View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently August 30th, 2014, 2:24 am



Reply to topic  [ 329 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 22  Next
 Occupy Wall Street 
Author Message
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11968
Post Re: Occupy Wall Street
slybri19 wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
slybri19 wrote:

Of course it is.

Do you realize you now sound exactly like the ABB (anybody but Bush) crowd from a few years ago? Wow.

Did you even read the article? It's not blaming Obama for the financial crisis. It's blaming him for inciting class warfare.

Re-read (admittedly scanned last half) and it sounds as if the article could have been a retread from the early Tea Party days. All in all I would say that 'Washington DC and cronyism' is mostly to blame for our ills. I wouldn't signal out any 1 or 2 specific people, its the entire political spectrum, all sides, that is responsible for our current situation. Further, I don't think we'll get any closer to solving anything as long as each side is blaming the other. Personally. at this point I don't give a sh!t who's at fault (technically or not) someone needs to LEAD and just say, "Yup, we fudged it up, not THIS is how we're going to fix it!"

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


October 18th, 2011, 2:59 pm
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11968
Post Re: Occupy Wall Street
CS Monitor wrote:
Occupy Wall Street movement intrigues, confounds the tea party

Even as analysts note similarities between the two populist uprisings, many tea party activists say a merger could never happen. Many are put off by Occupy Wall Street's civil disobedience and economic prescriptions.

By Patrik Jonsson, Staff writer / October 18, 2011

When Joanne Wilder's compatriots from Central New York Patriots wanted to decamp for New York City to help "educate" Occupy Wall Street protesters, the local tea party organizer balked.

"We stay away from this," she told her friends.

That sentiment illustrates the arm's length approach that many tea partyers are taking toward a new social movement that is starting to threaten the tea party's preeminence on the political stage.

Some commentators are drawing parallels between the two populist uprisings – opposition to government bailouts of corporations is one prominent example – and some have even suggested a big-tent merger that could yield policy to alleviate the economic dissatisfaction, political powerlessness, and middle-class angst that drives both movements.

"We've ... got a conservative populist movement and a progressive populist movement happening at the same time," Rory McVeigh, director of the Center for the Study of Social Movements at the University of Notre Dame, tells San Jose Mercury News columnist Chris O'Brien. "There's a sense on both sides that it's us against that unnamed force out there running the world."

But some local tea party activists say in interviews that the small-government tea party and the anticapitalist Occupy movements have irreconcilable differences. While the root causes of the protests may be similar, many in the tea party view as unacceptable both the tactics of the Occupy protests – challenging law enforcement, among them – and most of its prescriptions.

"I'll never be against people being able to organize and protest, but I can't say I agree with most of their reasoning," says Brandon Welborn, a tea party member in Georgia. "It's almost like they want their debts completely erased. I understand the government made bad decisions, both Bush and Obama, but at some point you have to take responsibility for your actions and quit waiting for handouts."

Though both movements express disdain for a perceived elite plutocracy in Washington and New York, most tea partyers are not inclined to forge a bond over that. Rather, they see an opportunity for political haymaking, to try to tie Democrats to radical visions espoused by some Occupy protesters (such as the 62 Zucotti Park protesters, out of the 200 surveyed by Democratic pollster Douglas Schoen, who said they support using violence to achieve their ends).

That may be one reason most Democratic leaders have been careful about embracing the Occupy movement too tightly. President Obama's statements about it, for instance, have been measured, acknowledging people's frustrations but not endorsing their proposals. “I think people are frustrated, and the protestors are giving voice to a more broad-based frustration about how our financial system works," President Obama said Oct. 6.

A full embrace of the ragged, edgy movement could have negative repercussions for Democrats, warns Mr. Schoen in a Wall Street Journal op-ed on Tuesday. Citing his own data, Schoen writes that the Occupy protesters are "an unrepresentative segment of the electorate that believes in radical redistribution of wealth, civil disobedience and, in some instances, violence," all bound together by a "deep commitment to left-wing policies."

Some tea party activists have waded into the Occupy protests to try to capture outrageous antics on film and audio. They've found some interesting material – anti-American slogans, pictures of litter-covered camping areas, questionable sanitary habits – but the images haven't gotten much play in the mainstream media. Many tea partyers, moreover, complained loudly when liberals infiltrated their public demonstrations to try to smear them, and are reluctant to appear hypocritical by engaging in the same tactics.

