• 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!

Is the OWS against Capitalism?

Is the OWS Movement against Capitalism?


  • Total voters
    69
Corporations are not people, so I can see no problem if the government ordered corporations to focus their business in America.

So, again, how is this in compliance with the Constitution?
 
I find this to be untrue. The left focuses on the poor as well.

You mean to tell me republicans are interested in the well-being of the poor class? What a laugh.
Neither' I said neither, pay attention. The Left only uses the poor as an excuse they do not actually help them.
 
So, again, how is this in compliance with the Constitution?

I am sure a way can be found. I am in favor of the constitution being changed to amend this unfortunate problem.
 
Neither' I said neither, pay attention. The Left only uses the poor as an excuse they do not actually help them.

I disagree with your use of "neither", because I believe the left does care, so you pay attention.

And I suppose spending programs that help the poor buy food isn't a form of helping?

Who are you to say the left "only uses the poor as an excuse"?
 
Neither' I said neither, pay attention. The Left only uses the poor as an excuse they do not actually help them.

preventing & limiting cuts to Medicaid helps the poor a great deal.

fighting to preserve S-CHIP and Headstart, helps the poor.

your comments seem to be meaningless.
 
Can you show me where in the Constitution it says we must provide tax breaks for outsourcing American jobs???

Of course it doesn't say that but I am not the one taking the position that the Government has powers they don't have.

Please, try again.
 
I find this to be untrue. The left focuses on the poor as well.

You mean to tell me republicans are interested in the well-being of the poor class? What a laugh.
In order to laugh, you would have to discount other opinions and models as to how the poor are best helped. "Tax the rich, feed the poor, til there are no poor no more" may be catchy, poetic and easily digested but possibly impractical in the long run. A knowledge and sense of history and economic theory and application might help you better decide what is laughable.
 
I am sure a way can be found. I am in favor of the constitution being changed to amend this unfortunate problem.

Just to clarify, you support to government control of production? Is this not the textbook definition of socialism? And also ratify this with a constitutional amendment? Pretty radical IMHO.
 
Just to clarify, you support to government control of production? Is this not the textbook definition of socialism? And also ratify this with a constitutional amendment? Pretty radical IMHO.

"Radical" doesn't exist. It's just another belief, another drop of water, in the ocean.

Our society already embraces mulitple aspects of socialism.

If it requires the government to fix this problem, then so be it. What, do you support how businesses send jobs overseas, or how they suppress the poor?
 
I disagree with your use of "neither", because I believe the left does care, so you pay attention.

And I suppose spending programs that help the poor buy food isn't a form of helping?

Who are you to say the left "only uses the poor as an excuse"?
Well I get to say it since it is my opinion. Which is just as fair as you disagreeing with my opinion. Which is fine, but it really does not matter to me if you disagree with the words that I used, since I was the one writing them not you.

I also have my own opinions on what constitutes help. Either you help someone or you dont. Creating an sustained welfare state is not help IMO. creating a situation where poor people can remove themselves from poverty is helping them. Which is where the logical emphases should be in helping poor people, not throwing them crumbs and patting yourself on the back thinking that you helped the poor people.

Welfare has its place as an emergency humanitarian effort to help your fellow neighbor. Welfare is not something any rational person wants to stay stagnant in, despite what the Right will tell us. Receiving a pittance is not what lazy people call comfort. In fact being on welfare for able bodied people is just as much work as having a job, at least it is here in New Mexico since in order to recieve welfare you have to look for a job have a job or volunteer. And if you do not find a job within a certain time you must volunteer or loose welfare benefits.
 
Our society already embraces mulitple aspects of socialism.

That’s true to a limited extent, specifically social programs ('so-called' entitlements).

What, do you support how businesses send jobs overseas, or how they suppress the poor?

