• 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
I fail to see why banks should make minimal profits. They are a business, devoted to making maximum profits within the boundaries of law, just like any other corporation or company

Because banks wouldn't exist without govt money. They get to borrow money from the Fed (that's OUR money) at favorable rates. Taking our money gives us the right to have a say in how they operate. Even Ron Paul realizes this
 
But America already has the most progressive tax system in the western world. You want to make it even more progressive. The countries with welfare states, which I presume you support, have high taxes on everyone. Not just the rich.

And yes many of these countries do run high budget deficits.

And returning to Clinton tax rates would mean that the tax rates for the poor would also increase. Why shouldn't we increase taxes on everyone. Why should the rich pay for everything? Or, why would you think the rich would pay for everything. If taxes become to burdensome, they will just move their money and capital abroad.

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

low_tax.jpg
 
Maybe so, maybe not. If the wealthy decide to retract from the US market and invest overseas the reduction in available capital AND taxable income would hurt would it not?

Tax rates in the US are lower than most other developed nations. The notion that if we raise taxes, the rich will invest in other, higher taxed nations, is a rightwing delusion
low_tax.jpg
 
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...

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.
 
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!!! :lol:

Now ask your second question
 
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/issues/2011/06/img/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.
 
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.
 
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:
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.
 
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:
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.
 
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

exhibit_chart1_265x250.gif


19.jpg


110.jpg


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:
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.
 
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?
 
There was not a link to check out the source.




Yes, we are aware this is your opinion. I choose to go by their official Mission Statement.
Why not link the source instead of a third party site? Declaration of the Occupation of New York City | NYC General Assembly # Occupy Wall Street Because at the source they say that it is their declaration of the NYVGA and not the mission statement of the occupy movement? I really dont think linking a site with an upside down American flag is going to gain mass American support for the movement. Sure you can claim the 'distress' thing but come on most Americans know what an upside down American flag means since there has been any need to hang the flag upside down for distress since we had ships with sails. And since an upside down flag has been used as an anti statement for many decades now.
cropped-us_flag_distress.jpg
 
Why not link the source instead of a third party site?

Same difference, the NY Occupy Wall Street protest was the origin of the nationwide Occupy movement.

From your link: "This document was accepted by the NYC General Assembly on September 29, 2011"
 
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
I am talking about right now. Very few on the left want to reverse all of Bush tax cuts, which will be needed to bring finances in order.


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.
The numbers I showed you were revenue as a percentage of GDP. That is not affected by more people, or more efficient economy. Revenue has increased. My point is, if there are no political will for change, then revenue tends to be stable.

Spending however, can go out of control. People don't want spending to increase, but it increases anyway. There is a difference.

As the population increases, there is a need to increase spending just as there is an (near) inevitablity of increased revenue.
All my numbers are as a percentage of GDP, hence population increase, and efficiency are irrelevant. Spending has increased as a perdentage of GDP, but few are willing to pay higher taxes. Bringing the burden to the rich will not work.

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
Some people on the right may want that. I am on the right, and I do not want that. I want income inequality to decrease in the US, because as a start it is hurtful to the conservative agenda, and it is not fair.


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
Actually,this is wrong. Your numbers stop at 2007, there was a massive decrease relative to the rest for the top 1% in 2008-2009, so it goes down to 15%.

Also, the wealthy pay a much larger portion of the burden.
taxes3b.jpg

I've seen no evidence of this. Many immigrants tend to financially "conservative" and frugal and oppose increased spending
There are heaps of evidence of this. You can take a look at how Mexicans vote, and if they are voting Republican, they are mainly voting due to their values, and not their economic view. Also, remember Mexicans are more right wing than the rest of South America.

If you take a look at other countries. In Norway, my homeland. The immigrants (mostly asylum seekers) vote overwhelmingly to the left. Same with other countries in Europe. But they come from countries that have barely no welfare state. They didn't choose to have low government spending, they can't afford having high government spending.


The wealthy in third world nations are not mobile. There's a reason why the live where they do.
The reason they live there, is because their family is there and being rich in the third world is quite nice. You can have servants, nice house and if you moved to a rich country, then you wouldn't have those luxuries. They can easily move to neighboring countries.

And if this isn't enough for you. Why are there none white people in Zimbabwe, if they are not mobile. Rich people in poor countries are mobile, hence you can't tax them that much.



Correlation doesn't equal causation, remember?
Pointless statement, because I didn't talk about a correlation like you did. I just pointed out that some of the worst countries in the world have high governmental spending. I used to illustrate my point that if a poor country tries hard to have high governmental spending, it will probably not be a very nice country. Poor countries can't afford having high governmental spending.

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
Yes they are. Singapore don't even have a minimum wage, while Taiwan and Hong Kong have a minimum wage of 3 and 4 USD respectively.

All of them have a governmental spending of 15%. America has a spending of 40%. And taxes are much lower as well. The labour laws are very lax in Singapore and Hong Kong. The reason Singapore haves public housing (sounds worse than it is) is because they have to. Well, you can do like Hong Kong, and Taiwan, but then you end up with expensive bad housing. And some cities in America has rent control, that is way worse. It is burdensome, and decreases housing investment instead of increasing housing investment. So housing prices go up in the long term.

Another point is that Hong Kong and Singapore, are ranked as 1 and 2 respectively in both Heritage and Fraser economic freedom ranking. US is ranked 9 in Heritage and 10 in Fraser. Taiwan is further down, because they love regulations, but not governmental spending.

Pretty much. You are wrong that high governmental spending is required to be a developed nation. The reason developing nations are lower, is because they can't afford higher taxes.
 
Last edited:
I see a contradiction.
There is no contridiction. If you actually understood my point, then you would have realized that I used those countries to illustrate that not all poor countries have low governmental spending.

And that if a poor country tries to have high revenue, without high enough productivity, it will probably end miserably.
 
Slightly off topic, but whatever happened to Jennifer Fox? She was the darling/poster child of OWS and the spark plug for a lot of righteous outrage against police brutality for a while, then completely dropped of the radar. She was either a pathological liar, a incautious mother-to-be or a victim, but I have no idea of what actually happened although the lack of any follow up seems to indicate the former.
 
There is no contridiction. If you actually understood my point, then you would have realized that I used those countries to illustrate that not all poor countries have low governmental spending.

And that if a poor country tries to have high revenue, without high enough productivity, it will probably end miserably.

You said zimbabwe was a country with high revenue and in the next sentence said it was one of low revenue.
 
If they weren't against it, they be home like us watching them!
 
You said zimbabwe was a country with high revenue and in the next sentence said it was one of low revenue.
No, I said that the general trend is that countries with low GDP per capita, also have low revenue.

But there are some exceptions, such as Zimbabwe.
 
Back
Top Bottom