Other tea party groups have opted to engage Occupy protesters. According to Politico, Chris Littleton, an Ohio tea party organizer, said some tea party folks were involved in planning the Occupy Cincinnati protests. "I'm quite sensitive to the types of frustrations that they're expressing, though I think that the prescriptions" are different, he told Politico.

Some Occupy protesters' calls for a new French Revolution and the occasional anti-Israel slogan are big turnoffs for tea party activists who might otherwise have considered linking up with the youthful protest movement.

"I think they kind of got it right at the beginning where they saw there was a problem, but I was really hoping the kids would figure out what the real problem was and they didn't," says Ms. Wilder. "Instead, they've gone overboard and completely in the opposite direction."

Some tea party adherents disagree, citing glimpses at the Occupy protests of the Gadsden flag – the "Don't tread on me" flag that is ubiquitous at tea party protests – and of signs calling for abolishing the Federal Reserve, a popular idea among some tea party activists.

"It seems to me what's going on there is excellent," says Jeff Mowry of Westcliffe, Colo., who has been involved with tea party groups. "I really admire what they're doing. Maybe these folks haven't been on the cutting edge of reading about what's going on economically, but I don't know that it matters that much. The important part is they're showing up.

"This is all an educational process for everybody. After all, you're trying to unbend a very crooked system, and that's kind of tough."

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/1018/ ... -tea-party


Is is possible that a new political organization (gasp, party even) could come out of these groups? Granted I understand they have differing opinions as to how to resolve the issues, but, as mentioned previously in this thread (and elsewhere) they do have similar goals. I, for one, would like to see the similarities emphasized instead of the differences. Just think what example that would set for the rest of the world, if 2 differing groups could come together to accomplish something. Wait.....I think I've heard about this somewhere before...isn't it called Democracy??? Perhaps even American Exceptionalism???

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


October 18th, 2011, 3:52 pm
Profile
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: August 21st, 2005, 3:36 am
Posts: 3124
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Post Re: Occupy Wall Street
This gives a decent idea of who/what the occupy wall street people are all about.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204479504576637082965745362.html

_________________
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson


October 18th, 2011, 4:11 pm
Profile
Post Re: Occupy Wall Street
TheRealWags wrote:
Is is possible that a new political organization (gasp, party even) could come out of these groups? Granted I understand they have differing opinions as to how to resolve the issues, but, as mentioned previously in this thread (and elsewhere) they do have similar goals. I, for one, would like to see the similarities emphasized instead of the differences. Just think what example that would set for the rest of the world, if 2 differing groups could come together to accomplish something. Wait.....I think I've heard about this somewhere before...isn't it called Democracy??? Perhaps even American Exceptionalism???


They question the same thing with the Teaparty, but even if it did, what the hell do you do with them? We don't really have a place for a 3rd party, unless you go to a parlementary system. I realize that individual districts could elect one of the "new" party members, but big deal. They're not going to win the WH or any sort of real voice.


Wags, what did you think about my last post about the world market for corporations and competition between countries to get them?


October 18th, 2011, 4:30 pm
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Occupy Wall Street
TheRealWags wrote:
Re-read (admittedly scanned last half) and it sounds as if the article could have been a retread from the early Tea Party days. All in all I would say that 'Washington DC and cronyism' is mostly to blame for our ills. I wouldn't signal out any 1 or 2 specific people, its the entire political spectrum, all sides, that is responsible for our current situation. Further, I don't think we'll get any closer to solving anything as long as each side is blaming the other. Personally. at this point I don't give a sh!t who's at fault (technically or not) someone needs to LEAD and just say, "Yup, we fudged it up, not THIS is how we're going to fix it!"

Why do you think I loved Sarah Palin so much? She speaks out about crony capitalism more than any politican out there. She "gets" it. More importantly, she has an actual record of putting those who "pay to play" behind bars. And some people wondered why the Republican establishment attacked and feared her so much....Now, you know.

