so, to summarize, you ask what "they" want, because you don't know, then you fabricate some stuff you say "they" want.
then you say that you agree with things I said, which are things I've read as wants from OWS people...
That is not what they're after. They hate business because it has more money then them. They hate business because they thought after graduating with a lib arts degree big buisness will give them all free bmws, and free houses on 5th ave. And then reality hit and it wasn't a gravy train.
I dont agree with companies being bailed out. You take risks and fail, you go under. I dont agree with them writing rules thats favor one company or another.
But I dont agree that there is such a thing as too much profit. I dont agree that business is some how 'robbing' the poor, and taking their money. I dont agree the rich should pay more in taxes. I dont agree that government should make everyone equal.
Well if you wanna get technical, starting in the mid 90s FNMA and FHLMC had a mandate of what % of their portfolio had to be subprime (combined they two entities are 40% of the secondary market) and after 96 it included mandate for "specially affordable loans". Those percentage requirements went up as well.
It's not surprising (in retrospect) that there was a self-reinforcing dynamic in the system - each and every person i've listed was benefitting from what was happening. As I said, placing blame exclusively on a single action is just showing your bias.
I've got history and all you have are insults.
What repuclican are you talking about? for someone calling people out as idiots and parrots, you sure are quick to label others.
I'm stilling waiting for someone to define / clarify for the majority what the OWS crowd wants, and what their gerviances are.
The thing is, no one can, becauses its a large group of angry people, each of which wants something else. The only common thread is their hatered for Wall street and capitalism. A claim which they will deny because they know if they admited the truth they would lose even more support.
I've got history and all you have are insults.
Some might find a slight discrepancy between a crowd of starving people and a crowd of people demanding that someone else pay to upgrade their iPhone 3 to the latest iPhone 4.Actually, events going on right now have a much closer parallel to events prior to the French Revolution than anything else. A heavily indebted government, an upper class rich beyond anyone else in the country with many tax exemptions, and that upper class refusing to help pay for the country's debt while expecting the lower classes to accept that burden via even heavier taxes. I believe a republic was born from that revolution, not a communist one.
Some might find a slight discrepancy between a crowd of starving people and a crowd of people demanding that someone else pay to upgrade their iPhone 3 to the latest iPhone 4.
The best parallel would be a ward of neglected babies, right down to the foul smell, screaming for a tit, and total self-interest.
Haven't you heard this president ramble on and on and about those greedy "fat cats on wall street", the "millionaires and billionaires"? His constant demonizing of said "fat cats"? That's him stoking the proletariat to rise up against the bourgeois. And that's exactly what you're seeing here.
We've seen it before, it's a familiar path all cheered on by Obama. Why do you think I keep using the term "useful idiots"? Because everything being done has happened before in any communist revolution, it's how Marx planned/predicted things and they're just following the path.
You must make the proletariat believe it's the bourgeois who are the cause of all their problems. And that's exactly what Obama has been doing since he's gotten into office, and these dirty hippies fell for it. What's even more funny is the communist protesters would likely be killed for what they're doing if we had their communist workers paradise. America haters, every last one of them.
Though you wonder, with food prices rising and unemployment not going away, how far are we from starving masses?
You don't have history, and I'm not insulting you. If what you post here is indicative of what you actually believe, then I genuinely think that you are mentally ill.
Like, seriously. If your health plan covers it, I strongly encourage you to have yourself evaluated.
I'm glad you are confirming that they are anti-capitalists. At least one of you is honest.
You realize that you're just inventing positions in your head for these people to hold, right?
I've actually been there and listened to the people protesting there, have you? Of course not, but that doesn't stop you from thinking that you know exactly what this huge, nebulous group 'believes'. There might be some people there who think the things you just made up, but that is in no way the prevailing sentiment there.
The prevailing sentiment is exactly what other people have been trying to tell you. Wall St. has rigged the game in their favor, and they are screwing us all over.
The many who post the kind of gibberish you did.
Bill Clinton's answer to this is, 'they feel things have gotten too unequal, and many of those who caused the problems are gaining the most.'
The thing is, yes they can. A large group of angry people who wants different things? Did our founding fathers completely agree on what they wanted? Hardly. They fought bitterly over fundamental differences. For example, Hamilton wanted a more aristocratic government, a President permanently elected (like a King), a powerful central bank; others wanted something quite different. And yet they were 'the founding fathers', united for founding this country.
A common delusion of the ignorant is to claim 'hate' by their opponents to dismiss them.
Blacks complaining about civil right inequality? They hate whites. Citizens complaining about religion overreaching? They hate Christians. People saying there's a problem with the few at the top taking all the economic growth and more than doubling the share of income they take? They hate them. It's idiocy and a lie. It shows you do not understand and cannot discuss the issue.
