Occupy Wall Street?

[marine13]

I completely disagree, but its a fair opinion and this would make for a legitimate debate.

You still aren’t getting it. What dirty jobs? 5 to 1, not counting those who have given up the goose hunt.

**I think you missed the part where I said “no matter how rare.” I still see searching for a job as more productive than these protest ever wil be. Don’t get me wrong, I think there does need to be some reform, but the protesters are not presenting any viable solutions. All they are doing is shouting the obvious “There’s a problem, there’s a problem!” while wasting millions of tax-payer dollars . **

Fair enough, I pray that’s the case. It still assumes everyone has the same ability and opportunity to do what you did. It implies all credit goes to you, because there isn’t anything in your situation that any other struggling person doesn’t have.

I know not everyone has the same abilities and opportunities but should that be the all encompassing excuse for those that don’t succeed as far as others? And what about those that had extremely limited abilities and opportunities but still managed to find success? Should we not put them forward as examples of what to aspire toward? And we have already discussed my acknowledgement of where credit goes.

And as someone else has said, “even if anyone can do it, not everyone can do it”. The simple math and structure of our system means the bottom will always be larger than the top. Telling everyone near the bottom its their own fault for not being higher may feel convenient but it doesn’t make sense.

I never said it was completely their own fault. I realize that uncontrollable factors (i.e. downturn of the economy, fewer jobs, disability etc.) do play a role in many people’s lives and their opportunities. But that does not mean they should simply stop trying and blame the wealthy for their problems?

The people at OWS aren’t all demanding free handouts. That’s not the main point. They’re protesting the control and power the wealthiest 1% have over the entire game. They’re protesting the fact that their civic institutions don’t listen to the people because DC is owned by Wall St. The list goes on, but its not a crowd of people asking for handouts. And for those who are, since when is it Christ-like to scorn the beggars?

Aren’t they demanding a free handout? From what I have heard they are demanding the restructuring of wealth from the top on down. They are demanding the wealthy give up their fortunes and share it. While this might not be a “main point” it still sounds like a free handout to me. And many of these “beggars” are hardly what I would consider in need. They have very expensive equipment and electronics they use daily to support and broadcast their activities. I-phones, I-pads, (with internet service), video cameras, camping gear… My family can’t afford those fancy toys (minus some camping gear we already own) and I have a job. I am pretty sure they are not in as much need as you think. And would you please stop suggesting I am being un-Christ-like because I disagree with these protests.

please show me where I was being sarcastic

“on and on illogical pride songs by the good, proper Godly class”

I might have interpreted this wrong, and if so I apoligize, but this does come across accusatory and sarcastic.

Sorry about the bold. I haven’t figured out how to do the single quote thing yet.

 

[Nate13]

Fair enough, I pray that’s the case. It still assumes everyone has the same ability and opportunity to do what you did. It implies all credit goes to you, because there isn’t anything in your situation that any other struggling person doesn’t have.

And as someone else has said, “even if anyone can do it, not everyone can do it”. The simple math and structure of our system means the bottom will always be larger than the top. Telling everyone near the bottom its their own fault for not being higher may feel convenient but it doesn’t make sense.

The bottom 20% of the tax bracket is constantly changing and supports what marine13 is claiming. Very few people are stuck in the same income bracket for life. A study of income returns showed that out of the bottom 20% of people in 1979, four-fifths of those people had moved up by 1988. A study by the University of Michigan showed similar results. The point being that it is very clear that a vast majority of people are able to get out of the income bracket they are in and no one is “stuck”.

 

[Jonatello]

“on and on illogical pride songs by the good, proper Godly class”

I might have interpreted this wrong, and if so I apoligize, but this does come across accusatory and sarcastic.

Sorry about the bold. I haven’t figured out how to do the single quote thing yet.

