http://money.msn.com/investing/what-wall-street-protesters-have-right-brush.aspx
Many people would like to think of the OWS crowd as just a bunch of silly malcontents without a clear message. I would point out 3 things:
1. The OWS groups contention that wall street is using there superior financial situation to exploit those in need, is going to gain much support in these economic times with so many people hurting financially. This support will not vanish anytime soon.
2. Conservative types who enjoy blaming poor people for being poor will only fan the flames of anger, and cause this movement to grow (are you listening sh76?)
3. History is full of examples of full scale revolutions with smaller beginnings than this one.
I don't know how the OWS movement will end, however I would advise against underestimating there growing power.
Originally posted by bill718But revolutions only happen when:
3. History is full of examples of full scale revolutions with smaller beginnings than this one.
1. There is something seriously wrong that need revolting against.
2. The losses encountered by revolting seem worth it considering the possible gains.
I very much doubt that first world citizens are ready to give up their comfy life style for a full scale revolt against a system that most of them are actually fairly happy with.
19 Oct 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadThere's the rub, the 'most of them' part of that statement is overly exaggerated in the voices of the media drones who are paid to stroke the vast unconscious, not necessarily a reality. Unfortunately for those media mice, the unconscious giant is starting to rise from its comatose state because much of its real world doesn't quite match up to the picture its being sold.
....I very much doubt that first world citizens are ready to give up their comfy life style for a full scale revolt against a system that most of them are actually fairly happy with.
10 will give you 50 that come 2012 the OWS crowd will represent a much larger base that the TeePee movement and any right wing GOP razor gang approach to budgetary cuts, viz a viz reduced social spending, decreased taxes for the wealthy, decreased deregulation, will meet such a wall of opposition that the spill off will guarantee Obama another 4 yrs.
Popular sentiment will not buy austerity measures as the way out of this mess. Popular sentiment will grow to support a reigning in of the wealthy's unparallelled ability to shrug their social responsibility and put an end to the fantasy that growth is the only way to solve all problems. A belief that stellar growth would be the tide that would raise all boats has proved false. I think the majority who now feel the pain of failed economic policy, are only too well aware that deregulating the market to make it more efficient, only puts money in fewer and fewer pockets onshore, and that along with that deregulatory pressure their jobs inexorably manage to find their way elsewhere. It doesnt take a genius to work out that the doctrine of growth has brought to life the mother of all ponzi schemes, and the wrecking ball that ensues in its wake will also be their hedgefunded retirement nest egg down the gurgler.
Tax the rich until the rot stops. There's a genie that will pop out of a bottle near you one day, and once out, won't be rapidly put back in again. America at its strongest was during the 40's and 50's. Expect to see those marginal tax rates sometime soon in your future! Its no coincidence IMHO that prior to the crash of '29 and the Great Depression that followed, the top marginal rate fell into the mid 20% range, on the back of a concerted effort that sold the idea that all the extra cash would drive growth. All it did was make the rich get stupid and decoupled them from reality.
High taxation brings with it a certain morbid inertia to follow a prudent financial strategy and base all of ones decision making on very sound business principles. Low taxation tempts the wealthy into idle speculation, which leads to a casino mentality about what money is worth. The end result is a wealthy class that is totally out of touch with how hard money can be to come by and as a result care little for the many who are mere grist for the mill of their opulence.
Taxation rates to soar in the next 4 years. You know it makes sense.
Originally posted by bill718Sure, they had revolutions in the former USSR and Cuba as well based upon these premises as well.
http://money.msn.com/investing/what-wall-street-protesters-have-right-brush.aspx
Many people would like to think of the OWS crowd as just a bunch of silly malcontents without a clear message. I would point out 3 things:
1. The OWS groups contention that wall street is using there superior financial situation to exploit those in need, is going to gain m the OWS movement will end, however I would advise against underestimating there growing power.
Power to the people!!!.....er.....um.....statists!!!
All these people yelling revolution when the real revolution occured thousands of years ago on a cross in Jerusalem. Every subsequent revolution is merely the realization that the nature of men is sinful focused upon his own benefit and a rebellion occurs. Wash, rinse, and begin the cycle again.
