Occupy protests go from peace to "chaos"

[Captain_America]

I think it is good to support this movement. It is about increasing the quality of life for the “99%” of people out there.

Catholic social teaching states that whatever policy does the greatest good for the most people is the preferable policy. Although this movement does not seem to have any specific policy its advocating yet, I think there is a worthy sentiment behind the movement that is, so far, worthy of support.

I agree entirely. There is something very serious there, in and amongst all the odd chaff.

The system is hijacked from real capitalism into crony capitalism, which is not capitalism at all.

But let’s hope the hippies and fruit-loops don’t get in the way of the message. Reform and oversight is needed, especially the repeal of Glass-Steagall or Volcker Rule. And if you area TRUE capitalist, you, too, should work to exterminate the “Too Big to Fail” excuse. Let the market work, despite the haircuts that might happen.

 

[irishpatrick]

It’s too confusing to figure who is to “blame.” The politicians? Yes. The CEO;s? Yes. Sometimes those two parties are one and the same! Also consider past politicians, advisors, and whoever else contributed towards a “corporate culture of gratuitous greed.” What about the CEO that was held the position last year? Or the congressman who was elected 8 years ago? The responsible parties are too many to count throughout the years.

Protest on the steps of the Capital? Ok. Also at the bank headquarters? Appropriate. As close to the CEO’s houses as they can legally get? Fine. But all split up at all these locations? Ineffective.

The people should gather wherever they can…wherever they can get the most people who might join them to join. Wherever will make a statement.

I’m not part of the protest or anything, but I don’t think they are protesting a specific person or policy. They are protesting an idea and an aspect of our culture. Wall Street might seem like the wrong place to gather…but it’s not too far off the mark. Close enough.

How are CEO’s to blame? Please, I am not attacking…I really wnt to know. CEO’s run the companies that produce a product or offer a service and those products and services create jobs (lots of them). So, if a CEO receives a large salary, how is that a problem?

 

[Garyjohn2]

How are CEO’s to blame? Please, I am not attacking…I really wnt to know. CEO’s run the companies that produce a product or offer a service and those products and services create jobs (lots of them). So, if a CEO receives a large salary, how is that a problem?

Hmm…I think its in the way they run their companies. Aren’t they responsible for the loans the banks gave out they could no way be repaid, and kind of started this recession? The gov can pass laws saying its ok to do something, but the person that does it is the responsible party.

What about the CEO’s that were giving themselves pay raises and bonuses while the ship was sinking and being bailed out by the government?

Also, there is nothing wrong with a high salary for a high position…but what about hundreds of millions of dollars a year along with millions in stock options and benefits? How can this possibly be justified?? I am a very imaginative person, but I cannot stretch my mind around the fact that a person can be working so hard or be so educated that they would qualify for a salary of $300 million a year or even much much more.

This is an example of gratuitous (sinful at the worst, disgusting at the least) greed that pervades our culture on a high level…or of the “1%” – to use a quickly-becoming-cliched yet accurate term.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

It’s too confusing to figure who is to “blame.” The politicians? Yes. The CEO;s? Yes. Sometimes those two parties are one and the same! Also consider past politicians, advisors, and whoever else contributed towards a “corporate culture of gratuitous greed.” What about the CEO that was held the position last year? Or the congressman who was elected 8 years ago? The responsible parties are too many to count throughout the years.

Protest on the steps of the Capital? Ok. Also at the bank headquarters? Appropriate. As close to the CEO’s houses as they can legally get? Fine. But all split up at all these locations? Ineffective.

The people should gather wherever they can…wherever they can get the most people who might join them to join. Wherever will make a statement.

I’m not part of the protest or anything, but I don’t think they are protesting a specific person or policy. They are protesting an idea and an aspect of our culture. Wall Street might seem like the wrong place to gather…but it’s not too far off the mark. Close enough.

Start with Barney Frank and Frank Dodd.

Then add in Franklin Raines and Jamie Gorelick.

And then the authors of the Community Redevelopment Act and its defenders over the years.

 

[Garyjohn2]

Start with Barney Frank and Frank Dodd.

Then add in Franklin Raines and Jamie Gorelick.

And then the authors of the Community Redevelopment Act and its defenders over the years.

See? Too many.

Also, I could be wrong, but I don’t think the protests are just about the recession or housing crisis. I doubt that those specific people or that specific act are responsible for this:

http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/0/8/1/6/8/1/Income-inequality-graph-49761761885.png

 

[estesbob]

See? Too many.

Also, I could be wrong, but I don’t think the protests are just about the recession or housing crisis. I doubt that those specific people or that specific act are responsible for this:

http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/0/8/1/6/8/1/Income-inequality-graph-49761761885.png

Why should anybody care that others make more than them?

 

[irishpatrick]

Hmm…I think its in the way they run their companies. Aren’t they responsible for the loans the banks gave out they could no way be repaid, and kind of started this recession? The gov can pass laws saying its ok to do something, but the person that does it is the responsible party.

What about the CEO’s that were giving themselves pay raises and bonuses while the ship was sinking and being bailed out by the government?