Yes, I do. Consider that when products go overseas for production it results in a lower cost to Americans, typically. (How many middle/low income people could afford Iphones if they were produced in this country?) When this outsourcing happens it frees capital, both human and monetary, to pursue other avenues of production. In the 90’s we DOMINATED the GLOBAL computer/internet innovation. This fueled the vast expansion in the economy during that period. Our issue in this country is that in the last 10 years innovation has been stagnant. Our economic growth was based on housing, public and private debt the three of which are not sustainable in the long run.

As far as suppressing the poor, by outsourcing and thus lowering the cost of goods it is in fact progressing the poor as ‘creature comforts’ become more attainable. Research the recent Census data concerning the percentage of low income families who possess things like A/C, cable TV, PC’s, etc.
 
preventing & limiting cuts to Medicaid helps the poor a great deal.

fighting to preserve S-CHIP and Headstart, helps the poor.

your comments seem to be meaningless.


As does the payroll tax cut passed under the Obama Administration.
 
Of course it doesn't say that but I am not the one taking the position that the Government has powers they don't have.

Please, try again.

What???

Wake said:
Originally Posted by Wake
...I think it is then time for the government to grapple them back into America's affairs.


Then you said:
And how does this comply with the US Constitution or are you being facetious?

One way to grapple them back into America is to discontinue the GOP backed tax breaks for outsourcing US jobs. How would ending these tax breaks be out of compliance with the Constitution?
 
One way to grapple them back into America is to discontinue the GOP backed tax breaks for outsourcing US jobs. How would ending these tax breaks be out of compliance with the Constitution?

OH SORRY, I agree that the tax breaks should be ended as should any preferential treatment corporations get. I mistook the word 'grapple' to imply some forcible means to control companies/people...
 
Okay, I found some a list of Occupy's Chicago's demands. My understanding is that this list was voted on by the people present. I chose Occupy Chicago because I live in Chicago.

1.PASS HR 1489 REINSTATING GLASS-STEAGALL. – A depression era safeguard that separated the commercial lending and investment banking portions of banks. Its repeal in 1999 is considered the major cause of the global financial meltdown of 2008-2009.

2. REPEAL BUSH TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY

3. FULLY INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE THE WALL STREET CRIMINALS who clearly broke the law and helped cause the 2008 financial crisis.

4.OVERTURN CITIZENS UNITED v. US. – A 2010 Supreme Court Decision which ruled that money is speech. Corporations, as legal persons, are now allowed to contribute unlimited amounts of money to campaigns in the exercise of free “speech.”

5. PASS THE BUFFET RULE ON FAIR TAXATION, CLOSE CORPORATE TAX LOOPHOLES, PROHIBIT HIDING FUNDS OFFSHORE.

6. GIVE THE SEC STRICTER REGULATORY POWER, STRENGTHEN THE CONSUMER PROTECTION BUREAU, AND PROVIDE ASSISTANCE FOR OWNERS OF FORECLOSED MORTGAGES WHO WERE VICTIMS OF PREDATORY LENDING.

7.TAKE STEPS TO LIMIT THE INFLUENCE OF LOBBYISTS AND ELIMINATE THE PRACTICE OF LOBBYISTS WRITING LEGISLATION.

8. ELIMINATE RIGHT OF FORMER GOVERNMENT REGULATORS TO WORK FOR CORPORATIONS OR INDUSTRIES THEY ONCE REGULATED.

9. ELIMINATE CORPORATE PERSONHOOD.

10. INSIST THE FEC STAND UP FOR THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN REGULATING PRIVATE USE OF PUBLIC AIRWAVES to help ensure that political candidates ARE GIVEN EQUAL TIME for free at reasonable intervals during campaign season.

11. REFORM CAMPAIGN FINANCE WITH THE PASSAGE OF THE FAIR ELECTIONS NOW ACT (S.750, H.R. 1404).

12. FORGIVE STUDENT DEBT – The same institutions that gave almost $2T in bailouts and then extended $16T of loans at little to no interest for banks can surely afford to forgive the $946B of student debt currently held. Not only does this favor the 99% over the 1%, it has the practical effect of more citizens spending money on actual goods, not paying down interest.


