#OccupyWallstreet

[actuarial]

What do you mean? Explain how a "progressive tax" system is promoting equality.

There is more than one way to look at equality, and how you frame it is certainly important. Framing it in the simplest way possible rarely gives you anything of substance with a complicated situation.

Here's an example: since money is really a place holder for goods/consumption, explain how someone having to sacrifice eating to pay taxes is equal to someone sacrificing one of five annual vacations to Aruba.

I don't actually lend much credence to the above argument, just as I don't lend much credence to a flat tax being the only form of equality.

If every American is taxed:
a% on their first $20K in income
b% on their next $50K in income
c% on their next $100K in income
d% on their next $250K in income
etc.

every American is treated equally under the law.

 

[monovillage]

Are you resorting to ignoring what I'm saying now? I don't see anywhere in that link that Justin Timberlake is using his money to push lobbyists to push congress into passing laws that allow him to extract money from the general populace to the detriment of the country. Maybe you can highlight the relevant portions? All I see is somebody with money spending it for his personal pleasure.

It seems you want to make it illegal for some people to petition the Government using free speech to effect governmental policy that is in your opinion detrimental to your biased point of view? Damn shame about the 1st Amendment for you isn't it?

 

[HendrixFan]

It seems you want to make it illegal for some people to petition the Government using free speech to effect governmental policy that is in your opinion detrimental to your biased point of view? Damn shame about the 1st Amendment for you isn't it?

No I don't think lobbying should be considered speech. You want to talk to a congressman, fine. You start getting money involved and that isn't speech. It is bribery, and whatever stupid mental machinations you have to go through to convince yourself that bribery is speech you can keep to yourself.

And corporations aren't people.

 

[shadow9d9]

It seems you want to make it illegal for some people to petition the Government using free speech to effect governmental policy that is in your opinion detrimental to your biased point of view? Damn shame about the 1st Amendment for you isn't it?

Bribery generally isn't considered applicable under free speech. That is essentially what lobbying has become. Even the Supreme Court is openly accepting money directly from interests in court cases.

 

[Craig234]

No I don't think lobbying should be considered speech. You want to talk to a congressman, fine. You start getting money involved and that isn't speech. It is bribery, and whatever stupid mental machinations you have to go through to convince yourself that bribery is speech you can keep to yourself.

And corporations aren't people.

We should turn the question around. Why ISN'T bribery speech? I mean flat out bribery.

It's a person who is SPEAKING that they want something, and offering money, which is SPEECH, to get it.

"Vote for this bill and I'll give you $100,000." Why ISN'T that speech if money is speech?

 

[monovillage]

What bribery? Are you saying that a group that hires someone to speak for their interests is bribery? Government made the rules and regulations, the Courts said they're legal and now you're angry that someone followed the rules and regulations and got rich. If you want to decide that some speech is illegal, then pass a new Amendment or see if the Court agrees with your skewed viewpoint.

 

[Bowfinger]

What bribery? Are you saying that a group that hires someone to speak for their interests is bribery? Government made the rules and regulations, the Courts said they're legal and now you're angry that someone followed the rules and regulations and got rich. If you want to decide that some speech is illegal, then pass a new Amendment or see if the Court agrees with your skewed viewpoint.

Why is this so hard to grasp (or perhaps to acknowledge)? That is precisely the issue, that "legal" and "right" are two very different things. The current system with its rules and regulations heavily favoring an elite few is corrupt. Systemic legalized bribery virtually guarantees our elected "leaders" will serve the interests of the few rather than the interests of all Americans.

 

[bfdd]

We should turn the question around. Why ISN'T bribery speech? I mean flat out bribery.

It's a person who is SPEAKING that they want something, and offering money, which is SPEECH, to get it.

"Vote for this bill and I'll give you $100,000." Why ISN'T that speech if money is speech?

funny how that works huh? Remember my thread about taxes and money being speech? Doesn't seem so silly now.

 

[monovillage]

Why is this so hard to grasp (or perhaps to acknowledge)? That is precisely the issue, that "legal" and "right" are two very different things. The current system with its rules and regulations heavily favoring an elite few is corrupt. Systemic legalized bribery virtually guarantees our elected "leaders" will serve the interests of the few rather than the interests of all Americans.

I really don't have any problem with grasping it, or acknowledging it. If it's bribery like others on this forum claim, then it's illegal and should be prosecuted. If it is legalized "bribery", such as selling seats at a campaign dinner for "face time" or renting out the Lincoln bedroom in the White House then it's still legal. Put the blame where it belongs, on the Government that makes the laws and regulations, not the people that obey the law.

 

[Bowfinger]

I really don't have any problem with grasping it, or acknowledging it. If it's bribery like others on this forum claim, then it's illegal and should be prosecuted. If it is legalized "bribery", such as selling seats at a campaign dinner for "face time" or renting out the Lincoln bedroom in the White House then it's still legal. Put the blame where it belongs, on the Government that makes the laws and regulations, not the people that obey the law.

Why? First, there's plenty of blame to go around. Second, the fact that something is legal doesn't make it right. Integrity and good character require doing right things and NOT doing wrong things, regardless of whether they're legal. Third, much of the reason these "wrong" things are legal is because certain wealthy, greedy people lacking in integrity have used their deep pockets to corrupt the system and make wrong things legal. Once again, that's one of the key issues behind OWS, that the system today lacks equality due to rampant corruption.

 

[HendrixFan]

Third, much of the reason these "wrong" things are legal is because certain wealthy, greedy people lacking in integrity have used their deep pockets to corrupt the system and make wrong things legal. Once again, that's one of the key issues behind OWS, that the system today lacks equality due to rampant corruption.

Boy monovillage sure walked into that one.

 

[db]

The issue is morality.