_________________
Image


October 18th, 2011, 4:48 pm
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11968
Post Re: Occupy Wall Street
wjb21ndtown wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
Is is possible that a new political organization (gasp, party even) could come out of these groups? Granted I understand they have differing opinions as to how to resolve the issues, but, as mentioned previously in this thread (and elsewhere) they do have similar goals. I, for one, would like to see the similarities emphasized instead of the differences. Just think what example that would set for the rest of the world, if 2 differing groups could come together to accomplish something. Wait.....I think I've heard about this somewhere before...isn't it called Democracy??? Perhaps even American Exceptionalism???


They question the same thing with the Teaparty, but even if it did, what the hell do you do with them? We don't really have a place for a 3rd party, unless you go to a parlementary system. I realize that individual districts could elect one of the "new" party members, but big deal. They're not going to win the WH or any sort of real voice.
Just wondering here, but why couldn't a '3rd party' candidate win the WH? IF they got enough votes, they win, right? (Granted I know that is a HUGE 'IF') Its not like there's a law stating that the Pres HAS to be Rep or Dem, right? Just saying that it IS possible, if it IS the RIGHT person, albeit I do acknowledge its a LONG shot. (Not trying to sound like a d!ck; honest questions)
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Wags, what did you think about my last post about the world market for corporations and competition between countries to get them?
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Part of the problem is that Liberals fail to realize that the "evil corporations" can pack up and leave, go to China, Brazil, Germany, the UK, Mexico, Canada, etc. now with little to no consequence. They fail to see that we're in a global market with multiple countries pandering to get "evil corporations" to invest in their area. That's all thanks to Slick Willy, and has been the biggest destriction to the US economy since things tanked in the 70's. We could rebuke our "free trade" policies, but there would be consequences that I don't know if we could over-come given our energy needs and state of energy production (i.e. our ability to extract our own oil).
I'm not going to touch the economy or the 70s as I know next to nothing about Economics and was just crawling/learning to walk in the 70s :wink:

Disclaimer: I'm no businessman and am just throwing thoughts out there.

That said, I would say that on one hand, yes corporations can 'pack up and leave' at anytime, but I would ask why? Why would they leave the freest nation in the World to go elsewhere? To save a couple million dollars? Granted I'm not businessman, but I would think it would take a helluva lot more to make and entire corporation leave.

How about this: ABC Corp (a multi-billion dollar, mega corp) decides to move to China. Why couldn't the US tax/tariff said companies products so much that no one would buy them? You see, we could raise the cost of not doing business with us. Or we tax/penalize any company that leaves. Also, considering as I'm sure most corps have been given benefits for building here, if those companies leave penalize them. Perhaps I'm overestimating the US, but I would think that a nation of 300 million+ consumers could/would have an effect on whether or not a company leaves more so than them having to pay more in taxes, regulations, etc.

I don't think there is an easy, one size fits all, answer/solution to this.

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


October 18th, 2011, 4:52 pm
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11968
Post Re: Occupy Wall Street
slybri19 wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
Re-read (admittedly scanned last half) and it sounds as if the article could have been a retread from the early Tea Party days. All in all I would say that 'Washington DC and cronyism' is mostly to blame for our ills. I wouldn't signal out any 1 or 2 specific people, its the entire political spectrum, all sides, that is responsible for our current situation. Further, I don't think we'll get any closer to solving anything as long as each side is blaming the other. Personally. at this point I don't give a sh!t who's at fault (technically or not) someone needs to LEAD and just say, "Yup, we fudged it up, not THIS is how we're going to fix it!"

Why do you think I loved Sarah Palin so much? She speaks out about crony capitalism more than any politican out there. She "gets" it. More importantly, she has an actual record of putting those who "pay to play" behind bars. And some people wondered why the Republican establishment attacked and feared her so much....Now, you know.

Then why doesn't she start an honest 3rd party campaign?

I've said before I just can't seem to get past her voice, its grates on me much like nails on a blackboard. Maybe its because she's screaming or talking loud, not sure, I just know it makes it extremely difficult to listen to her. Also, the fact that she quit as Governor, regardless of veracity of her reasoning, is a negative mark on her political career IMO. She has done nothing that I can see to change that viewpoint. IMO its going to take more than writing a book, having a reality TV show, and making speeches to overcome that. I think she has a chance with the upcoming elections, so we'll see how she proceeds.