So my quesiton to you is, what happenes if a world order rises that you are unable to speak out against? Are we there yet with all of the various economies/governments linked together sooo intimately? Are we all "too big to fail" when failure is mankinds eventual fate?
19 Oct 11
Originally posted by kmax87Most of the world believes that the following caused the Great Depression: the Stock Market Crash of 1929, bank failures and surviving banks be unwilling to create new loans, reduction in purchasing across the board, tarrifs like SMoot Hawley and drought conditions.
There's the rub, the 'most of them' part of that statement is overly exaggerated in the voices of the media drones who are paid to stroke the vast unconscious, not necessarily a reality. Unfortunately for those media mice, the unconscious giant is starting to rise from its comatose state because much of its real world doesn't quite match up to the picture its ...[text shortened]... heir opulence.
Taxation rates to soar in the next 4 years. You know it makes sense.
If there is a fear of a repeat of these times it would seem to me that making it more difficult for banks and wall street to perform, increasing governmental regulation and increased protectionism is exactly what we should not be doing.
19 Oct 11
Originally posted by bill718Your calling me out on "point" 2 is completely misplaced and I have absolutely no clue what it is you're trying to put in my mouth or what you think my position is in this regard.
http://money.msn.com/investing/what-wall-street-protesters-have-right-brush.aspx
Many people would like to think of the OWS crowd as just a bunch of silly malcontents without a clear message. I would point out 3 things:
1. The OWS groups contention that wall street is using there superior financial situation to exploit those in need, is going to gain m ...[text shortened]... the OWS movement will end, however I would advise against underestimating there growing power.
19 Oct 11
Originally posted by kmax87It remains to be seen how much this "movement" does. Give it time, and it will either grow or wither.
There's the rub, the 'most of them' part of that statement is overly exaggerated in the voices of the media drones who are paid to stroke the vast unconscious, not necessarily a reality. Unfortunately for those media mice, the unconscious giant is starting to rise from its comatose state because much of its real world doesn't quite match up to the picture its ...[text shortened]... heir opulence.
Taxation rates to soar in the next 4 years. You know it makes sense.
The TEA party has been at it a number of years, and finally has a substantial caucus in Congress. I would say though, that the TEA party movement has been operating in the background in a variety of names loosely known as "the Patriot movement", for the most part pretty ineffective in spite of a lot of dedication and idealism in its membership.
The problem with the OWS crowd is that they want a lot of things which are against their best interests, and which predictably would bring about general chaos. That hasn't stopped revolutions in the past however, so we'll wait and see.
19 Oct 11
Originally posted by quackquackIsn't that the truth. Yet, those who are true believers in government solutions are quite willing to go down that road, if only this time the government comes up more than a decade later with a clear solution other than a world war, and their notions vindicated.
Most of the world believes that the following caused the Great Depression: the Stock Market Crash of 1929, bank failures and surviving banks be unwilling to create new loans, reduction in purchasing across the board, tarrifs like SMoot Hawley and drought conditions.
If there is a fear of a repeat of these times it would seem to me that making it more ...[text shortened]... sing governmental regulation and increased protectionism is exactly what we should not be doing.
19 Oct 11
Originally posted by bill718Just would like you to explain some terminology.
http://money.msn.com/investing/what-wall-street-protesters-have-right-brush.aspx
Many people would like to think of the OWS crowd as just a bunch of silly malcontents without a clear message. I would point out 3 things:
1. The OWS groups contention that wall street is using there superior financial situation to exploit those in need, is going to gain m ...[text shortened]... the OWS movement will end, however I would advise against underestimating there growing power.
"exploit those in need" How is this possible? People in need have little or nothing to exploit.
"with so many people hurting financially" Is there ever a time when some people aren't "hurting financially". The term doesn't mean abject poverty, but not doing as well as they once were. It appears to me that most of the OWS crowd isn't doing so badly.
"Conservative types who enjoy blaming poor people for being poor"
I don't know anyone who enjoys blaming the poor, but most people are poor primarily due to their own actions or inactions. I take no pleasure in anyone's poverty, but I take no pleasure in blaming those more prosperous, because they have little or nothing to do with the poverty of others.
I ask you to ponder the actual results of most of the revolutionary movements we know about in history. Did most of these movements have the results that the crowds wanted? A great many led to periods of anarchy, and eventually despotism. Take care what you wish for, because you may actually get it.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 200258
19 Oct 11
Originally posted by bill718Oh, I believe that OWS has completely shifted the framework of debate. Deficits are off the table, and even Eric Cantor is discussing income inequality. He's couching it in terms of overregulation, overtax, incentives, yada, yada. But he's discussing it, and I suspect that Herman Cain will do poorly in polls which include independents after reinforcing his previous blaming of unemployed people for the fact that there aren't enough jobs.
http://money.msn.com/investing/what-wall-street-protesters-have-right-brush.aspx
Many people would like to think of the OWS crowd as just a bunch of silly malcontents without a clear message. I would point out 3 things:
1. The OWS groups contention that wall street is using there superior financial situation to exploit those in need, is going to gain m ...[text shortened]... the OWS movement will end, however I would advise against underestimating there growing power.
That's why Fox News and other conservative outlets are freaking out. OWS is in fact the anti-Tea Party, and it's actually drawing in some of the original TP activists - at least the Ron Paul crowd.
19 Oct 11
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignWow, how dare do people in poverty get to poverty levels because they want to. What an elitist statement. That in itself is why people are organizing in this way.
Just would like you to explain some terminology.
"exploit those in need" How is this possible? People in need have little or nothing to exploit.
"with so many people hurting financially" Is there ever a time when some people aren't "hurting financially". The term doesn't mean abject poverty, but not doing as well as they once were. It appears t ventually despotism. Take care what you wish for, because you may actually get it.
You sir are a prime example of the problem with such comments.
The American Revolution, was that also a tragic result?
19 Oct 11
Originally posted by badmoonI'm not quite sure what your incoherent rant is about. It is a dialect I'm unfamiliar with.
Wow, how dare do people in poverty get to poverty levels because they want to. What an elitist statement. That in itself is why people are organizing in this way.
You sir are a prime example of the problem with such comments.
The American Revolution, was that also a tragic result?
I don't know what problem I'm a prime example of. I'm not in poverty, at least I don't think I am, although I don't have a lot of extra money, and in my 7th decade I still work.
If people who are in poverty aren't responsible, then who is? Are Bill Gates and Warren Buffet sneaking down to skid row at night and rolling winos of the money they begged for during the day?
How is the fault of a teacher, fireman, or anyone else middle class that some people did not get anything out of their free public education? For that matter how is the fault of the Wall Street broker?
Believe me, I'm not happy about anyone's poverty, but I'm not to blame for it.
The American Revolution, among revolutions was indeed a happy result, but it isn't always the case, and early on it appeared that one was doomed. I wonder what if anything these latter day revolutionaries are willing to sacrifice for their cause.
Originally posted by normbenignIts this part - "but most people are poor primarily due to their own actions or inactions."
I'm not quite sure what your incoherent rant is about. It is a dialect I'm unfamiliar with.
I don't know what problem I'm a prime example of. I'm not in poverty, at least I don't think I am, although I don't have a lot of extra money, and in my 7th decade I still work.
If people who are in poverty aren't responsible, then who is? Are Bill Gates a anything these latter day revolutionaries are willing to sacrifice for their cause.
To me that reads elitist. Anyway it just seems so darn callous. You should reconsider.
I apologize for any disrespect.
20 Oct 11
Originally posted by badmoon" "but most people are poor primarily due to their own actions or inactions."
Its this part - "but most people are poor primarily due to their own actions or inactions."
To me that reads elitist. Anyway it just seems so darn callous. You should reconsider.
I apologize for any disrespect.
To me that reads elitist. Anyway it just seems so darn callous. You should reconsider."
If it isn't true, that would be one thing. I am no elitist. I'm not highly placed in anything. I pretty much accept that I got what I earned.
Factually, few in America remain in poverty for a lifetime. Many reach middle class, and some become wealthy. All poverty isn't being dealt a bad hand, or being less fortunate. Life isn't a big lottery.
20 Oct 11
Originally posted by normbenignLet's see precisely what income mobility statistics you had in mind there.
Factually, few in America remain in poverty for a lifetime. Many reach middle class, and some become wealthy. All poverty isn't being dealt a bad hand, or being less fortunate. Life isn't a big lottery.