This might mean that they have to work the “dirty” jobs but at least they are contributing to the economy and bringing home some money."

i’m just trying unsuccessfully to interpret this in any other way than a statement that people can and should stop complaining about (aka addressing) the big picture/root, shut up and take the phantom “dirty” jobs that don’t exist but for a tiny fraction of them. if i’m wrong in my reading of that, please correct me.

I still see searching for a job as more productive than these protest ever wil be.

How? If there are more job seekers than jobs, and there are grave root problems that are taking opportunities away, how is everyone turning on each other to compete even more for not enough opportunities productive?

If its 5 active job seekers per 1 available job, what does pushing all the the non-active job needers into the fray do but raise that difference?

And productive to what end? Even if choosing to ignore the problems to search for a job is successful for someone’s self (which it mathematically won’t be for the majority of them), how does that help one’s fellow people?

To find a remedy for a problem, there needs to be attention paid to it. The unified masses forming in cities all over the nation to make a big loud stink about the problem have been VERY effective at that so far. And really, the existence of a republic or democracy is very dependent on the potential and willingness of its people to make noise if power concentrates.

Do your nerves know how to heal a burn? No, so should they shut up too if your hand is on the stovetop?

I know not everyone has the same abilities and opportunities but should that be the all encompassing excuse for those that don’t succeed as far as others?

Should the less successful even require an excuse from Christians? Is financial success the measure of a person?

And what about those that had extremely limited abilities and opportunities but still managed to find success? Should we not put them forward as examples of what to aspire toward?

No we shouldn’t, because
A: they will always be the exception, even if everyone at the bottom tripled their efforts.
B: simply making more money than others, while generally perfectly fine, isn’t exactly the Christian example of what to aspire toward. It doesn’t in any way make someone an icon of virtue over their poor neighbor.

But that does not mean they should simply stop trying and blame the wealthy for their problems?

I too am against personal attacks on individual wealthy people, however the problem does rest much more with the wealthy than the poor on this one. The wealthy control the pieces of the game, the board, the rules, and the referees. And the greater the disparity between the rich and poor, the less democratic a society can be. Wealth = power. Power = wealth. As the cycle repeats, the power concentrates until no more democracy.

From what I have heard they are demanding the restructuring of wealth from the top on down. They are demanding the wealthy give up their fortunes and share it. While this might not be a “main point” it still sounds like a free handout to me.

First of all, do they have specific demands or don’t they? This reminds me of when the crazies on the left used to alternate between “Bush is a dark evil liar” and “Bush is a bumbling moron”.

Secondly, even most socialist types don’t want the rich to give it all up and be poor. The wealthy would still be plenty rich under the average lefty’s ideal scenario. Just not to the point of gross megalomania while others worry sick about their basic well being.

Third, references “to hand outs” contain an underlying myth that the super wealthy don’t owe anything back to the greater society that made their aberrational fortune possible.

And many of these “beggars” are hardly what I would consider in need. They have very expensive equipment and electronics they use daily to support and broadcast their activities. I-phones, I-pads, (with internet service), video cameras, camping gear.

Some do, some don’t. Some are well of and still moved to stand in solidarity with their less fortunate brothers and sisters. Are they wrong?

Furthermore, many of those “luxuries” are becoming necessities. The ones that aren’t yet necessities still fall under the category of tools. Should a struggling blacksmith be forced to give up his best hammer until people will take him seriously? Should a jobless graphic designer give up his camera and computer? Will that help him move forward?

You may be unaware of this, but more and more jobs, including minimum wage jobs, won’t accept applications in person on paper. I was driving my girlfriend’s godson around helping him job-hunt, and he was turned away over and over again because he didn’t apply online.

If someone without a job sells their ipad, for example, and uses the money for food, how long before they’re hungry again and worse equipped? A week?

continued in next post…

 

[Jonatello]

“on and on illogical pride songs by the good, proper Godly class”

I might have interpreted this wrong, and if so I apoligize, but this does come across accusatory and sarcastic.