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


October 18th, 2011, 4:58 pm
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Occupy Wall Street
TheRealWags wrote:
That said, I would say that on one hand, yes corporations can 'pack up and leave' at anytime, but I would ask why?

Perhaps, the second highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world may have something to do with it.

TheRealWags wrote:
Why would they leave the freest nation in the World to go elsewhere?

Actually, the USA has fallen to 9th place on the Index of Economic Freedom behind countries such as Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, and Canada.

_________________
Image


October 18th, 2011, 5:02 pm
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11968
Post Re: Occupy Wall Street
slybri19 wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
That said, I would say that on one hand, yes corporations can 'pack up and leave' at anytime, but I would ask why?

Perhaps, the second highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world may have something to do with it.

Is that effective tax rate? I've been trying (granted not really that hard) to find someone that explain how if we have such a high tax rate that some companies can post next to nothing in taxes each year.... perhaps yet another example of our screwed up tax system and policies.

Any thoughts/comments on the rest of what I wrote, as it does all tie in together?

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


October 18th, 2011, 5:08 pm
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11968
Post Re: Occupy Wall Street
Touchdown Jesus wrote:
This gives a decent idea of who/what the occupy wall street people are all about.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204479504576637082965745362.html

I just wanted to point out this article was referenced above:
Quote:
Though both movements express disdain for a perceived elite plutocracy in Washington and New York, most tea partyers are not inclined to forge a bond over that. Rather, they see an opportunity for political haymaking, to try to tie Democrats to radical visions espoused by some Occupy protesters (such as the 62 Zucotti Park protesters, out of the 200 surveyed by Democratic pollster Douglas Schoen, who said they support using violence to achieve their ends).

All in all, another opinion piece so please take accordingly (as with all opinion pieces)

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


October 18th, 2011, 5:12 pm
Profile
Post Re: Occupy Wall Street
TheRealWags wrote:
Just wondering here, but why couldn't a '3rd party' candidate win the WH? IF they got enough votes, they win, right? (Granted I know that is a HUGE 'IF') Its not like there's a law stating that the Pres HAS to be Rep or Dem, right? Just saying that it IS possible, if it IS the RIGHT person, albeit I do acknowledge its a LONG shot. (Not trying to sound like a d!ck; honest questions)


I just know that it would take people a long time before they stepped that far outside of the box. Currently we don't even recognize another Party on the ticket. That could be changed fairly easily, but what is more likely to change is that the two political parties will adapt in nature. If you recall the Democrats of the 40s and 50s were much more like Republicans today and the Republicans today act much more like the Dems of the 50's and 60's. Various issues pop up and take the forefront of the mind/concerns of the electorate, take center stage, and parties take them on. It's a broke system that I don't like, the parlimentary system is much better, but it is the one we have, and until someone comes along and does a total reform (not likely, ever) it is what we're going to have to live with.

That said, IF a 3rd party could emerge I think it is the Tea Party that has the greatest chance. The "OWS" crowd wants to take power from corporations, while the Teaparty would be funded by corporations. You may think that is a bad thing, I don't. Corporations bring jobs. I'm fine with corporations (although I do not really like Big Business Walmart/Home Depot stores).



TheRealWags wrote:
I'm not going to touch the economy or the 70s as I know next to nothing about Economics and was just crawling/learning to walk in the 70s :wink:

Disclaimer: I'm no businessman and am just throwing thoughts out there.

That said, I would say that on one hand, yes corporations can 'pack up and leave' at anytime, but I would ask why? Why would they leave the freest nation in the World to go elsewhere? To save a couple million dollars? Granted I'm not businessman, but I would think it would take a helluva lot more to make and entire corporation leave.

How about this: ABC Corp (a multi-billion dollar, mega corp) decides to move to China. Why couldn't the US tax/tariff said companies products so much that no one would buy them? You see, we could raise the cost of not doing business with us. Or we tax/penalize any company that leaves. Also, considering as I'm sure most corps have been given benefits for building here, if those companies leave penalize them. Perhaps I'm overestimating the US, but I would think that a nation of 300 million+ consumers could/would have an effect on whether or not a company leaves more so than them having to pay more in taxes, regulations, etc.

I don't think there is an easy, one size fits all, answer/solution to this.


