|
Canada2068 Posts
On October 10 2011 07:47 DetriusXii wrote:Sigh. I'm on the left, but I thought his attack on corporations was fairly weak. Corporations are good in that they allow coordination between work groups to flow in a more organized manner. The internet is a good example. Distributed systems are secure, but they don't communicate well as every router communicates with every other router and they can get pretty bloated. Tree like systems organize well, but can be attacked at the head. Airplanes and telephones companies are able to organize traffic a lot better as subsystems have one parent to communicate to and the parent system is responsible for communicating with the parent above it. Small city airports fly to the nation's larger airplane hubs. Pearson, Calgary, Montreal, and Vancouver are responsible for coordinating international flights. Saskatoon, Regina, and Hamilton airports are not. Bringing it to the corporation, having a chain of managers allows communication to be distributed quickly so that the organization moves as a unit. The military works well because of it's hierarchical structure and government has grown inefficient in recent years because of the permanent outsourcing that happens. I just don't see how my Android phone would have been made by something other than a corporation. I don't see every independent tradesman owning their own manufacturing equipment. Pooling of resources and running the resources at full capacity doesn't happen outside a corporate structure. In short, the guy is a hippy and he deserved to be insulted.
Basically what cyberspace and Moochlol said (though it could've been done in a less insulting manner =\). Chris Hedges clarifies his argument by saying that he isn't against all corporations—that's just a strawman the host (Kevin O'Leary) put up. What Chris is against are the speculative banking institutions like Citibank and Wells Fargo that he says got into trouble by not being satisfied as a commercial bank like the ones in Canada. Instead they blurred the line between what he claimed should be two separate entities—commercial and investment banks—and played the role of both. The result was they gambled with money that wasn't theirs, lost and had to be bailed out with public money lest the millions of people who kept their money with them lose their life savings. What's more is that these banks who got bailed out are sitting out on a lot of capital that they're not using to provide credit to small-business owners, which he says smaller regional banks would have done had they been in place.
edit: If Chris Hedges ever did claim that corporations were evil, then I'd agree with your argument that he indeed is a hippie =P
|
The market only tells the story, politicians (we elected) created it.
The major of berlin once said:
"If i close a kindergarten to save money, next day i'll have a lot of trouble, bad press and protests. If i raise debt, nobody (=voters) cares."
So its also the fault of the voters electing politians, who basically try to create wealth from debt.
Anyway i am consultant in the fincancial industry and well .. the porsches and ferraris kept coming in regardless of any "crisis" (2001-03/housing crisis 2008/09, ..).
We need to be real capitalists and let banks fail, countries go bankrupt if they have too much debt. Massive risk is currently rewarded: if you win you take the money, if you lose .. bailout coming in. Same goes for politicians raising the debt: they need to fail, else voter will always favor those type of politicians ..
|
On October 10 2011 07:55 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2011 07:45 Suisen wrote:On October 10 2011 06:14 xDaunt wrote:
Comparing what's happening in the US to what happened / is happening in Egypt, Libya, and Syria is laughable. Completely different conditions.