The term “proper God class” could possibly be filed under mild sarcasm, but barely. I should have put quotes around it for clarity, as I was addressing the apparent attitude on the part of a lot of modern day comfy cozy Christians who don’t seem to even want to relate or give any benefit of doubt to their less fortunate neighbors unless they can see the ribs poking from their bodies. This idea that to succeed in a capitalist society makes one more virtuous and deserving than someone who can’t seem to get ahead implies the rich are more inline with God’s will.

Sorry about the bold. I haven’t figured out how to do the single quote thing yet.

no problem. it’s a bit tedious, but basically:

to start a quote: you have to type the word QUOTE surrounded by brackets
to end a quote: you type type /QUOTE surrounded by brackets

 

[Jonatello]

The bottom 20% of the tax bracket is constantly changing and supports what marine13 is claiming. Very few people are stuck in the same income bracket for life. A study of income returns showed that out of the bottom 20% of people in 1979, four-fifths of those people had moved up by 1988. A study by the University of Michigan showed similar results. The point being that it is very clear that a vast majority of people are able to get out of the income bracket they are in and no one is “stuck”.

much more recent and relevant studies show a rapid decline in upward mobility.

furthermore, you missed my point

it is obviously still possible (albeit much harder) for people to move up in 2011 than in 1984.

you could even (wrongly) assert than ANYONE could move up.

but even if ANYONE could, not EVERYONE could.

in other words, no matter what, there will always be more people at the bottom than at the top. how we treat the bottom is the measure of our society. telling them all to just move up the ranks is naive, illogical and disingenuous.

 

[Wardog]

Our civilization would really hurt if people stopped pursuing all those other tuition-heavy roles. Are we really supposed to turn a cold shoulder to an entire generation for walking into an economic buzzsaw that they didn’t create nor were warned about, just because they looked at the gifts that God gave them and figured their society would benefit from theologians, historians, etc?

Reducing the number of people (demand)who pursue college degrees (supply) will reduce the cost.
Since the '80s we have increased tuition aid and scholarships; this has not brought the cost down, but has driven costs up.
And what do you want me to do about the mistakes people made in pursuing degrees in areas in which they cannot make a living. Society does not owe anyone a living; it is the person’s responsibility to see a need and fill it. Not have a want and fill it.

 

[Jonatello]

Reducing the number of people (demand)who pursue college degrees (supply) will reduce the cost.
Since the '80s we have increased tuition aid and scholarships; this has not brought the cost down, but has driven costs up.
And what do you want me to do about the mistakes people made in pursuing degrees in areas in which they cannot make a living. Society does not owe anyone a living; it is the person’s responsibility to see a need and fill it. Not have a want and fill it.

i’m ok with that in theory, as i believe the college system in general has become very scammy, but not if it makes for a less educated populace.

but until employers are willing to provide training again and until jobs ads for large sums of important roles and industries stop requiring degrees, its very unreasonable to tell people they made a mistake by going to college.

its also real convenient to push a generation into college, mess up the economy, and then turn around and tell them they didn’t have to go when they can’t find a job to pay off the debt.

and society needs more than just savvy business people and serfs. it needs many types of roles that require high levels of education and aren’t exactly going to make someone rich. it is a society’s responsibility to make sure those roles aren’t financially prohibitive.

 

[estesbob]

i’m ok with that in theory, as i believe the college system in general has become very scammy, but not if it makes for a less educated populace.

but until employers are willing to provide training again and jobs ads for large sums of important roles and industries stop requiring degrees, its very hard to tell people they made a mistake by going to college.

and society needs more than just savvy business people and serfs. it needs many types of roles that require high levels of education and aren’t exactly going to make someone rich. it is a society’s responsibility to make sure those roles aren’t financially prohibitive.

1. My employees are not serfs
2. What is your solution to all these “problems”

 

[Nate13]

much more recent and relevant studies show a rapid decline in upward mobility.

furthermore, you missed my point

it is obviously still possible (albeit much harder) for people to move up in 2011 than in 1984.

you could even (wrongly) assert than ANYONE could move up.

but even if ANYONE could, not EVERYONE could.

in other words, no matter what, there will always be more people at the bottom than at the top. how we treat the bottom is the measure of our society. telling them all to just move up the ranks is naive, illogical and disingenuous.