"Picking up and leaving" can mean as little as building one relatively small office building in Mexico, calling it your world headquarters, and re-organizing under their government utilizing their cheap tax structure. That's literally all they have to do. That's how GE and many other corporations get out of paying so much in taxes. Or they could create a whole new subsidy/business, dedicate a % (up to 100%) of their workload to that new business, and not pay high American corporate taxes on money earned from that entity.

It would literally cost them around $1-2 million for a new building and some legal work/paper work to create the new structure, and it would save them hundreds of millions of dollars. To that I ask you, why not!?!? You brag about the safety of America, but Brazil, China, Japan, etc. are all basically just as safe if not safer than the States. Take GE for example, their "profit" was something like 9.5 billion dollars (might have been 14, I'm not looking it up)... Round that up to 10 for easy math. The US taxes corporations as individuals at the rate of 35%. That's $3.5 billion dollars in taxes that GE should have paid the US... There are write downs, ways to cook the books, etc., so they're never taxed on the whole amount, but GE paid ZERO! ZERO dollars in taxes to the U.S. government. How? Why? Loopholes, tax shelters, and offshore entities that they run all of their money through... Why wouldn't a corporation do that?

"WHAT!? CLOSE THEM NOW!!!!" you say... You CAN'T! That's the problem. We have NO authority to tax corporations from other countries, NO authority to block the sale of U.S. companies to foreign countries, NO authority to force companies to not organize under a foreign government, etc.

And NONE of that takes into account the hundreds of millions of dollars that companies save utilizing cheap labor, not dealing with labor unions, not paying for health care/retiree benefits, etc. We need to wake up, stop taxing businesses so much and making it PROFITABLE for them to leave, take salary cuts and benefit cuts, and COMPETE in the world market.


October 18th, 2011, 5:22 pm
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11968
Post Re: Occupy Wall Street
wjb21ndtown wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
Just wondering here, but why couldn't a '3rd party' candidate win the WH? IF they got enough votes, they win, right? (Granted I know that is a HUGE 'IF') Its not like there's a law stating that the Pres HAS to be Rep or Dem, right? Just saying that it IS possible, if it IS the RIGHT person, albeit I do acknowledge its a LONG shot. (Not trying to sound like a d!ck; honest questions)


I just know that it would take people a long time before they stepped that far outside of the box. Currently we don't even recognize another Party on the ticket. That could be changed fairly easily, but what is more likely to change is that the two political parties will adapt in nature. If you recall the Democrats of the 40s and 50s were much more like Republicans today and the Republicans today act much more like the Dems of the 50's and 60's. Various issues pop up and take the forefront of the mind/concerns of the electorate, take center stage, and parties take them on. It's a broke system that I don't like, the parlimentary system is much better, but it is the one we have, and until someone comes along and does a total reform (not likely, ever) it is what we're going to have to live with.
I don't know the specifics of how the parties were back then, but I am aware that they've both flip-flopped in their past. I could see where maybe this is another one of those flip-flops or perhaps 'adjustments' might describe it better. Personally, for me the biggest problem these days are the social differences in the parties. IMO they need to drop that crap and focus on the real, fiscal problems. Once that has been taken care, then they can go back to other crap.

wjb21ndtown wrote:
That said, IF a 3rd party could emerge I think it is the Tea Party that has the greatest chance. The "OWS" crowd wants to take power from corporations, while the Teaparty would be funded by corporations. You may think that is a bad thing, I don't. Corporations bring jobs. I'm fine with corporations (although I do not really like Big Business Walmart/Home Depot stores).

While I agree that it would normally take people a long time to look and think outside the box politically. I would also say that with the current state we're in, the time has never been more ripe in my, albeit 'brief', lifetime for this to happen. As for who or what that 3rd party might be? I would think it could be somewhat of a mixture of the TEA party and the Occupy peeps. Many of their stated goals are similar and some would say the main issues needing resolution. Considering this, I could see someone coming forward to bring the 2 groups together for the greater good (which IMO is what is needed badly).



wjb21ndtown wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
I'm not going to touch the economy or the 70s as I know next to nothing about Economics and was just crawling/learning to walk in the 70s :wink:

Disclaimer: I'm no businessman and am just throwing thoughts out there.

That said, I would say that on one hand, yes corporations can 'pack up and leave' at anytime, but I would ask why? Why would they leave the freest nation in the World to go elsewhere? To save a couple million dollars? Granted I'm not businessman, but I would think it would take a helluva lot more to make and entire corporation leave.

How about this: ABC Corp (a multi-billion dollar, mega corp) decides to move to China. Why couldn't the US tax/tariff said companies products so much that no one would buy them? You see, we could raise the cost of not doing business with us. Or we tax/penalize any company that leaves. Also, considering as I'm sure most corps have been given benefits for building here, if those companies leave penalize them. Perhaps I'm overestimating the US, but I would think that a nation of 300 million+ consumers could/would have an effect on whether or not a company leaves more so than them having to pay more in taxes, regulations, etc.

I don't think there is an easy, one size fits all, answer/solution to this.


"Picking up and leaving" can mean as little as building one relatively small office building in Mexico, calling it your world headquarters, and re-organizing under their government utilizing their cheap tax structure. That's literally all they have to do. That's how GE and many other corporations get out of paying so much in taxes. Or they could create a whole new subsidy/business, dedicate a % (up to 100%) of their workload to that new business, and not pay high American corporate taxes on money earned from that entity.

It would literally cost them around $1-2 million for a new building and some legal work/paper work to create the new structure, and it would save them hundreds of millions of dollars. To that I ask you, why not!?!? You brag about the safety of America, but Brazil, China, Japan, etc. are all basically just as safe if not safer than the States. Take GE for example, their "profit" was something like 9.5 billion dollars (might have been 14, I'm not looking it up)... Round that up to 10 for easy math. The US taxes corporations as individuals at the rate of 35%. That's $3.5 billion dollars in taxes that GE should have paid the US... There are write downs, ways to cook the books, etc., so they're never taxed on the whole amount, but GE paid ZERO! ZERO dollars in taxes to the U.S. government. How? Why? Loopholes, tax shelters, and offshore entities that they run all of their money through... Why wouldn't a corporation do that?

"WHAT!? CLOSE THEM NOW!!!!" you say... You CAN'T! That's the problem. We have NO authority to tax corporations from other countries, NO authority to block the sale of U.S. companies to foreign countries, NO authority to force companies to not organize under a foreign government, etc.

And NONE of that takes into account the hundreds of millions of dollars that companies save utilizing cheap labor, not dealing with labor unions, not paying for health care/retiree benefits, etc. We need to wake up, stop taxing businesses so much and making it PROFITABLE for them to leave, take salary cuts and benefit cuts, and COMPETE in the world market.

First off, I agree, the tax code needs to be replaced, however until that happens the best we can do is to use and/or modify the existing code. As far as the 'authority' you speak of, granted I am no expert, but I would think that if they have US Employees and/or have properties on US soil, then there is something we can do to make their lives difficult; say perhaps, raise property taxes on any and all business that have relocated their offices since the crash (or some other qualifier).

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


October 18th, 2011, 11:25 pm
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11968
Post Re: Occupy Wall Street
More on the WSJ article......
capitalnewyork.com wrote:
Survey: Many Occupy Wall Street protesters are unhappy Democrats who want more influence
survey-many-occupy-wall-street-protesters-are-unhappy-democrats-who-

The demonstration. Matthew Wolfe

By Azi Paybarah

2:58 pm Oct. 18, 2011 | Tweet this article

Here's a little bit more about Doug Schoen's survey of 200 Occupy Wall Street protesters, which he wrote about in today's Wall Street Journal.

In the Journal column, Schoen, who is Michael Bloomberg's pollster, said the survey, conducted by a senior researcher at his firm, was the first "systematic random sample of Occupy Wall Street opinion." Its findings, which formed the basis for Schoen's conclusions about "the movement" as a whole, led him to write that Occupy Wall Street is "dangerously out of touch" with American values and that protesters are "bound by a deep commitment to radical left-wing policies." His lead was, "President Obama and the Democratic leadership are making a critical error in embracing the Occupy Wall Street movement—and it may cost them the 2012 election."