It's not. Now you are a well known reality denier or extreme near fascist right wing personality on this site, but let me respond for others reading this. The protests in Tunesia and Egypt were mainly caused by unemployment and rising prices. Fact is that both these pro western regimes implemented liberal economic policies like privatizing to wipe out the middle class. This can be statistically shown. Both their economies were growing. But poverty was increasing. Crownies allied with the dictators gained all the riches. These policies were implemented under US pressure. After Nasser died Sadat turned Egypt into a US client state. Mubarak continued this. As a reward they get free US tanks. And this is also a US government handout for their military industry so it also benefits the US regime that way. http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/02/201122414315249621.htmlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/08/egypt-imfIn the US something completely similar is happening. Real wages haven't risen since 1970. Income inequality has increased since before that. It is now the same as it was in 1920. Regimes that oppress and torture aren't the reason why people revolt. Poverty also isn't. It is inequality. The middle class in the US is being wiped out. Our governments in the mean time are servants of corporations. Merkel isn't in charge. Obama isn't in charge. Sarkozy isn't in charge, etc. Obama can do what he promised if he had the power. He doesn't. Merkel can solve the EU debt crisis. She probably wants to. But she doesn't have the power. She has to serve her banks. This goes before serving the German people. In the mean time the banks hold the entire economy hostage. if they fail, they drag the whole economy down. They know this and they exploit this systemic risk extremely deliberately. They literally hold a gun against their own head and tell us they are about to pull the trigger while we give them money. Banks traditionally have an important function. But what happened is that they started to operate a huge casino where they gambled with other people's money. This fictionalization of the economy does only harm even in the best case. In the best case it is like poker. It doesn't lose money but it is a brain drain. Smart people play a match in seeing who is the smartest or luckiest when the end result is only pushing around money virtually. Another problem is the nature of the corporation itself. first off, it not being a democratic institution. Secondly, it being forced by law to only care about 1 thing; profit. They have to ignore every other effect of their actions. Thirdly, them hogging up the money. If you have citizens that want to enjoy their life and corporations that want to amass as much money as possible, in the end literally all the money will end up with the corporations. This isn't an absurd idea. This is understood by many economists. Corporations only spend money if they think it will get them more money. In fact we know many corporations have large amounts of money saved up that they don't spend. They take it out of the economy entirely. Apple is a good example. They even refuse to hand it out as dividend. Another problem with the economic system, which has nothing to do what is traditionally called 'capitalism', is that it has booms and busts and is based on the idea there can be and has to be continuous growth. The economy cannot grow forever. It is a simple thing to understand for people who understand the exponential function. But in the mean time those who have control of the knobs that supposedly control the economy try to generate artificial growth. But these booms always result in busts. During both booms and busts, the superrich do relatively well. They ride the booms and the busts hit the poorest the hardest. This whole system is bad for a strong middle class. US people don't kid yourself. Your country can collapse if this inequality continuous. The tea party are in fact also people who are angry about inequality. But since the US has such strong propaganda they are deluded and have all kinds of alternative theories. This you don't even see in the arab world where you would expect propaganda and their victims. As for this current crisis, more and more I think the only solution at this point is for governments to seize control of all banks, failing ones, healthy ones and successful ones. It can't be the case that the taxpayer takes over all the failed and indebted banks while the banks sitting on the cash can just hand it out as bonuses and dividend to the top 1%. Also, bank taxes are only going to weaken the banks. We need banks. But these private banks are dangerous economic weapons aimed at the people. They need to be neutralized. But protests will never force politicians to take this action. The only power the people still have is pulling out the money while they still own it and create a bank run on all banks so they collapse. But making this exact statement is illegal in my country for exactly that reason. Guess where I live? It's rare to see so much tripe in a single post. Why not just be honest and admit that you're a communist? Comparing the widespread poverty and disenfranchisement of the Libyans, Egyptians, and Syrians to the comparatively minor problems in the US is intellectually dishonest at best. Quit pretending otherwise.
There is nothing communist in his post. The cyclic nature of capitalism the economy has been theorized since Kondratiev ( he got killed because his researchs were not enough commie lol ). And if you think it is just a bunch of bs you can always start trading and experience the reality of the market.
Even if the poverty level is not the same in the USA than in Egypt, the mechanism is the same. The reason people get angry is also unemployment and/or ( perceived ) poverty not just the lack of freedom.
Libya is a different story though.
|
On October 10 2011 08:12 Moochlol wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2011 07:47 DetriusXii wrote:Sigh. I'm on the left, but I thought his attack on corporations was fairly weak. Corporations are good in that they allow coordination between work groups to flow in a more organized manner. The internet is a good example. Distributed systems are secure, but they don't communicate well as every router communicates with every other router and they can get pretty bloated. Tree like systems organize well, but can be attacked at the head. Airplanes and telephones companies are able to organize traffic a lot better as subsystems have one parent to communicate to and the parent system is responsible for communicating with the parent above it. Small city airports fly to the nation's larger airplane hubs. Pearson, Calgary, Montreal, and Vancouver are responsible for coordinating international flights. Saskatoon, Regina, and Hamilton airports are not. Bringing it to the corporation, having a chain of managers allows communication to be distributed quickly so that the organization moves as a unit. The military works well because of it's hierarchical structure and government has grown inefficient in recent years because of the permanent outsourcing that happens. I just don't see how my Android phone would have been made by something other than a corporation. I don't see every independent tradesman owning their own manufacturing equipment. Pooling of resources and running the resources at full capacity doesn't happen outside a corporate structure. In short, the guy is a hippy and he deserved to be insulted. How you get that response out of what he said is quite the leap, everyone knows corporations are a way unify work force into a cohesive unit, as well as to mobilize product on an efficient level. This is not the argument what so ever, the problem we have here in America is that huge "BANKING" Firms used the money they received from the loans they KNEW the people could not afford, and in turn bet against the public to gain profit. This is not how anyone should conduct business, let alone the BIGGEST banking firms within our country, only to be bailed out with OUR money, for the CRIMES they committed. The greed and uncontrolled raping of our resources/economy is sicking. If you are to stoop so low as to call that man a hippy for the lucid outlook he has on the situation, then I believe I can stoop low as well and call you a BLIND IGNORANT TOOL BAG, keep being a sheep. moron. Edit: Oh and by the way this is just ONE incident in a myriad of mass corruption. If we do not protest this current standard business practice, science help us all.