That still begs the question as to WHY they aren’t able to move up. Why do you rush to assume its the system and not the people themselves? Moving up first requires a will to move up in life and put in the work to do so. I think someone made the point earlier that there is a big difference between the work ethic today and the work ethic 50 years ago. There are also physical and mental disabilities that prevent people from moving up. The point of those studies is that they show that capitalism does work, and what we should be asking ourselves is what has changed since 1988? I’d say more than quadrupling our debt in that time might have something to do with it.

 

[Jonatello]

1. My employees are not serfs

I have no reason to doubt you’re a great person to work for, and that is a credit to you, because you don’t have to be. Obviously it helps your business if you have good morale, but they would likely still have very little choice but to work for you under any condition (exceptional situations aside). It is an employers market to the extreme right now, which means desperate workers and lines of people who will immediately replace a worker if they don’t like the pay/treatment/etc.

The employing class bargains with its willingness to pay, and the only thing the employee class has to bargain with is its willingness to work. The more desperate the laborer is to labor, the less leverage he has.

1. What is your solution to all these “problems”

There are many things, but I’ll provide a small sample:

One part of the solution would be big time campaign finance roverhaul to take the rule-making, refereeing, and governance out of the sole control of he top 1%.

(remember: 94% of elections to the contestant with the most money in 2010 = auctioned governance)

There are a large list of regulations that hurt small businesses to the advantage of the dominant giants, forcing more people out of the innovating/productive/owning class and into the begging (for work/welfare) and clawing class. And there are certain lack of regulations in the other direction. This is just one example of a huge difference that would be made by taking government off the auctioning block.

Another part is a massive reform of community-killing zoning regulations (meant to put the masses at the mercy of the automobile and big box stores) which have had catastrophic ramifications in an eye-poppingly diverse number of facets to society.

 

[estesbob]

I have no reason to doubt you’re a great person to work for, and that is a credit to you, because you don’t have to be. Obviously it helps your business if you have good morale, but they would likely still have very little choice but to work for you under any condition (exceptional situations aside). It is an employers market to the extreme right now, which means desperate workers and lines of people who will immediately replace a worker if they don’t like the pay/treatment/etc.

The employing class bargains with its willingness to pay, and the only thing the employee class has to bargain with is its willingness to work. The more desperate the laborer is to labor, the less leverage he has.

I refuse to divide Amercians using such demeaning labels. “Employer Class” and “employee class” implies a divsion among Amercians that simply do not exist. Such loaded rhetoric does little to advance the discussion

There are many things, but I’ll provide a small sample:

One part of the solution would be big time campaign finance roverhaul to take the rule-making, refereeing, and governance out of the sole control of he top 1%. remember: 94% of elections to the contestant with the most money in 2010 = auctioned governance)

Restrict freedom of speech??? Perhaps the reason the winners raised more money is that their ideas resonated with the public causing the public to want to support them.

(

There are a large list of regulations that hurt small businesses to the advantage of the dominant giants, forcing more people out of the innovating/productive/owning class and into the begging (for work/welfare) and clawing class. And there are certain lack of regulations in the other direction. This is just one example of a huge difference that would be made by taking government off the auctioning block.

And these are? In my 31 years of expercience doing books and taxes for small businesses the opposite is true. The larger a company gets the more subject to Govt regualtion they are.

Another part is a massive reform of community-killing zoning regulations (meant to put the masses at the mercy of the automobile and big box stores) which have had catastrophic ramifications in an eye-poppingly diverse number of facets to society.

Box stores have done more to help the poor and needy than all the govt poverty programs combined.

 

[marine13]

i’m just trying unsuccessfully to interpret this in any other way than a statement that people can and should stop complaining about (aka addressing) the big picture/root, shut up and take the phantom “dirty” jobs that don’t exist but for a tiny fraction of them. if i’m wrong in my reading of that, please correct me.