Left to my own devices to account for the raw responses to the survey (which Schoen was kind enough to send to me), I'd say the opinions of the protesters were not quite as ... exciting as all that. They are about what I would have expected from a poll of the most committed long-haul demonstrators down at Zuccotti Park, who probably skew a lot younger and more activist-y than the much larger numbers of people who have put in appearances downtown but don't have the wherewithal to camp out, and are certainly an imperfect reflection of the overall (apparently majority) segment of New York that has told other pollsters that it sympathizes with what Occupy Wall Street is doing.

What the pre-interpreted numbers seem to show, to me, anyway, is that many of the protesters consider themselves Democrats, many will vote for Obama in 2012, and, relatively speaking, "income inequality" doesn't actually rank too high on their list of grievances.

What frustrates you the most about the political process in the United States? {Open Ended}

30% Influence of corporate/moneyed/special interests
3% Our democratic/capitalist system
3% Stagnant middle class wages
21% Partisanship
15% Joblessness
6% Income inequality
7% Corruption
2% Entrenched bureaucracy
2% Bush tax cuts
2% Obama abandoned left
2% Military spending
2% Federal Reserve
5% Everything

Also, fascinating:

What would you like to see the Occupy Wall Street movement achieve? {Open Ended}

35% Influence the Democratic Party the way the Tea Party has influenced the GOP
4% Radical redistribution of wealth
5% Overhaul of tax system: replace income tax with flat tax
7% Direct Democracy
9% Engage & mobilize Progressives
9% Promote a national conversation
11% Break the two-party duopoly
4% Dissolution of our representative democracy/capitalist system
4% Single payer health care
4% Pull out of Afghanistan immediately
8% Not sure

Occupy Wall Street Poll
http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/c ... crats-who-

Quote:
Occupy Wall Street Survey Topline
Douglas E. Schoen, LLC

Results for the Occupy Wall Street survey are based on 198 face-to-face interviews conducted in Zuccotti Park on October 10th and 11th.

1. Gender:
44% Female
56% Male

2. Age
49% 18-29
23% 30-39
15% 40-49
9% 50-64
4% 65+
3. Party: With which political party do you identify? {Open Ended}
5% Anarchist
1% Constitutionalist
32% Democrat
4% Former/disillusioned Democrat
6% Independent
6% Libertarian
6% Socialist
3% Working Families Party
33% Do not identify with any political party
4% Not sure
4. Employment: Are you employed, underemployed, or unemployed?
53% Employed
18% Part-time employed/ underemployed
14% Students
15% Unemployed

5. (if underemployed/unemployed) Did you lose your job recently as a result of the economic downturn?
82% Yes
18% No



6. Did you vote in the 2008 Presidential election?

56% Yes
44% No

7. (if yes) Did you vote for President Obama?

74% Yes
26% No

8. Do you plan on voting in the upcoming 2012 Presidential Election?

73% Yes
2% Maybe
25% No

9. (if no/maybe) Would you say you are turned off by our political system?

100% Yes
0% No


10. Do you plan on voting to reelect President Obama in the upcoming 2012 Presidential Election?

48% Yes
25% No
27% Undecided


11. Have you ever participated in a political activity or is this your first time (such as attended a meeting, joined a political organization, written a letter or email to a legislator, attended a rally, volunteered, helped get out the vote, etc.)?

48% First time getting involved in a protest/rally/march etc.
52% Have history of past participation

12. Do you feel like you make enough money to live your life the way you want to?
68% No
32% Yes

13. In the next few years, do you think that your personal economic situation will get better or get worse, or will it stay the same?
40% Get better
15% Stay the same
45% Get worse

14. Have you had to downsize your lifestyle because of your family’s economic situation?

74% Yes
26% No
15. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is performing his job as President?

44% Approve
9% strongly approve
35% somewhat approve

51% Disapprove
24% somewhat disapprove
27% strongly disapprove

5%Not sure


16. What frustrates you the most about the political process in the United States? {Open Ended}
30% Influence of corporate/moneyed/special interests
3% Our democratic/capitalist system
3% Stagnant middle class wages
21% Partisanship
15% Joblessness
6% Income inequality
7% Corruption
2% Entrenched bureaucracy
2% Bush tax cuts
2% Obama abandoned left
2% Military spending
2% Federal Reserve
5% Everything