Also, there is nothing wrong with a high salary for a high position…but what about hundreds of millions of dollars a year along with millions in stock options and benefits? How can this possibly be justified?? I am a very imaginative person, but I cannot stretch my mind around the fact that a person can be working so hard or be so educated that they would qualify for a salary of $300 million a year or even much much more.

This is an example of gratuitous (sinful at the worst, disgusting at the least) greed that pervades our culture on a high level…or of the “1%” – to use a quickly-becoming-cliched yet accurate term.

In nearly all of those cases the high salaries were part of their negotiated packages. If a person makes $100,000,000+ while running a 50-billion company, and that company makes great profits and creates hundreds of thousands of jobs, than the company can choose to pay its CEO whatever it wants–being a CEO of a major Corporation is NOT a skill most people have, it is NOT easy. It is no different than sports players. A pitcher in the MLB can land a contract for 25-million to pitch 30 days–is that justified when compared to someone making 50k? It is a free market in a free country–sometimes under liberty extremes happen, but liberty is still better than the alternative.

Bills Gates is worth 50-billion+, a crazy large amount, but he earned it all by building an enormously productive and profitable company that touches millions of lives and creates millions of jobs in one way or another.

Capitalism can be abused, but in general it is a blessing for all concerned: the company makes a profit (good thing), the workers earn a salary (good thing), people buying the products get what they want or need (most often a good thing). It is good for all concerned, and just because it is better for some, does not negate that it is a general good.

Try to recall the parable of talents here.

 

[bbarrick8383]

In nearly all of those cases the high salaries were part of their negotiated packages. If a person makes $100,000,000+ while running a 50-billion company, and that company makes great profits and creates hundreds of thousands of jobs, than the company can choose to pay its CEO whatever it wants–being a CEO of a major Corporation is NOT a skill most people have, it is NOT easy. It is no different than sports players. A pitcher in the MLB can land a contract for 25-million to pitch 30 days–is that justified when compared to someone making 50k? It is a free market in a free country–sometimes under liberty extremes happen, but liberty is still better than the alternative.

Bills Gates is worth 50-billion+, a crazy large amount, but he earned it all by building an enormously productive and profitable company that touches millions of lives and creates millions of jobs in one way or another.

Capitalism can be abused, but in general it is a blessing for all concerned: the company makes a profit (good thing), the workers earn a salary, people buying the products get what they want or need. It is good for all concerned, and just because it is better for some, does not negate that it is good.

Try to recall the parable of talents here.

Enjoyed this post Irish, well said.

 

[Garyjohn2]

Why should anybody care that others make more than them?

Hmm…don’t know. Why should anyone care that others make less than them?

If someone does not see something wrong with that graph, I’m not sure about them.

It’s not just some people making more, it’s also some people making less. It’s also not just more or less, but how much more or less. I think it’s sick, personally.

Why care what anyone makes? Why care if there are poor people?

 

[irishpatrick]

Enjoyed this post Irish, well said.

Tanx

 

[irishpatrick]

Why should anybody care that others make more than them?

Exactly.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Hmm…don’t know. Why should anyone care that others make less than them?

If someone does not see something wrong with that graph, I’m not sure about them.

It’s not just some people making more, it’s also some people making less. It’s also not just more or less, but how much more or less. I think it’s sick, personally.

I don’t see a problem with the graph - If the people who earned it did it fairly/legally/morally.

The problem is you have people who majored in basket weaving at a private university, who took 7 years to graduate with a C average - now they want meaningful employment and their debts forgiven. Yet we are in the middle of a recession and it’s hard enough for highly expereinced professionals to find work.

 

[irishpatrick]

Hmm…don’t know. Why should anyone care that others make less than them?

If someone does not see something wrong with that graph, I’m not sure about them.

It’s not just some people making more, it’s also some people making less. It’s also not just more or less, but how much more or less. I think it’s sick, personally.

There is nothing wrong with profit gained or income earned, so long as it was obtained morally.

The thing that graph does not show is how many more jobs there are today, than there was 10, 20, 30 years ago. We have a vastly larger economy today, with many more people, and our economic engine still fuels peoples lives to the tune of 91% of the population (amazing really). Rich people are the ones employing other people, poor people employ no-one.

We need many, many more rich people, and we need many, many more highly profitable companies that provide needed services and products, which in-turn provides jobs to those who need to feed their families.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

In nearly all of those cases the high salaries were part of their negotiated packages. If a person makes $100,000,000+ while running a 50-billion company, and that company makes great profits and creates hundreds of thousands of jobs, than the company can choose to pay its CEO whatever it wants–being a CEO of a major Corporation is NOT a skill most people have, it is NOT easy. It is no different than sports players. A pitcher in the MLB can land a contract for 25-million to pitch 30 days–is that justified when compared to someone making 50k? It is a free market in a free country–sometimes under liberty extremes happen, but liberty is still better than the alternative.

Bills Gates is worth 50-billion+, a crazy large amount, but he earned it all by building an enormously productive and profitable company that touches millions of lives and creates millions of jobs in one way or another.

Capitalism can be abused, but in general it is a blessing for all concerned: the company makes a profit (good thing), the workers earn a salary (good thing), people buying the products get what they want or need (most often a good thing). It is good for all concerned, and just because it is better for some, does not negate that it is a general good.

Try to recall the parable of talents here.

Some actors and producers and other entertainers make vast sums, yet they are no way attacked or criticized … because they are mostly leftists.

 

[irishpatrick]

Correction for post #106:

I meant parables of the Vineyard–not talents.

 

[irishpatrick]

Some actors and producers and other entertainers make vast sums, yet they are no way attacked or criticized … because they are mostly leftists.

I agree, same with major sports figures. It is all a form of envy. I also doubt the OWS people would complain if a CEO of a “green” company made a nine-figure annual income, because “green” technologies are something they support.

 

[Garyjohn2]

There is nothing wrong with profit gained or income earned, so long as it was obtained morally.

The thing that graph does not show is how many more jobs there are today, than there was 10, 20, 30 years ago. We have a vastly larger economy today, with many more people, and our economic engine still fuels peoples lives to the tune of 91% of the population (amazing really). Rich people are the ones employing other people, poor people employ no-one.

We need many, many more rich people, and we need many, many more highly profitable companies that provide needed services and products, which in-turn provides jobs to those who need to feed their families.

Well…I don’t think we need many more rich people. I think we need many less poor people instead.

What if (IF) we capped maximum salaries at 500k a year. CEOs, athletes, musicians, whoever. That is way more than enough to live a wealthy lifestyle and get all your rewards for hard work. Then all the profits would instead be re-invested in the company. Wouldn’t you be able to employ more people that way, and create many, many more jobs? Have much much fewer poor people would there be? I’m just playing with ideas here.

Its the sickening greed that has so many people so so poor, and so few so filthy rich. I don’t think its a good conscience that says “welp, its ok if they got rich morally.” Why not re-invest and create a dozen more jobs rather than buy a second mansion? Is this a moral decision? I don’t know, I’m just wondering.

If some people make $1 a day, and someone else makes $100,000 a year…well that’s life. It’s unfair, but it’s the way things go. If someone makes $1 a day and someone else makes $100,000,000 a year…I don’t know man…seems wrong. I don’t know about some of you guys…

I don’t get why this is ok. It’s like seeing some guy cram is face with food until he is stuffed, but still keep going, and there’s one of those malnourished poor kids sitting next to him. Yeah, the eating man got all his food fairly…but its still wrong. Don’t you think? Am I that crazy? Seems so simple.

 

[ATeutonicKnight]

The fact they have pro-communism signs simply shows that the public school system has utterly failed in teaching kids history. If they did teach it successfully, they would know about Karl Marx, Josef Stalin, the Cuban Revolution, and the hundreds of millions of people that died at the hands of communism. Communism has claimed more lives than WWII, and it claimed between fifty and sixty million. If they were taught correctly they would know that Mao Zedong starved seventy million people with his communist ideas, and his self-proclaimed “Maoism.” philosophy, and they would also know that Lenin starved twenty-three million. And they would most definitely know about Che Guevera, who, thanks to his “Cuban Revolution”, starved and executed millions (I’m not sure about the exact numbers.) I wouldn’t be surprised if they’ve never even heard these names before.

 

[SamH]

I agree with some of this, but what are people supposed to do when they are too ill/disabled to work and they have been denied health insurance and often, can’t find a place to live? Or they go bankrupt b/c they don’t have health insurance and someone gets in a car crash or is seriously ill.

The fact is, raising a child with cerebral palsy or down syndrome is expensive and the solution is not always “you can go get a job.” However I find writeups like this tend to assume people are able-bodied and healthy. If you’re not, what are you supposed to do? And I have a low opinion of Michael Moore b/c in his supposedly “hard-hitting” documentary, he ignored the problem of mental illness and its lack of treatment including the closing of most psychiatric hospitals and denial of treatment by insurance companies.
.

The thing is these protests aren’t going to help the person with cerebral palsy or downs syndrome. In fact they would divert the few resources available to the truly needy and put it in their pocket.

To be honest if you are healthy and born in the US you’ve already won life’s lottery - several times over. The fact that some are wasting that opportunity and mounting protests because they did waste it reminds me of the story about a bum who wins a million dollar lottery and is homeless in less than a year.

 

[SamH]

Well…I don’t think we need many more rich people. I think we need many less poor people instead.

What if (IF) we capped maximum salaries at 500k a year. CEOs, athletes, musicians, whoever. That is way more than enough to live a wealthy lifestyle and get all your rewards for hard work. Then all the profits would instead be re-invested in the company. Wouldn’t you be able to employ more people that way, and create many, many more jobs? Have much much fewer poor people would there be? I’m just playing with ideas here…

So if salaries were capped - what makes you think that money would go to poor people? The fact that you limited the success of some people in no way guarantees the success of others and most likely you have hindered it.