Ok, my point is that while protesting does serve a purpose I don’t see how the continued protests on this topic will serve to do anything. There point has been made and hopefully someone will push some sort of legislation through that puts the breaks on our out of control economic system. All that is being accomplished now is the wasting of millions of tax-payer dollars to keep these protests in check.

How? If there are more job seekers than jobs, and there are grave root problems that are taking opportunities away, how is everyone turning on each other to compete even more for not enough opportunities productive?

If its 5 active job seekers per 1 available job, what does pushing all the the non-active job needers into the fray do but raise that difference?

And productive to what end? Even if choosing to ignore the problems to search for a job is successful for someone’s self (which it mathematically won’t be for the majority of them), how does that help one’s fellow people?

Their point has been made and the only thing that I see happening with continued protesting is increased illegal activity, potential for police brutality, and even more wasted tax money. IMO it’s time for them to start job seeking again (even if that means only 1 in 5 will find one right away), perhaps write their senators, congressman, representatives etc., and try to push a bill. Something, anything other than continuing what is already proving to be inaffective.

To find a remedy for a problem, there needs to be attention paid to it. The unified masses forming in cities all over the nation to make a big loud stink about the problem have been VERY effective at that so far. And really, the existence of a republic or democracy is very dependent on the potential and willingness of its people to make noise if power concentrates.

Do your nerves know how to heal a burn? No, so should they shut up too if your hand is on the stovetop?

Yes, there has been a very big, loud stink made… how long should the tax-payers be required to endure this stink? Again, their point has been made and they have drawn national attention to the situation. What can possibly be gained from conitinuing the protests?

Should the less successful even require an excuse from Christians? Is financial success the measure of a person?

Less successful or those in need? There is a big difference. If it is the less successful then my family should be receiving assitance from all Christians more successful than me. In that case I should be set for life.

No, financial success is not the measure of a person, but each individual is entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. Forcibly taking away other’s earns to give to someone else is stealing.

No we shouldn’t, because
A: they will always be the exception, even if everyone at the bottom tripled their efforts.
B: simply making more money than others, while generally perfectly fine, isn’t exactly the Christian example of what to aspire toward. It doesn’t in any way make someone an icon of virtue over their poor neighbor.

Then what should people aspire to? As long as we are adhering to Christian virtues, tithing, giving to the poor (not the "less successful’), and following the commandments why would it be bad to aspire to a better financial situation? If people have no hope of ever improving their situation then that would be a sad word to live in. We (society) need those examples because honest, hard work is good and something that everyone should do.

 

[marine13]

I too am against personal attacks on individual wealthy people, however the problem does rest much more with the wealthy than the poor on this one. The wealthy control the pieces of the game, the board, the rules, and the referees. And the greater the disparity between the rich and poor, the less democratic a society can be. Wealth = power. Power = wealth. As the cycle repeats, the power concentrates until no more democracy.

Agreed, but their point has been made and has been well heard… it’s time to move on.

First of all, do they have specific demands or don’t they? This reminds me of when the crazies on the left used to alternate between “Bush is a dark evil liar” and “Bush is a bumbling moron”.

Sorry, I missed your point here.

Secondly, even most socialist types don’t want the rich to give it all up and be poor. The wealthy would still be plenty rich under the average lefty’s ideal scenario. Just not to the point of gross megalomania while others worry sick about their basic well being.

Third, references “to hand outs” contain an underlying myth that the super wealthy don’t owe anything back to the greater society that made their aberrational fortune possible.

I think this point begins circular reasoning. The rich owe the poor for their wealth, the poor owe the rich for their jobs. Who is more in debt to the other? I don’t think either way makes any sense.

Some do, some don’t. Some are well of and still moved to stand in solidarity with their less fortunate brothers and sisters. Are they wrong?

Furthermore, many of those “luxuries” are becoming necessities. The ones that aren’t yet necessities still fall under the category of tools. Should a struggling blacksmith be forced to give up his best hammer until people will take him seriously? Should a jobless graphic designer give up his camera and computer? Will that help him move forward?

You may be unaware of this, but more and more jobs, including minimum wage jobs, won’t accept applications in person on paper. I was driving my girlfriend’s godson around helping him job-hunt, and he was turned away over and over again because he didn’t apply online.

If someone without a job sells their ipad, for example, and uses the money for food, how long before they’re hungry again and worse equipped? A week?

continued in next post…

My whole point there was to highlight that many of them are not as in need as you purpose. Those that can afford to protest for weeks are not on the same “need level” as a homeless person or the like.

 

[Jonatello]

That still begs the question as to WHY they aren’t able to move up. Why do you rush to assume its the system and not the people themselves?

Why do you rush to assume the latter, that the problem with poverty these days is all the bad poor people?

I don’t have to assume its the system, when the evidence is clear.

At the risk of becoming a broken record, I’ll try to give the quick version, and then add some commentary after.

94% of elections in 2010 won by the campaign with the most money behind it.

This means the governance of our society is done via auction.

This means Wall St is the real DC.

As wealth and ownership of productive means concentrates, so does power and control of opportunity. And that power is used, quite naturally, to the further advantage of the powerful aka the super rich, thus widening the gap and worsening the middle class with each cycle.

Every economy in the world is in fact ultimately based on control of finite God-given resources, meaning you can never have a scenario where everyone can have as much as they want, no matter how hard everyone slaves at the altar of selfish ambition.

Greed is not good. Greed will never uplift the masses, I could explain why but on a Catholic message board I shouldn’t have to.

Example: Once 5 selfish crop owners successfully work to own/control all the most fertile land, they will never sell pieces of it to the other landless thousand, because this control over everyone’s food supply is what gives them control over other things.

Capitalism unchecked means ownership of society and its people, just like a communist dictatorship.

Moving up first requires a will to move up in life and put in the work to do so. I think someone made the point earlier that there is a big difference between the work ethic today and the work ethic 50 years ago. There are also physical and mental disabilities that prevent people from moving up. The point of those studies is that they show that capitalism does work, and what we should be asking ourselves is what has changed since 1988? I’d say more than quadrupling our debt in that time might have something to do with it.

Moving up requires many things. Not all of which are always Christian traits. Some of which are very admirable. Many of which are out of anyone’s control and can be filed under “luck”.

For every 1 person promoted to supervisor, there will always be several people who aren’t promoted, even if everyone works their tails off, because you can’t make everyone supervisor. The bottom will always be bigger than the top. The bottom, therefore, needs to be an ok place to be since most people will remain there (thus the reason why CEO:worker pay ratios are important to society), and there also needs to be far more owners (ie: less control over markets and resources by the few up top).

 

[ComputerGeek25]

There are many things, but I’ll provide a small sample:

One part of the solution would be big time campaign finance roverhaul to take the rule-making, refereeing, and governance out of the sole control of he top 1%.

(remember: 94% of elections to the contestant with the most money in 2010 = auctioned governance)

There are a large list of regulations that hurt small businesses to the advantage of the dominant giants, forcing more people out of the innovating/productive/owning class and into the begging (for work/welfare) and clawing class. And there are certain lack of regulations in the other direction. This is just one example of a huge difference that would be made by taking government off the auctioning block.

Another part is a massive reform of community-killing zoning regulations (meant to put the masses at the mercy of the automobile and big box stores) which have had catastrophic ramifications in an eye-poppingly diverse number of facets to society.

I think this is where there is some overlap between the Tea Party and OWS. Both are protesting against the bailouts in some fashion.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

i’m just trying unsuccessfully to interpret this in any other way than a statement that people can and should stop complaining about (aka addressing) the big picture/root, shut up and take the phantom “dirty” jobs that don’t exist but for a tiny fraction of them. if i’m wrong in my reading of that, please correct me.

How? If there are more job seekers than jobs, and there are grave root problems that are taking opportunities away, how is everyone turning on each other to compete even more for not enough opportunities productive?

If its 5 active job seekers per 1 available job, what does pushing all the the non-active job needers into the fray do but raise that difference?

And productive to what end? Even if choosing to ignore the problems to search for a job is successful for someone’s self (which it mathematically won’t be for the majority of them), how does that help one’s fellow people?

To find a remedy for a problem, there needs to be attention paid to it. The unified masses forming in cities all over the nation to make a big loud stink about the problem have been VERY effective at that so far. And really, the existence of a republic or democracy is very dependent on the potential and willingness of its people to make noise if power concentrates.

Do your nerves know how to heal a burn? No, so should they shut up too if your hand is on the stovetop?

Should the less successful even require an excuse from Christians? Is financial success the measure of a person?

No we shouldn’t, because
A: they will always be the exception, even if everyone at the bottom tripled their efforts.
B: simply making more money than others, while generally perfectly fine, isn’t exactly the Christian example of what to aspire toward. It doesn’t in any way make someone an icon of virtue over their poor neighbor.

I too am against personal attacks on individual wealthy people, however the problem does rest much more with the wealthy than the poor on this one. The wealthy control the pieces of the game, the board, the rules, and the referees. And the greater the disparity between the rich and poor, the less democratic a society can be. Wealth = power. Power = wealth. As the cycle repeats, the power concentrates until no more democracy.

First of all, do they have specific demands or don’t they? This reminds me of when the crazies on the left used to alternate between “Bush is a dark evil liar” and “Bush is a bumbling moron”.

Secondly, even most socialist types don’t want the rich to give it all up and be poor. The wealthy would still be plenty rich under the average lefty’s ideal scenario. Just not to the point of gross megalomania while others worry sick about their basic well being.

Third, references “to hand outs” contain an underlying myth that the super wealthy don’t owe anything back to the greater society that made their aberrational fortune possible.

Some do, some don’t. Some are well of and still moved to stand in solidarity with their less fortunate brothers and sisters. Are they wrong?

Furthermore, many of those “luxuries” are becoming necessities. The ones that aren’t yet necessities still fall under the category of tools. Should a struggling blacksmith be forced to give up his best hammer until people will take him seriously? Should a jobless graphic designer give up his camera and computer? Will that help him move forward?

You may be unaware of this, but more and more jobs, including minimum wage jobs, won’t accept applications in person on paper. I was driving my girlfriend’s godson around helping him job-hunt, and he was turned away over and over again because he didn’t apply online.

If someone without a job sells their ipad, for example, and uses the money for food, how long before they’re hungry again and worse equipped? A week?

continued in next post…

There are some legitimate concerns that the OWS folk have. However, the proposed solutions go too far IMHO

 

[Nate13]

94% of elections in 2010 won by the campaign with the most money behind it.

This means the governance of our society is done via auction.

This means Wall St is the real DC.

You assume a lot based on one statistic haha. You also fail to mention that many companies give money to both campaigns. They don’t really care who wins, they just want to make sure their interests are taken care of by whichever side wins. You also seem to assume that a majority of the money these guys are getting comes from business interests. Do you have any statistics which prove that? Unions, actors, and lots of single issue interest groups throw lots of money in the pot as well. Obama himself loved to tout how many separate individuals had donated to his campaign in the 2008 election.

You are also making an assumption based on correlation in statistics which is always dangerous. Its dangerous because you don’t know whether the campaign that won had the most money because it had the strongest candidate, or if the campaign had the strongest candidate because of all the money they had.