2:39 Chris Hedges: "Frankly, if we don't break the back of corporations, we're all finished anyways" Referring to entrenchment of corporate money into the political system. I agree with this
at 3:44, Chris Hedges makes the remarkably stupid statement that "Corporations don't produce anything" and "... that they believe falsely that money is real...". These are such giant generalizations.
The banking industry should be punished and the government tried its hardest to prevent being the largest shareholder (eg the owner) of many of the financial institutions by giving loans to the bank at interest rates substantially lower than what banks give to consumers. But he's making generalizations beyond the banking sector to all corporations. My point still stands. Have you watched the video?
|
On October 10 2011 08:25 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:
The market only tells the story, politicians (we elected) created it.
The major of berlin once said:
"If i close a kindergarten to save money, next day i'll have a lot of trouble, bad press and protests. If i raise debt, nobody (=voters) cares."
So its also the fault of the voters electing politians, who basically try to create wealth from debt.
Anyway i am consultant in the fincancial industry and well .. the porsches and ferraris kept coming in regardless of any "crisis" (2001-03/housing crisis 2008/09, ..).
We need to be real capitalists and let banks fail, countries go bankrupt if they have too much debt. Massive risk is currently rewarded: if you win you take the money, if you lose .. bailout coming in. Same goes for politicians raising the debt: they need to fail, else voter will always favor those type of politicians ..
Can we be capitalist if the system is inherent corrupt?
Do we not first have to accept that we live in a auction based system. Where the ones with the largest resources (the 1%) dictates countries into their bidding, i.e. corrupt politicians.
Or maybe we should rethink the whole idea of having politicians. As they (the job) haven't really solved any of our common problems?
Does that mean we need to fight corruption and abolish it from our lives, how hard that might sound! Otherwise capitalism isn't going to work for the 99%? or change the system?
|
I'm sorry but it's time to stop being so damn respectful in this world, morons who use tactics to derail truth by using cheap coined phrases deserve to be mocked, and pummeled down to the sludge they are. It reminds me of the fucking Salem witch hunts, SHE'S A WITCH BURN HER, lets not use logic or reason and just use a word we know that has a negative Connotation, like WITCH or HIPPY or LEFTIST. People like this make me sick. and sad to know we live in a world with such ignorance.
