• 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
Camlon said:
No, they won't. Because neither will give them high paying jobs.

This movement is not about capitalism, it is about greed. Which is people who are mad because they think they are entitled to a high standard of living.
Click to expand...

You are misinformed. I don't even think 1% of the people who attend OWS meeting share this sentiment.
 
Camlon said:
No, they won't. Because neither will give them high paying jobs.

This movement is not about capitalism, it is about greed. Which is people who are mad because they think they are entitled to a high standard of living.
Click to expand...

Actually, the movement is largely about the pretty obvious failure of the government to properly regulate the financial industry, and the resultant economic crisis. It is about greed, but it's about corporate greed and legislative greed. Most of the people involved with OWS would simply like the opportunity to work hard in order to improve their lot in life. Unfortunately, current economic conditions, combined with three decades of stagnant wages for pretty much the entire country have made that impossible.
 
Zyphlin said:
Yep, I know of it. Haven't looked extremely closely yet. In a general sense don't have a huge issue if it came back but like I said, I'd need to look more into it.
Click to expand...

I think all of us who were angry about taxpayer money to bail out banks too big too fail could come together to again erect the firewall between commercial banks and investment banks.



Don't really care what the "majority of the US" thinks in regards to taxes and especially that a "majority" of those who aren't wealthy think that its honkey dorey to raise rates on everyone else for more free stuff for themselves. I'm okay once the economy picks up to go back to the Clinton rates....ALL the Clinton rates. I would choose to remain at the current rate rather than go down the ridiculous road of significantly scape goating the "wealthy" to pay for every idiotic entitlement people like you and Thunder seem to want to add to our debt such as free college, free health care, and free elections.
Click to expand...

I would also agree to returning to the Clinton rates, and by cutting military spending back to what it was under Clinton it should be no problem providing for the critical needs of our own, and reducing the debt over the next 30 years.

Matter of opinion as to where the "biggest waste is".
Click to expand...

That's the crux of the problem, our representatives are spit on what the main priorities should be for spending. I don't expect it to be resolved until November of next year when the people choose the priorities they think are most important for our country.

I would say that the best place to start would be the portion of our spending that takes up 75% of it...namely Entitlement programs (SS, medicare, SCHIP, etc) and the Military. Reform entitlements and tighten things up in the military to bring spending for both down by 1/3rd.
Click to expand...

The problem with that from the progressive viewpoint is that SS never added one dime to our debt and has over 2 trillion dollars in surpluses owed to it by the General Fund. That plus raising the FICA cap fixes SS for the long term. And we don't have a Medicare problem. The problem is the most expensive health care system in the world. Moving that problem to the states or individuals does nothing to address the affordability issue for consumers. To address the cost issue we will eventually have to upgrade our health care system to UHC as the rest of the industrialized world has done. Cutting military spending back to levels under Clinton will save us at several hundred billions of dollars a year.
 
Last edited:
Aderleth said:
This is you from two pages back:



Now, I know that you won't understand why I'm bringing this up, but pretty much anyone else reading this post will.
Click to expand...
You get a brownie button. I am not theorizing. Today's 'Occupy the ports" was designed to disrupt the economy.
Why Shut Down the West Coast Ports? | West Coast Port Shut Down Why shut down the West Coast Ports?
The ports play a pivotal role in the flow and growth of capital for the 1% in this country and internationally. For that reason alone it is the ideal place to disrupt their profit machine. The workers on these ports have always understood that; they have consistently staged shutdowns for political reasons, honored community picket lines, and led the labor movement. A general disruption of commerce, in protest of the nationally coordinated attacks on Occupy movements alone is warranted, but additionally, the specifically targeted attacks on workers at these ports by the 1% further necessitate this call to action.
Click to expand...

Some unions did not support todays protest to shut down the ports on the west coast. Some workers were pissed. The disruption of "their profit machine" turned out to affect the 99% as well. The economy cannot be disrupted without affecting other parts. But I am sure that the occupiers knew that. Please dont tell me that they are stupid that they didnt know that.
 
