mobile. In effect, poor countries have low revenue because they can't afford it, not because they don't want it.

    There are some poor countries with high revenue, and I can tell you those countries are some of the worst countries in the world.
    1. Kiribati 69.7
    2. Zimbabwe 49.3
    3. Cuba 44.8
    4. Lesotho 42.9
    5. Swaziland 39.8
    6. Ukraine 38.1

    Zimbabwe is considered the worst country in the world. So the reason countries with low GDP per capita, also have low revenue and hence governmental spending is because they can't afford any bigger state.

    Countries who actively chooses to have a small government, such as Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong is working fine, and certainly are not becoming third world.
    I see a contradiction.
    bears, bulls, white sox fan 4 life!!!

  8. #388
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Is the OWS against Capitalism?

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    I do not hear a lot of people on the left want to repeal all of bush tax cuts, and not just the ones for the rich.
    What you heard is not much of an argument. The fact is, the left opposed the bill that cut taxes and were not calling for any tax cuts. That was the right


    There is a reason I focus on spending. I focus on spending, because revenue is much harder to get out of control. Americas revenue has increased.
    Thats just not true. Both spending and revenue are altered through the same legislative process. The only thing that makes one harder than the other is the ideological obstinancy of rightwingers. And of course revenue has increased. We have more people, therefore, more people working.
    However, when I say spending is out of control. It does not mean spending do not increase. If the spending increase is done on purpose coupled with tax increases for everyone, then spending is not out of control.

    However, if spending increases, but no one is willing to pay for it, then spending is out of control. That is what is happening in the US right now. Spending has been increasing for a long time. No one is willing to cut spending, no one is willing to accept higher taxes. The left solution is to let the rich pay for all of the spending, but that is not possible.
    As the population increases, there is a need to increase spending just as there is an (near) inevitablity of increased revenue. And once again, you are making dishonest claims about the left. What the right wants is for the rich to pay an ever decreasing portion of the bill, even as the reap an ever increasing portion of the benefits







    As you can see in the charts, the wealthy have benefitted while the rest have not, even while the wealthy pay a smaller portion of the burden




    Have you ever stopped and asked the question, "why?". Remember, correlation, do not mean causation.
    Yes, I have. Capitalism requires socialistic support from the govt in order to create prosperity

    When these people come to the US, they want more spending, not less like in their homeland.
    I've seen no evidence of this. Many immigrants tend to financially "conservative" and frugal and oppose increased spending

    The reason revenue is low in many developing nations is because they can't afford it. The people with very low incomes, can not be forced to pay taxes, and they don't think they get enough back to pay taxes from their small incomes. They want rich people to pay taxes. But the richest groups can't be forced to pay much taxes either, because they are very mobile. In effect, poor countries have low revenue because they can't afford it, not because they don't want it.
    The wealthy in third world nations are not mobile. There's a reason why the live where they do.

    There are some poor countries with high revenue, and I can tell you those countries are some of the worst countries in the world.
    1. Kiribati 69.7
    2. Zimbabwe 49.3
    3. Cuba 44.8
    4. Lesotho 42.9
    5. Swaziland 39.8
    6. Ukraine 38.1

    Zimbabwe is considered the worst country in the world. So the reason countries with low GDP per capita, also have low revenue and hence governmental spending is because they can't afford any bigger state.
    Correlation doesn't equal causation, remember?


    Countries who actively chooses to have a small government, such as Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong is working fine, and certainly are not becoming third world.
    LOL!! Those govts are not "small govts". For example, in Singapore, most people live in public housing or own homes they bought with govt subsidies. Their govts are invovled in their lives to a degree that would horrify "small govt" blowhards in the US
    Last edited by sangha; 12-15-11 at 07:00 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  9. #389
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Is the OWS against Capitalism?

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    Well, if you look at the demands above, then student debt is there in point 12. There has also been a lot of occupier demanding student debt to be forgiven.
    There was not a link to check out the source.

    My point has been. This movement is not against capitalism. It is about greed, about the greed of bankers and the greed of the occupiers.

    Yes, we are aware this is your opinion. I choose to go by their official Mission Statement.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  10. #390
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    07-25-17 @ 12:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,878

    Re: Is the OWS against Capitalism?

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    In post #361, you argued that outsourcing was a good thing. Now, three posts later, you're saying our govt should NOT finance policies that are good for the economy???

    You seem to be trying to have it both ways.
    What is the corelation in my statements on outsourcing and gov't policy?

Page 39 of 54 FirstFirst ... 29373839404149 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •