• 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!

Who are the OWS protestors?

Who are the OWS protestors?


  • Total voters
    49
I undertand that the government considers corporations to be similar to people for tax purposes and law enforcement. But does it not seem strange to hear and see so many people who also think of corporations the same way? I mean, I understand if a particular corporation does something wrong, it's more convenient to say "that corporation" or maybe "those corporations", did something wrong. But, it's a little like saying "New York is rude" (sorry, NY, just an example). New York can't be rude - the people of New York can be. They can also be noble. They can be good. They can be greedy or charitable.

Corporations are made up of people. Without people, they don't exist except on paper. Corporations are made up of their employees, their CEO's, their stockholders. Picketing "corporations" is really odd - they don't have eyes to see or ears to hear. If somebody wants to say "rich people should pay more taxes", I can understand where that comes from. But to say that "corporations" should pay more taxes - that doesn't make any sense to me. That's like saying "New York should pay more income taxes". There are poor and wealthy people who are part of corporations. Taxing a paper entity is just a longstanding government gimmick that affects every employee and customer.
 
I undertand that the government considers corporations to be similar to people for tax purposes and law enforcement. But does it not seem strange to hear and see so many people who also think of corporations the same way? I mean, I understand if a particular corporation does something wrong, it's more convenient to say "that corporation" or maybe "those corporations", did something wrong. But, it's a little like saying "New York is rude" (sorry, NY, just an example). New York can't be rude - the people of New York can be. They can also be noble. They can be good. They can be greedy or charitable.

Corporations are made up of people. Without people, they don't exist except on paper. Corporations are made up of their employees, their CEO's, their stockholders. Picketing "corporations" is really odd - they don't have eyes to see or ears to hear. If somebody wants to say "rich people should pay more taxes", I can understand where that comes from. But to say that "corporations" should pay more taxes - that doesn't make any sense to me. That's like saying "New York should pay more income taxes". There are poor and wealthy people who are part of corporations. Taxing a paper entity is just a longstanding government gimmick that affects every employee and customer.

Ron Paul and the libertarians agree with you.
 
When you live in a capitalist society its hard to not have anything that isnt made by a corporation...

As Lenin said, "We will hang the capitalists with the rope they sell us."

And be impressed with it's quality and value..
Lenin shops at Walmart, for low low prices. :2razz:
 
I think that we have a large number of individuals who know that Wall Street and the "Banksters" got the gold mine and we got the shaft. Hope and change may actually fit here, but it's not Obama's fault.
 
The middle class ain't what it used to be, in many ways. And most of it has been the result of choices that WE are making. There are many, many more single-parent households now than there used to be, and that has dramatically changed the way the middle class looks and the income that the middle class has.

Some good reading material on this: The Tax Foundation - Is Anyone Left in the Middle Class?

The middle class hasn't been growing since the 80s when there were far more single income households than there are today. So you are trying to say the shift from single income to single income households is the problem?
 
Obviously, the correct answer is jazz hands.
 
OK. Why are they going down ? And once that is identified, what then is the solution ?

I posted all the tax rate info. If its higher taxes, then where, and by how much ?

FYI, we are stagnant because we produce less and less to sell to ourselves, or anyone else, IMMHO. And we have consequently put more folks on the gubmit teat. Can't get rich there.

They are going down for two primary reasons.
1. Outsourcing to other countries and the fix for that would be to review our trade agreements
2. The shift in bonuses towards the top economic tiers and probably the best answer for that would be more unionization.
 
Hippies finally put down the bong. The price of Doritos must have gone up.
 
I think that we have a large number of individuals who know that Wall Street and the "Banksters" got the gold mine and we got the shaft. Hope and change may actually fit here, but it's not Obama's fault.

And the politicians. And all who sold their homes before the crash, and did not buy again until after.

Obama ? He's just the politician who is now the recipient of the most campaign contributions from Wall Street in the history of the Universe.

Wall Street Responsible For One-Third Of Obama's Campaign Funds
June 22, 2011

One-third of the Obama re-election campaign's record-breaking second-quarter fundraising came from sources associated with the financial sector, the Washington Post reports.

That percentage is up from the 20% of donations that came from Wall Street donors in 2008, and contradicts reports that a growing Wall Street animosity towards the Obama administration may jeopardize his re-election bid.

Obama's $86 million haul set a record for incumbent fundraising at this point in an election campaign. While the campaign has downplayed the larger donations by emphasizing that the average donation was $69, it also released a list of contributions by "bundlers;" those who can "bundle" more than $50,000 in contributions from friends, relatives and business associates.

Read more: Wall Street Responsible For One-Third Of Obama's Campaign Funds - Business Insider
 
They are going down for two primary reasons.
.....................
2. The shift in bonuses towards the top economic tiers and probably the best answer for that would be more unionization.

Yeah, we need more cities looking like Detroit.
 
Republican Buddy Roemer: First Presidential Candidate To Support Wall Street Protestors

"The statement released by him shows full support of the Wall Street protesters:

As I continue touring college campuses throughout New Hampshire, I am reminded of all the young Americans currently taking part in the Occupy Wall Street movement. Please know that I stand by you.

It is Main Street that creates the majority of jobs in America; it is Main Street that sends our brave young men and women to war; it is Main Street that hurts when another manufacturing plant closes only to be re-opened in China; it is Main Street that is being foreclosed on; and it is Main Street that is suffering while the greed of Wall Street continues to hurt our middle-class.

Too-big-to-fail banks have only gotten bigger thanks to government bailouts, and as president, I will end the corporate tax loopholes that un-American corporations take advantage of only to ship our jobs overseas. Fair trade not Free trade.

Money in politics has created institutional corruption. Both parties are guilty of taking the big check and are bought by Wall Street. My campaign is the only one that speaks out against this and I look forward to the day lobbyists are not allowed to donate to campaigns.

Wall Street grew to be a source of capital for growing companies. It has become something else: A facilitator for greed and for the selling of American jobs. Enough already."
 
The middle class hasn't been growing since the 80s when there were far more single income households than there are today. So you are trying to say the shift from single income to single income households is the problem?

You're counting "growing" as a measurement of income and not necessary other things like cost of living, for goods and services.
In general goods and services like electronics, food have been going down, in inflation adjusted price since the 80's, actually much longer than that.

Cars and homes have gone up some in price, but it's a trade off of increased price for increased value and quality.
It's not so cut and dry, as you have presented.
 
They are going down for two primary reasons.
1. Outsourcing to other countries and the fix for that would be to review our trade agreements
2. The shift in bonuses towards the top economic tiers and probably the best answer for that would be more unionization.
Good grief, NO....the two tiered unions.....the bosses who are the CEOs of the Unions are going to take their half off of the top.....and the workers think they have it made with a few more perks, and they kill the value of the company to the investors and customers.
 
When you live in a capitalist society its hard to not have anything that isnt made by a corporation...

As Lenin said, "We will hang the capitalists with the rope they sell us."

Actually, this is not it. The people at OWS are not anti-corporation, they are against how corporations are acting in today's world. It's why the picture is so retarded. I am hesitant to state what I think these people believe, because I am not one of them and so will probably get it wrong to an extent, but what I think they are saying largely is they live in a world where corporations are getting richer while the middle class is getting poorer, and the government bailed out the corporations and left the middle class to continue to sink. They are now looking forward to a situation where they really could have a white house and congress who are all looking to benefit those with the most yet again, and it makes them mad.

There is legitimacy in those beliefs. Look at Cain's 999 plan, which gives huge breaks to the wealthy at the expense of those with the least. Look at the Ryan budget which gives tax breaks to those doing to best, and shifts the burden squarely onto the middle class.
 
You're counting "growing" as a measurement of income and not necessary other things like cost of living, for goods and services.
In general goods and services like electronics, food have been going down, in inflation adjusted price since the 80's, actually much longer than that.

Cars and homes have gone up some in price, but it's a trade off of increased price for increased value and quality.
It's not so cut and dry, as you have presented.

Food prices have gone up pretty steadily since 2002: Commodity Food Price Index - Monthly Price - Commodity Prices - Price Charts, Data, and News - IndexMundi

Look at gas prices. Now throw in the cost of cars and housing. Middle class spending power has decreased significantly.
 
The middle class hasn't been growing since the 80s when there were far more single income households than there are today. So you are trying to say the shift from single income to single income households is the problem?

Have you checked the Labor Force Participation rate ? We are today where we were in the early 80's, after having been much higher in the latter 80's, through the 90's, and into the first part of the past decade.

Labor Force Participation Plunges To Fresh 26 Year Low | ZeroHedge
 
Joseph Stiglitz said:
Our financial markets have an important role to play. They’re supposed to allocate capital, manage risks. But they misallocated capital, and they created risk. We are bearing the cost of their misdeeds. There’s a system where we’ve socialized losses and privatized gains. That’s not capitalism; that’s not a market economy. That’s a distorted economy, and if we continue with that, we won’t succeed in growing, and we won’t succeed in creating a just society
I believe this economist has stated the case eloquently.
 
Actually, this is not it. The people at OWS are not anti-corporation, they are against how corporations are acting in today's world. It's why the picture is so retarded. I am hesitant to state what I think these people believe, because I am not one of them and so will probably get it wrong to an extent, but what I think they are saying largely is they live in a world where corporations are getting richer while the middle class is getting poorer, and the government bailed out the corporations and left the middle class to continue to sink. They are now looking forward to a situation where they really could have a white house and congress who are all looking to benefit those with the most yet again, and it makes them mad.

There is legitimacy in those beliefs. Look at Cain's 999 plan, which gives huge breaks to the wealthy at the expense of those with the least. Look at the Ryan budget which gives tax breaks to those doing to best, and shifts the burden squarely onto the middle class.

They bailed out the banking industry, most of which was paid back. However, and more importantly, the middle and lower classes received huge tax reductions, to where the bottom 47% of households pay no income tax. Meanwhile, inflation has been pushed along by the money-pumping policies of Obama.

The plight of the middle class has not decreased due to corporations. Or the rich. It has been the growth of the nanny state, and the fact that we are no longer competitive in the marketplace. Cap and Tax and carbon credits would have made that worse had liberals been able to shove that down our throats as well. OWS is not addressing those issues. They seem to be advocating for more of what got us in this mess.
 
Last edited:
I believe this economist has stated the case eloquently.

Sounds like he described Fannie and Freddie, the root causes of the Housing Bubble, exactly. That we are still subsidizing green energy would be same-old same old all over again.
 
They bailed out the banking industry, most of which was paid back. However, and more importantly, the middle and lower classes received huge tax reductions, to where the bottom 47% of households pay no income tax. Meanwhile, inflation has been pushed along by the money-pumping policies of Obama.

The plight of the middle class has not decreased due to corporations. Or the rich. It has been the growth of the nanny state, and the fact that we are no longer competitive in the marketplace. Cap and Tax and carbon credits would have made that worse had liberals been able to shove that down our throats as well. OWS is not addressing those issues. They seem to be advocating for more of what got us in this mess.

If by huge you mean small, then yes. About 20 dollars a week is not what I would call "huge". Further, that 47 number sounds impressive in isolation, but that number has always been fairly high(http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/12-11-HistoricalTaxRates.pdf), and most of those make under 20k, so it is not tax breaks that are getting them no taxes, but low income. The issue is that those making below the amount covered by deductions has risen, not that taxes have been cut.
 
Sounds like he described Fannie and Freddie, the root causes of the Housing Bubble, exactly. That we are still subsidizing green energy would be same-old same old all over again.

Fannie and Freddie were not the primary cause of the Recession:

"The crisis can be attributed to a number of factors pervasive in both housing and credit markets, factors which emerged over a number of years. Causes proposed include the inability of homeowners to make their mortgage payments (due primarily to adjustable-rate mortgages resetting, borrowers overextending, predatory lending, and speculation), overbuilding during the boom period, risky mortgage products, high personal and corporate debt levels, financial products that distributed and perhaps concealed the risk of mortgage default, bad monetary and housing policies, international trade imbalances, and inappropriate government regulation.[37][38][39][40] Three important catalysts of the subprime crisis were the influx of moneys from the private sector, the banks entering into the mortgage bond market and the predatory lending practices of the mortgage lenders, specifically the adjustable-rate mortgage, 2–28 loan, that mortgage lenders sold directly or indirectly via mortgage brokers.[41] On Wall Street and in the financial industry, moral hazard lay at the core of many of the causes.[42]

In its "Declaration of the Summit on Financial Markets and the World Economy," dated 15 November 2008, leaders of the Group of 20 cited the following causes:

During a period of strong global growth, growing capital flows, and prolonged stability earlier this decade, market participants sought higher yields without an adequate appreciation of the risks and failed to exercise proper due diligence. At the same time, weak underwriting standards, unsound risk management practices, increasingly complex and opaque financial products, and consequent excessive leverage combined to create vulnerabilities in the system. Policy-makers, regulators and supervisors, in some advanced countries, did not adequately appreciate and address the risks building up in financial markets, keep pace with financial innovation, or take into account the systemic ramifications of domestic regulatory actions.[43]

During May 2010, Warren Buffett and Paul Volcker separately described questionable assumptions or judgments underlying the U.S. financial and economic system that contributed to the crisis. These assumptions included: 1) Housing prices would not fall dramatically;[44] 2) Free and open financial markets supported by sophisticated financial engineering would most effectively support market efficiency and stability, directing funds to the most profitable and productive uses; 3) Concepts embedded in mathematics and physics could be directly adapted to markets, in the form of various financial models used to evaluate credit risk; 4) Economic imbalances, such as large trade deficits and low savings rates indicative of over-consumption, were sustainable; and 5) Stronger regulation of the shadow banking system and derivatives markets was not needed.[45]

The U.S. Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported its findings in January 2011. It concluded that "the crisis was avoidable and was caused by: Widespread failures in financial regulation, including the Federal Reserve’s failure to stem the tide of toxic mortgages; Dramatic breakdowns in corporate governance including too many financial firms acting recklessly and taking on too much risk; An explosive mix of excessive borrowing and risk by households and Wall Street that put the financial system on a collision course with crisis; Key policy makers ill prepared for the crisis, lacking a full understanding of the financial system they oversaw; and systemic breaches in accountability and ethics at all levels.“[46]

"The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported in 2011 that Fannie & Freddie "contributed to the crisis, but were not a primary cause." GSE mortgage securities essentially maintained their value throughout the crisis and did not contribute to the significant financial firm losses that were central to the financial crisis. The GSEs participated in the expansion of subprime and other risky mortgages, but they followed rather than led Wall Street and other lenders into subprime lending."

Subprime mortgage crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Back
Top Bottom