Aderleth said:
Actually, the movement is largely about the pretty obvious failure of the government to properly regulate the financial industry, and the resultant economic crisis. It is about greed, but it's about corporate greed and legislative greed. Most of the people involved with OWS would simply like the opportunity to work hard in order to improve their lot in life. Unfortunately, current economic conditions, combined with three decades of stagnant wages for pretty much the entire country have made that impossible.
Click to expand...
WHy is it that millions of Americans can and do work for a better life yet the occupiers cant seem to figure out how to do it themselves?
 
Mycroft said:
I find it odd that you would consider a tax cut to be a handout...and wealth is not collective in this country...at least, not yet...regardless your desires.
Click to expand...

Of course wealth is collective. Everything we do is collective. No one produces anything in a vacuum. Our economy is a vast network of interconnected activities, all of which rely on the others for anything to be produces and any wealth to be created. A small business owner could not create any wealth without all of the people who make every single material he uses, staff every business he uses, maintain the public areas he uses, enforce laws, grow his food, manage his money, transport his goods and the previously mentioned material and food... We are all dependent on thousands, if not millions, of people to accomplish every single task we engage in every day.

Everything is collective. To suggest otherwise is to miss the big picture. Only tunnel vision would make a person think that we do not all contribute to everything that we, as a society, create.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
WHy is it that millions of Americans can and do work for a better life yet the occupiers cant seem to figure out how to do it themselves?
Click to expand...

It is simply math:

There are millions more people than jobs.

Think maybe its time to stop providing tax breaks to companies that outsource American jobs????
 
FreedomFromAll said:
WHy is it that millions of Americans can and do work for a better life yet the occupiers cant seem to figure out how to do it themselves?
Click to expand...

You are assuming that the people at OWS do not work, and that is false. According to a poll of 198 OWS activists in NYC conducted by the WSJ 85% are employed.
 
Mycroft said:
Paschendale said:
They just think that by calling handouts "tax cuts", that legitimizes it. It's still a desire to obtain a greater portion of the collective wealth.
Click to expand...

I find it odd that you would consider a tax cut to be a handout...and wealth is not collective in this country...at least, not yet...regardless your desires.
Click to expand...

Not really that odd, given the source. This is typical “Occupy” vermin mentality. Wealth doesn't really belong to those who rightfully created/earned it. Allowing someone to keep more of what was rightfully his all along is, to that mindset, a “handout”.
 
nathanj63 said:
You are assuming that the people at OWS do not work, and that is false. According to a poll of 198 OWS activists in NYC conducted by the WSJ 85% are employed.
Click to expand...

So how is it that they have the time to spend at these protests, crapping on police cars, trashing parks, interfering with real workers trying to get to or perform their own jobs.

I'm employed, and if I wanted to support the “Occupy” vermin by participating in their protests, I wouldn't be able to do so, because in order to keep my job, I have to show up at work and perform my job. What sort of employers do these vermin have, that don't expect them to be at their workplaces doing their jobs?
 
nathanj63 said:
You are misinformed. I don't even think 1% of the people who attend OWS meeting share this sentiment.
Click to expand...
No, probably around 50-80% of the people at the OWS share this sentiment. Not that are against financial regulation too, but the most important factor is greed.

They will not admit it of course, but it is easy to see. They are not focusing at financial regulation at all. They are focusing on greedy issues, such as getting their loans forgiven, free college, free health care, and how they want a job. (which means high paying job)

The OWS are the same people who are protesting in Greece. They are greedy.
 
Paschendale said:
They just think that by calling handouts "tax cuts", that legitimizes it. It's still a desire to obtain a greater portion of the collective wealth.
Click to expand...

Who? Freshmen? Don't really remember a lot of them talking much about tax cuts or medicare at frat parties but I accpet that every college may be different.
 
Catawba said:
It is simply math:

There are millions more people than jobs.

Think maybe its time to stop providing tax breaks to companies that outsource American jobs????
Click to expand...
Out sourcing obviously is a problem and has been for decades. Tariffs on those companies would solve the problem.
 
nathanj63 said:
You are assuming that the people at OWS do not work, and that is false. According to a poll of 198 OWS activists in NYC conducted by the WSJ 85% are employed.
Click to expand...
No you are the assuming, I did not imply any such thing. I was throwing out the juxtapose to this.
Most of the people involved with OWS would simply like the opportunity to work hard in order to improve their lot in life. Unfortunately, current economic conditions, combined with three decades of stagnant wages for pretty much the entire country have made that impossible.
Click to expand...
I am pointed out that people do work hard in America and move forward, that it is not impossible.
 