 

[monovillage]

Why? First, there's plenty of blame to go around. Second, the fact that something is legal doesn't make it right. Integrity and good character require doing right things and NOT doing wrong things, regardless of whether they're legal. Third, much of the reason these "wrong" things are legal is because certain wealthy, greedy people lacking in integrity have used their deep pockets to corrupt the system and make wrong things legal. Once again, that's one of the key issues behind OWS, that the system today lacks equality due to rampant corruption.

What is the actual plan by OWS? How and what are they going to change? Do you really think the majority of people should trust the "occupy" movement with what we've seen from them so far?

 

[monovillage]

Boy monovillage sure walked into that one.

Let me change just a bit from his story.
Part of the reason these "wrong" things are right is because gullible and foolish people that lack integrity have used the deep pockets of NGOs and other advocacy organizations to corrupt the system and make wrong things legal.

 

[senseamp]

What is the actual plan by OWS? How and what are they going to change? Do you really think the majority of people should trust the "occupy" movement with what we've seen from them so far?

Trust with what? They are protesters, not politicians. They are there to express their dissatisfaction with the status quo, not ask for anybody's trust.

 

[Phokus]

Retard Conservatives in this thread: "Hey you dirty smell hippies, get a job"

There are none, that's the point you retards. Conservatives are really bad at looking at the 'big macro picture'.

 

[monovillage]

Trust with what? They are protesters, not politicians. They are there to express their dissatisfaction with the status quo, not ask for anybody's trust.

So they're throwing a tantrum, but don't have any ideas or clues about how to solve this "problem". OK got it.

 

[JSt0rm]

So they're throwing a tantrum, but don't have any ideas or clues about how to solve this "problem". OK got it.

your avatar is fitting.

 

[palehorse]

I'll take that to mean you don't know what position you are taking on this issue. Just a general "I don't like it" approach.

The name, Occupy Wall Street, suggests that the financial industry is to blame. And they are. If you think Justin Timberlake is somehow involved in that please explain.

As I said before, personalities such as Oprah, Michael Moore, Al Gore, Jon Stewart, Oliver Stone, David Letterman, etc, each compound their own vast wealth using many of the same methods as the bankers and traders on Wall Street -- that is, they invest their income and then collect vast sums of additional wealth from interest and dividends.

On top of that, many of those personalities use their own vast wealth and position to push political agendas on a daily basis. In fact, Hollywood is one of the largest and most influential lobbying entities in this country! Woops!!

Why are some of the actual 1% exempt from the hostilities and anger that is supposedly aimed at "the 1%"?

Is there a master list of "acceptable" or exempt 1%ers somewhere that I can use for future reference? I'd really like to ensure that "innocent 1%ers" don't mistakenly get caught up in this mess. That would be a real shame.

Thanks ahead of time...

PS: Be careful, this was a trick question. I already know the answer. The reason some of "the 1%" are exempt from your wrath is because they have successfully fooled you into believing that they're on your "side," and that they're somehow different from the other ultra-wealthy elites you're screaming at on Wall Street.

 

[senseamp]

So they're throwing a tantrum, but don't have any ideas or clues about how to solve this "problem". OK got it.

They are protesting, not throwing a tantrum. They aren't politicians, it's up to politicians to listen to their protests and solve the problem.

 

[monovillage]

They are protesting, not throwing a tantrum. They aren't politicians, it's up to politicians to listen to their protests and solve the problem.

And you trust the politicians to come up with a reasonable and effective solution? I mean do you really ?

 

[HendrixFan]

As I said before, personalities such as Oprah, Michael Moore, Al Gore, Jon Stewart, Oliver Stone, David Letterman, etc, each compound their own vast wealth using many of the same methods as the bankers and traders on Wall Street -- that is, they invest their income and then collect vast sums of additional wealth from interest and dividends.

Most of the people you just named have grown their wealth through investing in their own work, ie producing.

On top of that, many of those personalities use their own vast wealth and position to push political agendas on a daily basis. In fact, Hollywood is one of the largest and most influential lobbying entities in this country! Woops!!

I have never advocated lobbying, from Hollywood or anywhere. I have no problem with anyone who uses their celebrity to spread their ideals. That is pretty much what art is. It certainly is clearly speech. Money is where I draw the line though.

Why are some of the actual 1% exempt from the hostilities and anger that is supposedly aimed at "the 1%"?

I have explained already in this thread that some random family of four with two working professionals may be 1%, but they aren't the target of the rage. You are just trying to muddy the issue by playing dumb. I just got done explaining that the financial industry is the target, hence the name Occupy Wall Street. It was in the post you responded to...

PS: Be careful, this was a trick question. I already know the answer. The reason some of "the 1%" are exempt from your wrath is because they have successfully fooled you into believing that they're on your "side," and that they're somehow different from the other ultra-wealthy elites you're screaming at on Wall Street.

They are different, they don't have undue influence on the political process that has tied into business to push money upward. You are either trolling or are unbelievably dense to think that ultra wealthy elites on Wall Street have no more influence than a random family that makes $400k a year.

 

[monovillage]

Art is speech, but when a group of people hire some to talk for them it isn't speech. How about something like the NRA (National Rifle Association) where millions of people join an association and with their numbers and donations their unofficial representatives then talk (lobby) to their political representatives?

 

[michal1980]

Now you're just parroting talking points. The inequality is already here, in a corrupt system that's tilted the playing field to massively benefit an elite few. The OWS protestors want to reduce that corruption and restore greater equality for Americans.

I see no such unified message from the OWS crowd, I vist there forums every day. Are you the newly appointed leader with a focused demand? If so good.

please tell us how you want to achive that equality then OWS leader.

 

[michal1980]

The issue is morality

Define.