They hate CORRUPT capitalism. They don't hate capitalism. The basic capitalist system and 'free market', of labor, production, selling for a profit, competition - no problem. A moderate inequality, no problem. But when Wall Street goes from being an engine for the economy adding value to the finance sector, which they have no problem with as a profitable industry, to one taking 40% of all profits instead of 10% and doing more taking of wealth with 'gambling' and other manipulations instead of helping businesses, they hate that they same way people hate any thieves, especially ones who are destroying the American middle class and taking trillions from the people to the wealthy.
So your post is just a straw man, ignoring the issues and making absurd false attacks.
demanding that someone else pay to upgrade their iPhone 3 to the latest iPhone 4.
Nice pic. I'd just say 'lobby for' is too weak for corrupting democracy by forcing most candidates to get the approval of these corporations because they need their money.
The corporations filter who can win usually, and write the laws they want, and the result is the stealing of trillions of dollars from the American people.
They hate capitalism. I've read their writings on the OWS website.
I missed it. I'll go back and watch it.
Does it include shots of the occupy crowd spitting on members of the coast guard?
I'm much more sympathetic to limiting or controlling punitive penalty fees and the like -- as the predatory aspect is much more salient -- but, unless my skills of statutory interpretation have completely failed me I do think that the CARD Act prohibits a lender from re-pricing risk.
It is not that I don't deny that people might have limitations or biases that militate against their best interests and that unscrupulous market participants may leverage these shortcomings for their own benefit. My problem with the government assuming such a paternalistic role is that it reduces individual liberty and has the real danger of creating unintended consequences. For what it's worth, I am not entirely opposed to libertarian paternalism model advanced by Cass Sunstein and think it might offer a somewhat workable middle ground.
I think this might be a valid criticism if I were suggesting that the other 47% ought to pay income taxes. The point I was trying to make, however, is more modest. Specifically, I was simply pointing out that 'the rest of us' referenced by Ms. Warren couldn't be that large a group given the aforementioned numbers. I wasn't arguing one way or the other as to whether the other 47% ought to pay income taxes.
The concern I had with her speech is that her focus seemed solely on suggesting that the wealthy currently do not pay their 'fair share' in taxes and that they had an obligation to do so. I was raising the point about ancillary benefits accruing to ordinary people because I am of the opinion that the knock-on effects originating from economic activity are far greater than any benefit afforded by government programs or the like (especially when so much federal money is either not spent on the beneficial programs she mentions or is spent poorly (as in the case of education spending). I understand that the nature of her speech might have prevented her from providing a full explication of the subject but my reaction was informed both by the content of her speech along with some of her other speeches, testimonies and articles.
Also, to be clear, it's not that I doubt Ms. Warren's sincerity or the conviction with which she pursues her ideals, viz. I don't think she is some crazy communist intent on bringing down the Republic. Rather I think she often underestimates -- or even ignores -- the costs associated with government intervention and she is also blind to the unintended consequences that result from government regulation. The harm the minimum wage does to minorities and the less-well educated springs to mind immediately. To quote Hayek, "s there a greater tragedy imaginable than that, in our endeavor consciously to shape our future in accordance with high ideals, we should in fact unwittingly produce the very opposite of what we have been striving for?".
This would be the case where there is only one supplier of goods and the consumer must either forgo purchasing the product offered by the multinational or accede entirely to the multinational's terms. I would contend, however, that where there is competition between firms -- even large multinationals -- then there still exists the conditions necessary for a healthy market, viz. if multinational 1 does not present fair terms to the consumer they can turn to multinational 2; if both 1 and 2 collude to frustrate the consumer then all is not lost because, assuming no technical barriers to entry, upstart X can enter the fray and offer the same goods and services offered by 1 and 2 but at more reasonable terms. At one point in time Kodak was a huge multinational but they failed to continually meet the demands of their customers and now they are an also-ran.
In 2007, TW made $3,730 Million, on high speed data alone, and then had to turn around and spend $164 Million to support the cost of the network. 2007 total profit on high speed data: $3.566 Billion
In 2008, TW made $4,159 Million, on high speed data alone, and then had to turn around and spend $146 Million to support the cost of the network. 2008 total profit on high speed data: $4.013 Billion
It cost TW 11% less money in 2008, to keep their network running, than in 2007.
The Colorado State Patrol said 23 people were arrested as police in riot gear moved into the Occupy Denver camp in front of the Colorado Capitol early this morning to dismantle tents and remove debris.
The initial order to disperse came shortly before 3 a.m., but arrests weren't made until after 6 a.m.
Cpt. Jeff Goodwin of the Colorado State Patrol said troopers arrested 21 people for suspicion of unlawful conduct on public land. He said that number could increase later today.
Two others were arrested by Denver police, Goodwin said. One of whom was arrested for simple assault, the other was arrested for impeding traffic.
More arrests and violence from people attempting to occupy property that is not theirs.
What part of "you can't set up camp here" do hippies not understand?
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_19112322
You've made an awful lot of posts about things that you claim are non events.
More arrests and violence from people attempting to occupy property that is not theirs.
What part of "you can't set up camp here" do hippies not understand?
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_19112322
Oh make no mistake, I want their message to be heard and the democrats supporting them. It exposes the left's true mission.