Aderleth said:
I've noticed. You probably should, though, if you had any interest at all in honestly addressing this issue rather than concocting bull**** conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...

Why should I concern myself with the useful idiots? They do nothing useful...nothing that matters...nothing really original. All of their activities are directed by the few behind-the-scenes people at Adbusters.
 
Paschendale said:
Of course wealth is collective. Everything we do is collective. No one produces anything in a vacuum. Our economy is a vast network of interconnected activities, all of which rely on the others for anything to be produces and any wealth to be created. A small business owner could not create any wealth without all of the people who make every single material he uses, staff every business he uses, maintain the public areas he uses, enforce laws, grow his food, manage his money, transport his goods and the previously mentioned material and food... We are all dependent on thousands, if not millions, of people to accomplish every single task we engage in every day.

Everything is collective. To suggest otherwise is to miss the big picture. Only tunnel vision would make a person think that we do not all contribute to everything that we, as a society, create.
Click to expand...

Do you think this "collective wealth" should be controlled by the government? Or by the collective will of the people who own the wealth?
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Not really that odd, given the source. This is typical “Occupy” vermin mentality. Wealth doesn't really belong to those who rightfully created/earned it. Allowing someone to keep more of what was rightfully his all along is, to that mindset, a “handout”.
Click to expand...

part of the problem is that the wealthy did not create their vast wealth. The workers on the factory floor created the wealth...but are not fairly compensated for it.
 
Thunder said:
part of the problem is that the wealthy did not create their vast wealth. The workers on the factory floor created the wealth...but are not fairly compensated for it.
Click to expand...
And the factory came into existence how? Did the workers make the factory? Didnt the workers agree to work for X amount of money to compensate for their time?

As it stands people are free to build their own factories and control that business. True no business of any respectable size can exist without workers. But if there is no factory certainly there will be no workers. Thats why out sourcing has such a large effect on employment.

The logic that the worker deserves more for working in the factory is flawed logic. If you buy lemons and everything needed for a lemonaid stand. ANd pay a friend to operate the stand should that friend take a larger cut of the profits? Maybe at first the worker may make actually more than the owner. But eventually when the business is built up that changes. The workers still make the same for their work but the owner sees an increase in profits. The owner gets to keep their profit because that is their liberty to do so. If other people think it should be done differently it is their liberty to do so. But that is based on their opinion.

Suggesting that an owner of an business should share more of their profits is quite different than forcing an owner to share more of their profits. Pay scale is governed by the federal government. Working to get Pay scale changed is more fruitful than trying to hedge the liberties of Americans.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Suggesting that an owner of an business should share more of their profits is quite different than forcing an owner to share more of their profits. Pay scale is governed by the federal government. Working to get Pay scale changed is more fruitful than trying to hedge the liberties of Americans.
Click to expand...

And continuing that thought, the worker's liability of the failure of the business is merely the loss of income. They essentially can just walk away. The owner typically has put much more capital/wealth at risk and comparatively loses MUCH more on business failure.
 
Zyphlin said:
Sorry, I'm not a 8 year old or a college freshmen, so not familiar with any "tea baggers" asking for handouts aside from possibly handouts of free natty ice.
Click to expand...

Some people refuse to recognize the truth even when it's put into pictures
Medicare.jpg


MedicareProtestPetition0310.jpg
 
Last edited:
Camlon said:
Did the workers take the risk?
Click to expand...

Yes, it was the workers who were injured and some even lost their lives building the factories and working in them. It's hard to "walk away" when you're dead

on edit: What portion of the 1% died while working construction?
 
Last edited:
FreedomFromAll said:
WHy is it that millions of Americans can and do work for a better life yet the occupiers cant seem to figure out how to do it themselves?
Click to expand...

Many if not most of them have done so, but shifting economic conditions and rampant crony politics have made it impossible to sustain a middle class as large as ours has been for the last several decades. This isn't just affecting flaky liberal arts grads either. For instance, I've read about recently unemployed software engineers, underemployed accountants, and other people with professional skills. So in short, the answer to your question is that you're asking the wrong question, or rather a question based on a false premise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom