Occupy Wall Street

brett636

Well-Known Member
Hardly, it shows that if the government takes less it can get more. At some point in the future if the government can get its fiscal house in order that higher revenue can he translated into more tax cuts and an even more free society.

REALLY! Since 1980' republicans have continued to make that claim but let's look at the facts. Yes, revenues have indeed gone up but yet republicans (not that democrats didn't get their licks in) have only borrowed even more money on top of the increased tax revenue and even worse has grown gov't to such an extent that gov't direct costs to taxpayers have only gone up year to year to make any increase in revenue meaningless. In that fiscal environment, it's impossible to, how did you put it?

At some point in the future if the government can get its fiscal house in order that higher revenue can he translated into more tax cuts and an even more free society.

Funny how the Bush tax cuts increased revenue (Obama so far has left them in place) and yet the debt zoomed and this during a period when republicans controlled the WH, both houses of Congress and even a clear majority of Supreme Court justices and yet the debt went up, gov't got bigger so has that limited gov't, fiscal responsibility myth working out for ya?

And you wonder why Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, co-founder of Reaganomics and David Stockman, Reagan's Director of OMB have both called the Reagan years a farce and a fraud when it comes to it's fiscal responsibility claims. You love to call some here kool-aid drinkers and on some levels you are correct but belly up to the bar there baby boy because you've had your own snoot fulls too!

And the OWS protestors are just a bunch of brainwashed idiots? Appears it takes one to know one![/QUOTE]

So show me where I said government spending didn't go up and where I said more government spending is a good thing?

And yes, I stand by my statement that OWS protestors are brainwashed, American hating idiots because that is exactly what they are.
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
With a left-leaning populist movement taking to the streets in cities around the country, conservatives are mostly content to bash the protestors as unemployed hippies jealous of their betters. In contrast, a few savvy figures with libertarian messages appreciate that although they may or may not succeed in influencing Occupy Wall Street, a limited alliance does make sense if possible, and a better opportunity to engage persuadable leftists has never before presented itself.

Prof. Larry Lessig, the Harvard academic and political activist, is among the observers calling on Occupy Wall Street and the tea party movement to recognize what they have in common. In the clip above, he says that crony capitalism is one shared object of ire, a message he repeated this week in Washington D.C., when he spoke to activists in McPherson Square. Lewis McCrary was on hand and reports on the intriguing frame that Lessig used as he began his talk: "He observed that 'the American Spring' had come in waves: the first, the election of Obama, which frustrated liberals when it became clear that his administration was about 'business as usual'; the second wave, the Tea Party, which he called similarly populist in character to the Occupy movement; and lastly the great 'third wave,' the Occupy movement itself."

Cautiously, Libertarians Reach Out to Occupy Wall Street
 

klein

Für Meno :)
Well, luckily we don't have many "Bretts, Mores, or even Cains" over here in politics.

Here are 2 headlines:From the head of Bank of Canada, and 1 from our Finance Minisiter :

Mark Carney, Bank Of Canada Governor: Occupy Wall Street Protests 'Constructive'

As protesters prepare to bring the Occupy Wall Street movement north of the border, Canada's top banker says he is sympathetic to their frustrations.
In an interview with CBC's Peter Mansbridge, Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney called the demonstrations, which are slated to spread to cities across Canada on Saturday, "entirely constructive."

"I understand the frustration of many people, particularly in the United States," he said. "You've had increase in inequality because of ... globalization, because of technology. You've had a big increase in the ratio of CEO earnings to workers on the shop floor."

Finance Minister sympathizes with Occupy WallSt protesters

Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty shares some sympathy with Occupy Wall Street protesters but reminds Canadians that Canada has a different financial environment than the U.S.
The Canadian Press has the story:

OTTAWA - Finance Minister Jim Flaherty says he has some sympathy for the "Occupy Wall Street'' movement that is spawning imitators elsewhere, including Canada.
Flaherty says the demonstrations are understandable, given high unemployment rates among youth and the increased concentration of wealth among a very few.
But he says the conditions that led to the U.S. movement are mostly not present in Canada.

 

804brown

Well-Known Member
Some of my demands:

- pass a constitutional amendment stating that corporations are not people
- pass and implement a public financed electoral system
- institute instant run off elections-where you have 3 picks; your first choice is green party, but they dont get 50% so your vote goes to 2 nd pick libertarian, but they dont get 50%, so it ultimately goes to the dems- now you can vote your conscience and it isnt wasted on a third party
-allow more parties into the debates
-implement Medicare-for-all- it is good enough for our parents why not everyone-why do we have to argue with UPS or any corp over something that should be a right
-bring home all our troops from every country they are presently in: close the 8oo bases in over 120 countries
-end American imperialism
-free public colleges
-make the tax code simpler and fairer; go back to the days of more progressivity in the code; working poor 10%; middle class 20%; upper middle 30 % ; millionaires 35%; billionaires 40%
-empower unions by passing card check
-stop subsidizing dirty fuels (oil, gas, coal, and nuclear) ; tax these dirty fuels so alternative fuels canwin out (solar, wind, etc)
-put a financial tax on evrey financial transaction; a penny on every transaction
-re-regulate Wall st
-mandate that a ceo cannot earn more than 10x the lowest paid employee
-strive for a progressive moral vision and view of democracy that starts with citizens caring about one another and acting responsibly for one's family, community,country and planet as well as one's own self

That would be a start to my manifesto. You can add to if you please!!
 

brett636

Well-Known Member

This article's headline should read "Foolishly, Libertarians Reach out to Occupy Wall Street" or "In a sign of desperation, Libertarians Reach out to Occupy Wall Street". While their specific demands are vague their overall intention is clear and that is they desire more government. In fact they want a lot more government and they think that they can have it because the money needed to finance it is all in Wall Street banker's pockets. I guess when a true grass roots movement like the Tea Party over shadows and outgrows the libertarian base they will get a bit desperate for supporters.

Some of my demands:

- pass a constitutional amendment stating that corporations are not people

And this accomplishes what?

- pass and implement a public financed electoral system

Are you deaf, dumb, or blind or maybe all three? We have a publicly financed electoral system as last I checked the government is the one picking up the tab for the voting sites, machines, polling people etc. If you mean a public campaign system there is some of that already as whoever is running for President can get some public money for their campaigns.
- institute instant run off elections-where you have 3 picks; your first choice is green party, but they dont get 50% so your vote goes to 2 nd pick libertarian, but they dont get 50%, so it ultimately goes to the dems- now you can vote your conscience and it isnt wasted on a third party

You do realize if we had this system in 1992 Clinton would have never been President right? Third parties have always been a crap shoot in this country and that would not change under this sort of proposed system. All the third parties combined get less than 5% of the vote in this country, and their ideas are so vastly different that they would not agree on anything even if they were able to form one party to compete against the two major parties.

-allow more parties into the debates

In my state during the governor's election they allow the libertarians to put their candidate in the debates with the republican and the democrat candidates. It still has not changed the fact that the libertarian candidate gets a very small percentage of the vote, thus a two party system still rules here. Governments made up of multiple parties are usually less stable and even less efficient as a coalition government is usually formed when nobody gets a majority, and none of the parties are very happy with the outcome.

-implement Medicare-for-all- it is good enough for our parents why not everyone-why do we have to argue with UPS or any corp over something that should be a right

You mean the medicare system that has fewer and fewer doctors each year that accept medicare covered patients? Your typical physician loses money on each medicare patient they see and a lot are beginning to limit the number of medicare patients they see or refusing to see them at all because they cannot stay in business if they do. To claim healthcare as a right is to say you have a right to a part of someone else's life. Doctors and nurses spend years studying for their future occupations, and all that education isn't cheap. It costs money to make all the medical supplies(tongue depressors, needles, gloves, medication), heat and cool the buildings, not to mention the general costs of the building itself(rent, upkeep, etc), insurance, and I could go on and on and on with this. To say you have a "right" to any of this is ridiculous because someone has to spend time out of their life to bring the people and materials to market so you can see a doctor when you are sick.

-free public colleges

Public colleges are already heavily subsidized, and to make them free would be an even larger burden on an already bankrupt government. Its a nice idea, just not practical.
-make the tax code simpler and fairer; go back to the days of more progressivity in the code; working poor 10%; middle class 20%; upper middle 30 % ; millionaires 35%; billionaires 40%

9-9-9

-empower unions by passing card check

Would you want the political parties to be able to send people to your home and "convince" you to sign a card to vote a particular party into power? I thought not, so why should this be the case for union elections? A secret ballot is the only way to ensure the will of the workers is represented fairly so nobody feels compelled to support something that deep down inside they do not.

-stop subsidizing dirty fuels (oil, gas, coal, and nuclear) ; tax these dirty fuels so alternative fuels canwin out (solar, wind, etc)

A 3 foot by 3 foot square solar panel would have to be in the sun 24 hours a day for 40 days to produce the same amount of energy in one gallon of gasoline. Those technologies are just not efficient enough to become a major part of the energy market, and until they do its best they remain an alternative and not forced into the mainstream.

-put a financial tax on evrey financial transaction; a penny on every transaction

To what end? Who gets the money and what is it supposed to be used for? Perhaps you just want another unnecessary burden on business so that you can feel like you made a difference.
-re-regulate Wall st

Because the community reinvestment act was so instrumental in moving this economy along. All it did was push this economy over a cliff and you want more of it?

-mandate that a ceo cannot earn more than 10x the lowest paid employee

Oh now we have the evil CEO's and their salary as a target. I believe Ben and Jerry's tried something like this and failed miserably to get a CEO worth his salt to run their company. This is a supply and demand issue, and if the demand is forced to pay these CEO's less than they are worth they supply will dwindle accordingly along with the quality of the candidates involved.


That would be a start to my manifesto. You can add to if you please!!

Your manifesto sucks.
 

klein

Für Meno :)
I agree with free college, it's simple as taking away $50 a month from child tax credit or support, and put those funds into a seperate government college fund.
That money could be used to send students for free to college, atleast those that have the grades.
And any extra money could be used to build, maintane, those facilities.

National healhcare works everywhere else, and it is a right for other people.

9-9-9 does exactly the opposite, makes the rich richer, the poor poorer, and keeps the middle class going extinct.
 

moreluck

golden ticket member
So it's a campaig gimmick/slogan? Or a real, well thought out plan?
It's something, but he's not the president, so it means nothing so far.
Perry's flat tax means nothing so far.
Mitt's 59 plan means nothing so far.
We learned with our present, so-called leader that what they say while campaigning means nothing.
 

klein

Für Meno :)
Moreluck, some people aren't like you. They do switch votes.
They listen to what they have to offer.

They just don't vote left or right, because it's in their blood to do so, unlike yours.
A republican could come out and say he/she wants to nuke China, and you'll still be voting for that person or party.

Like, I said, not everyone has their vote already made up centuries ago, and until death do it apart.
 

frank75

Member
It's something, but he's not the president, so it means nothing so far.
Perry's flat tax means nothing so far.
Mitt's 59 plan means nothing so far.
We learned with our present, so-called leader that what they say while campaigning means nothing.
Well it does mean something...it means Herman Cain is a clueless fool who uses a gimmick to further a campaign. A gimmick that any thinking person should see through immediately. Put a platform out that stands scrutiny and I'll listen but putting numbers together because they flow and call it an economic plan is pathetic. But this entire group fits that description. Perry and his failed states budget deficit of 29Bl! Glad to see you're on such familar terms with "Mitt". Almost makes me wish Palin and the Plumber were back.
By the way, he's not our so called leader, he's the President of all the United States. Get over it.
 

moreluck

golden ticket member
Well it does mean something...it means Herman Cain is a clueless fool who uses a gimmick to further a campaign. A gimmick that any thinking person should see through immediately. Put a platform out that stands scrutiny and I'll listen but putting numbers together because they flow and call it an economic plan is pathetic. But this entire group fits that description. Perry and his failed states budget deficit of 29Bl! Glad to see you're on such familar terms with "Mitt". Almost makes me wish Palin and the Plumber were back.
By the way, he's not our so called leader, he's the President of all the United States. Get over it.
Well, the POTUS used many gimmicks on his trip to the White House. He promised much and has not delivered as good as Papa John's Pizza!
 

moreluck

golden ticket member
Moreluck, some people aren't like you. They do switch votes.
They listen to what they have to offer.

They just don't vote left or right, because it's in their blood to do so, unlike yours.
A republican could come out and say he/she wants to nuke China, and you'll still be voting for that person or party.

Like, I said, not everyone has their vote already made up centuries ago, and until death do it apart.

You don't know what you are talking about!! I vote Republican because they represent what I personally believe in much more than the Democratic party does. The people change, but the basic ideas of the parties stay the same. I vote for the "idea" not the person.
 

UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)

Well-Known Member
You don't know what you are talking about!! I vote Republican because they represent what I personally believe in much more than the Democratic party does. The people change, but the basic ideas of the parties stay the same. I vote for the "idea" not the person.

I am a registered Democrat but I don't vote the party line.
 

moreluck

golden ticket member
I am a registered Democrat but I don't vote the party line.
I'm a registered Republican and vote for GOP president........locally though, when you have to pick 6 people out of say 15 on a ballot for one category, they usually list their occupation. I usually shy away from the educators (got their heads you know where), I usually vote for the business people no matter what their party is.
 

frank75

Member
I'm a registered Republican and vote for GOP president........locally though, when you have to pick 6 people out of say 15 on a ballot for one category, they usually list their occupation. I usually shy away from the educators (got their heads you know where), I usually vote for the business people no matter what their party is.
Sounds to me like you've always stayed away from educators.
 
Top