I’d also point out that at the end of the day it doesn’t matter how many expensive commercials and ads candidates put out. We are the ones who allow them to have any affect on how we vote. Especially today when there are so many different media venues that don’t require a lot of money, I don’t believe any candidate has any reason they shouldn’t be able to get their voice heard.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

You assume a lot based on one statistic haha. You also fail to mention that many companies give money to both campaigns. They don’t really care who wins, they just want to make sure their interests are taken care of by whichever side wins. You also seem to assume that a majority of the money these guys are getting comes from business interests. Do you have any statistics which prove that? Unions, actors, and lots of single issue interest groups throw lots of money in the pot as well. Obama himself loved to tout how many separate individuals had donated to his campaign in the 2008 election.

You are also making an assumption based on correlation in statistics which is always dangerous. Its dangerous because you don’t know whether the campaign that won had the most money because it had the strongest candidate, or if the campaign had the strongest candidate because of all the money they had.

I’d also point out that at the end of the day it doesn’t matter how many expensive commercials and ads candidates put out. We are the ones who allow them to have any affect on how we vote. Especially today when there are so many different media venues that don’t require a lot of money, I don’t believe any candidate has any reason they shouldn’t be able to get their voice heard.

 

[Nate13]

@Jonatello
This is from Wikipedia and is a list of the top nine political action committees by donation. How many of these are corporation interests and not workers? I think if anything business interests are being outgunned by unions and single issue interest groups. For sure though its pretty clear that any one groups contribution is like a drop in the ocean.

In the 2008 elections, the top nine PACs by money spent by themselves, their affiliates and subsidiaries were as follows:

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers PAC $3,344,650
AT&T Federal PAC $3,108,200
American Bankers Association (BANK PAC) $2,918,140
National Beer Wholesalers Association PAC $2,869,000
Dealers Election Action Committee of the National Automobile Dealers Association $2,860,000
International Association of Fire Fighters $2,734,900
International Union of Operating Engineers PAC $2,704,067
American Association for Justice PAC $2,700,500
Laborers' International Union of North America PAC $2,555,350

 

[Jonatello]

You assume a lot based on one statistic haha.

hardly.

You also fail to mention that many companies give money to both campaigns.

which, if its equal amounts, cancels out and is irrelevant to the issue of the candidate with more money always winning.

They don’t really care who wins, they just want to make sure their interests are taken care of by whichever side wins.

:
which is cancerous to democracy

You also seem to assume that a majority of the money these guys are getting comes from business interests.

:
Eh, that’s a rather overly-simple interpretation of what i’m getting at, and I’m not sure how such a stat could ever be properly researched. The infamous phrase “Corporations are people too” comes to mind. Powerful people who have certain interests tend to co-opt and infiltrate other seemingly unrelated movements, not to mention the fact that the 2 party system tends to turn most proponents of apples into proponents of orangutans.

But regardless, both parties get tons of officially-corporate-interest money, I’m not putting this on one side. For GOP its oil etc, for DEM it tends to be certain hi-tech industries etc.

Comparing big business donations vs non-profit PACs is a red herring.

Do you have any statistics which prove that? Unions, actors, and lots of single issue interest groups throw lots of money in the pot as well. Obama himself loved to tout how many separate individuals had donated to his campaign in the 2008 election.

Obama also boasts disgustingly gargantuan Wall St funding on top of all that too. This is the game everyone who’s serious about winning is forced to play, pukifying as it is.

You are also making an assumption based on correlation in statistics which is always dangerous. Its dangerous because you don’t know whether the campaign that won had the most money because it had the strongest candidate, or if the campaign had the strongest candidate because of all the money they had.

:
This is almost a fairly strong point, but it still sidesteps the reality that some citizens can give nearly $3,000 directly to a candidate (not counting far more indirectly through committees etc and almost limitless in reality to their pet causes and interests) while other citizens can’t afford to give a dime.

I’d also point out that at the end of the day it doesn’t matter how many expensive commercials and ads candidates put out. We are the ones who allow them to have any affect on how we vote.

:
That sounds well and good, but the facts don’t support it.

Ultimately the point I’m making is this: if you sincerely don’t think the wealthy in this country have more pull than the poor when it comes to private and public realities, I beg you to take a nap on it and reconsider the world we live in.