You may personally disagree with some, even many of these demands. But I post this to point out that the focus of OWS is NOT to ask the rich for handouts. You can argue that this is part of these demands, but it is hardly the focal point. I feel that people who disagree with OWS, as well as many right-leaning news organizations, focus on the forgiven of student loans, and ignore all of the other, much more rational and completely justified demands.

I agree with most of these except:

2.) I would change this to repeal ALL bush tax cuts, or leave it out. Repealing the bush tax cuts for only the rich will not result in significant revenue, IMO. And regardless of who started this mess, the unfortunate reality is we ALL need to sacrifice in order to get out of it.

12.) I personally think it is kind of ridiculous. When you take out a loan, you should realize the risks and costs before you take out the loan. And just because the banks got bailouts, that doesn't mean people should too. Two wrongs don't make a right. And I think that the US deficit/debt is a huge problem. And to what extent was the bailout money paid back? Some of it? Most of it? How much is outstanding?

I do think some type of program to mitigate mortgage and student debt would be in everyone's interest, however. But I will leave it up to someone smarter than me to figure out what such a program would look like.

So, in conclusion, everyone needs to STOP pretending that OWS' focus is on demanding handouts from the rich. As you can clearly see most of the demands listed hear deal with getting money out of politics and fixing the banking system.

Also, in reference to the original post, these demands aren't anti-capitalist
 
Okay, I found some a list of Occupy's Chicago's demands. My understanding is that this list was voted on by the people present. I chose Occupy Chicago because I live in Chicago.

1.PASS HR 1489 REINSTATING GLASS-STEAGALL. – A depression era safeguard that separated the commercial lending and investment banking portions of banks. Its repeal in 1999 is considered the major cause of the global financial meltdown of 2008-2009.

2. REPEAL BUSH TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY

3. FULLY INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE THE WALL STREET CRIMINALS who clearly broke the law and helped cause the 2008 financial crisis.

4.OVERTURN CITIZENS UNITED v. US. – A 2010 Supreme Court Decision which ruled that money is speech. Corporations, as legal persons, are now allowed to contribute unlimited amounts of money to campaigns in the exercise of free “speech.”

5. PASS THE BUFFET RULE ON FAIR TAXATION, CLOSE CORPORATE TAX LOOPHOLES, PROHIBIT HIDING FUNDS OFFSHORE.

6. GIVE THE SEC STRICTER REGULATORY POWER, STRENGTHEN THE CONSUMER PROTECTION BUREAU, AND PROVIDE ASSISTANCE FOR OWNERS OF FORECLOSED MORTGAGES WHO WERE VICTIMS OF PREDATORY LENDING.

7.TAKE STEPS TO LIMIT THE INFLUENCE OF LOBBYISTS AND ELIMINATE THE PRACTICE OF LOBBYISTS WRITING LEGISLATION.

8. ELIMINATE RIGHT OF FORMER GOVERNMENT REGULATORS TO WORK FOR CORPORATIONS OR INDUSTRIES THEY ONCE REGULATED.

9. ELIMINATE CORPORATE PERSONHOOD.

10. INSIST THE FEC STAND UP FOR THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN REGULATING PRIVATE USE OF PUBLIC AIRWAVES to help ensure that political candidates ARE GIVEN EQUAL TIME for free at reasonable intervals during campaign season.

11. REFORM CAMPAIGN FINANCE WITH THE PASSAGE OF THE FAIR ELECTIONS NOW ACT (S.750, H.R. 1404).

12. FORGIVE STUDENT DEBT – The same institutions that gave almost $2T in bailouts and then extended $16T of loans at little to no interest for banks can surely afford to forgive the $946B of student debt currently held. Not only does this favor the 99% over the 1%, it has the practical effect of more citizens spending money on actual goods, not paying down interest.