17. What would you like to see the Occupy Wall Street movement achieve? {Open Ended}

35% Influence the Democratic Party the way the Tea Party has influenced the GOP
4% Radical redistribution of wealth
5% Overhaul of tax system: replace income tax with flat tax
7% Direct Democracy
9% Engage & mobilize Progressives
9% Promote a national conversation
11% Break the two-party duopoly
4% Dissolution of our representative democracy/capitalist system
4% Single payer health care
4% Pull out of Afghanistan immediately
8% Not sure


18. Who would you say is most to blame for our failure to address our problems? {Open Ended}

21% Both parties
16% The GOP
15% The American people
8% Special Interests
7% Obama is solely responsible
7% Wall Street
7% President George W. Bush
5% Citizens United Supreme Court Ruling
4% The Federal Reserve
4% Lobbyists
2% International organizations
2% Mainstream media
2% The Tea Party

19. Would you support the use of civil disobedience to achieve your goals?

98% Yes
1% Maybe
1% No

20. What about violence?

69% No
31% Yes

21. Do you think that conditions in the United States today are similar to those in many countries in the Middle East on the eve of the Arab Spring?

66% Yes
16% No
18% Somewhat

22. Do you feel that the wealthiest Americans are paying their fair share of taxes, or should we increase taxes on the wealthiest Americans?


77% Need to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans
22% They are paying their fair share
1% Not sure

23. Do we need to raise taxes for everybody?
36% Yes
6% Maybe
58% No
24. Some people say that globalization has made the American worker more vulnerable and has caused jobs to be outsourced and entire industries to disappear, and we need protective trade legislation to protect American jobs and industries. Do you agree or disagree?
73% Agree
27% Disagree

25. Do you think providing government money to banks and other financial institutions was necessary to get the economy out of recession, or was it not necessary?

49% Necessary
51% Not necessary

26. Do you think that we need greater government regulation over the banking sector, the auto sector, and the U.S. economy, less government regulation, or the same amount of government control and regulation?

70% More regulation
24%Less regulation
6% Same level

27. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: Government has a moral responsibility to guarantee healthcare, college education, and a secure retirement for all.
35% Disagree
65% Agree



_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


October 18th, 2011, 11:28 pm
Profile
Player of the Year - Defense

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 2746
Post Re: Occupy Wall Street
The Tea party and occupy groups won't come together. You'll have a few people that are just angry and want to speak out say they were tea party, but the movements couldn't be any more different. Just look at what they're asking for.

Tea party wants less government involvement and less government spending. And most of the tea party doesn't bring up social issues. The social issues are brought up by Dems trying to pin something against them. I still find it hilarious that pro-choice people get upset at those against abortion. Doesn't choice imply that you can choose to be for or against. The only absolutes are coming from those the left. Smoking is bad, therefore no one should do it. Guns are bad, therefore no one should have it.. Its all about control. And you can't have control with smaller government involvement.

The Occupy crowd sounds exactly like the Union Mantra. We want our share. Excuse our student loans, and give us College for free. More, more more. It has nothing to do with fixing anything, other than blaming others and wanting their share or someone else's work. Notice how the Tea party got loud then went quiet and made noise in the elections? They realized that the only way to make changes is to change the face of government. The occupy group wants to force change by protests and violence. When we already have a democratic system in place, take advantage of it. Instead they're trying to make news that won't and can't change the process. Their true motives will be revealed soon enough.


October 18th, 2011, 11:39 pm
Profile
Player of the Year - Defense

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pm
Posts: 2631
Post Re: Occupy Wall Street
I don't buy the "corporations will pack up and leave" argument for several reasons.

1) These corporations are run by Americans. They are used to the US and our culture. The people who run these corporations don't want to leave.

2) There are other issues that they are worried about--the rule of law being a major one. Does Mexico have a well regarded legal system, known for protecting the rights of businesses?

3) Recruiting talent. Asian countries are producing talented tech workers in droves, but how many CEOs does Mexico produce?

The real risk is that we block economic growth in our country and corporations started in other countries come to dominate the world going forward.

The best thing to do is what we've always done--work to create a free and open society, with a strong respect for property rights and the rule of law. If that means going after businesses that have hijacked parts of the government and made the game unfair, then that's what is needed to be done for the greater good of the business community.


October 18th, 2011, 11:53 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 329 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 22  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.