I actually find myself agreeing with all of these points besides 12 and I am IN college and have like no money. I knew the risks when I took the loan.
 
It is pretty selfish and greedy to want student loans to be forgiven.

I thought they were protesting against greed?
Show me where this has been officially endorsed as a position of the Occupy movement?
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.

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.
 
I actually find myself agreeing with all of these points besides 12 and I am IN college and have like no money. I knew the risks when I took the loan.

Like you, I don't agree with out and out debt forgiveness but I do think that the interest rates and deferment eligibility needs to be revamped. There's no reason that when people are not working that they can't get a temporary payment deferment until they're back to work.

Just like housing, to have the option to refinance student loads at a lower interest rate should be available.
 
The only thing tarp did right was save the auto industry.

The auto industry didn't need saving.

We used to have three great American automobile manufacturers. We still have one, and we would have that without the bailouts. If GM and Chrysler had collapsed, Ford—the one company out of the three that is thriving on the basis of the quality and value of its products and the soundness of its business decisions—would have gladly taken up their slack. Companies that make crappy products, and bad business decisions, ought to fail, and make more room for those that deserve to succeed. Bailing out GM and Chrysler was a mistake.
 
For the points.
1. Not the major cause of the crisis, but I agree it should be repealed. We need regulations to protect ourself against politicians who want to use monetary policy to create boubles in front of elections.

2. Disagree, we need to repeal all tax cuts. Just repealing the part that was for the rich, will not solve the budget deficit, and may cause problems in the long term.

3. The ones who didn't break any laws should not get punished. The ones who broke the laws, I presume is already in prison.

4. Agree, but it must include unions as well.

5. It is already illegal to hide money offshore. I agree about closing corporate loopholes, but then the corporate taxes needs to go down, because 40% flat corporate rate will make US uncompetitive. I am undecided on the buffet rule, it may have negative consequences. Although I agree in the general concept.

6. Not enough information

7. Agree

8. Maybe

9. Disagree, without it will be impossible to sue them. We can call it something else though.

10. Against the constitution because it is against free speech, and will open up for the government to censor opinions it doesn't like. Also, who should get equal time, and some of them probably don't want equal time.

11. Sounds good.

12. Bad idea, why should students of all groups get a free ride. They are just mad because their liberal arts degree don't give them a high salary. Maybe that is a lesson they can teach their kids. Don't go to liberal arts, and expect to get a high salary and no student debt.
 
Well neither does the Left give a damn about the poor. The Left's rhetoric focuses on the middle class.

On the contrary, the left love the poor. They promote policies that create more and more poor, and keep these poor dependent on and enslaved to government welfare, which the left then use to assure that these dependents will vote for the left who promise to perpetuate these handouts.
 
as far as I am concerned, giving tax-breaks for companies to move jobs overseas, is treason.

The Constitution disagrees with you. Article III, Section 3 defines treason thusly:


Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.


What you want to call “treason” has nothing whatsoever to do with treason, as defined by the Constitution.
 
Thats great but I am not a Teabagger, so it really means nothing to me, since I was talking about millions of Americans not some faction within them.

But why dont you answer my question? DO I now own my neighbors would shed since I built it for her? She paid for all of the materials I only did the work. I didnt even charge her for my time. Yet those workers you talked about that built the factory were paid for their time. And those workers most likely would not be the same workers working inside the factory. So your rational is really weird. Should the workers that built the factory own the factory or should the workers in the factory own the factory? And what about the people that made the building materials? Are all of these people entitled to ownership yet the person who spent their money to purchase the materials and labor has no entitlement to their own investment? Why would any rational human being invest in society if society just takes it all away?

And where does such practice end? Most of the things that I own were made by other people. DO they own these things instead of me? IMO philosophically Karl Marx was an hypocritical idiot. He only theorized intellectual drivel that cannot be applied to the real world.

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.
 
My mistake. You answered, and you answered wrong

Only the deluded would believe that the construction workers who built factories were not working construction
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?
 
Back
Top Bottom