|
On October 10 2011 08:33 DetriusXii wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2011 08:12 Moochlol wrote:On October 10 2011 07:47 DetriusXii wrote:Sigh. I'm on the left, but I thought his attack on corporations was fairly weak. Corporations are good in that they allow coordination between work groups to flow in a more organized manner. The internet is a good example. Distributed systems are secure, but they don't communicate well as every router communicates with every other router and they can get pretty bloated. Tree like systems organize well, but can be attacked at the head. Airplanes and telephones companies are able to organize traffic a lot better as subsystems have one parent to communicate to and the parent system is responsible for communicating with the parent above it. Small city airports fly to the nation's larger airplane hubs. Pearson, Calgary, Montreal, and Vancouver are responsible for coordinating international flights. Saskatoon, Regina, and Hamilton airports are not. Bringing it to the corporation, having a chain of managers allows communication to be distributed quickly so that the organization moves as a unit. The military works well because of it's hierarchical structure and government has grown inefficient in recent years because of the permanent outsourcing that happens. I just don't see how my Android phone would have been made by something other than a corporation. I don't see every independent tradesman owning their own manufacturing equipment. Pooling of resources and running the resources at full capacity doesn't happen outside a corporate structure. In short, the guy is a hippy and he deserved to be insulted. How you get that response out of what he said is quite the leap, everyone knows corporations are a way unify work force into a cohesive unit, as well as to mobilize product on an efficient level. This is not the argument what so ever, the problem we have here in America is that huge "BANKING" Firms used the money they received from the loans they KNEW the people could not afford, and in turn bet against the public to gain profit. This is not how anyone should conduct business, let alone the BIGGEST banking firms within our country, only to be bailed out with OUR money, for the CRIMES they committed. The greed and uncontrolled raping of our resources/economy is sicking. If you are to stoop so low as to call that man a hippy for the lucid outlook he has on the situation, then I believe I can stoop low as well and call you a BLIND IGNORANT TOOL BAG, keep being a sheep. moron. Edit: Oh and by the way this is just ONE incident in a myriad of mass corruption. If we do not protest this current standard business practice, science help us all. 2:39 Chris Hedges: "Frankly, if we don't break the back of corporations, we're all finished anyways" Referring to entrenchment of corporate money into the political system. I agree with this at 3:44, Chris Hedges makes the remarkably stupid statement that "Corporations don't produce anything" and "... that they believe falsely that money is real...". These are such giant generalizations. The banking industry should be punished and the government tried its hardest to prevent being the largest shareholder (eg the owner) of many of the financial institutions by giving loans to the bank at interest rates substantially lower than what banks give to consumers. But he's making generalizations beyond the banking sector to all corporations. My point still stands. Have you watched the video?
Yes I have sir, and excuse me, but @ this point the corporate world has become so corrupt across the board I feel generalizing them into one group and saying we need to break their backs is a very good thing. I'm sure this man is not against corporations but against criminal corporations that rape everything this world has to offer. Outsourcing everything they can to make a bigger profit, damn the consequences, damn the people, only money matters. Corporations that conduct business lawfully are fine in my book, but when you are an unregulated group of some of the wealthiest people in the world who can affect the majority of the population, and you use that power for the sole reason of greed, than I'm sorry, but a little statement of breaking the backs of corporations (which in context means regulation) is a joke of an argument. How trivial are you.
|
Canada2068 Posts
On October 10 2011 08:33 DetriusXii wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2011 08:12 Moochlol wrote:On October 10 2011 07:47 DetriusXii wrote:Sigh. I'm on the left, but I thought his attack on corporations was fairly weak. Corporations are good in that they allow coordination between work groups to flow in a more organized manner. The internet is a good example. Distributed systems are secure, but they don't communicate well as every router communicates with every other router and they can get pretty bloated. Tree like systems organize well, but can be attacked at the head. Airplanes and telephones companies are able to organize traffic a lot better as subsystems have one parent to communicate to and the parent system is responsible for communicating with the parent above it. Small city airports fly to the nation's larger airplane hubs. Pearson, Calgary, Montreal, and Vancouver are responsible for coordinating international flights. Saskatoon, Regina, and Hamilton airports are not. Bringing it to the corporation, having a chain of managers allows communication to be distributed quickly so that the organization moves as a unit. The military works well because of it's hierarchical structure and government has grown inefficient in recent years because of the permanent outsourcing that happens. I just don't see how my Android phone would have been made by something other than a corporation. I don't see every independent tradesman owning their own manufacturing equipment. Pooling of resources and running the resources at full capacity doesn't happen outside a corporate structure. In short, the guy is a hippy and he deserved to be insulted. How you get that response out of what he said is quite the leap, everyone knows corporations are a way unify work force into a cohesive unit, as well as to mobilize product on an efficient level. This is not the argument what so ever, the problem we have here in America is that huge "BANKING" Firms used the money they received from the loans they KNEW the people could not afford, and in turn bet against the public to gain profit. This is not how anyone should conduct business, let alone the BIGGEST banking firms within our country, only to be bailed out with OUR money, for the CRIMES they committed. The greed and uncontrolled raping of our resources/economy is sicking. If you are to stoop so low as to call that man a hippy for the lucid outlook he has on the situation, then I believe I can stoop low as well and call you a BLIND IGNORANT TOOL BAG, keep being a sheep. moron. Edit: Oh and by the way this is just ONE incident in a myriad of mass corruption. If we do not protest this current standard business practice, science help us all. 2:39 Chris Hedges: "Frankly, if we don't break the back of corporations, we're all finished anyways" Referring to entrenchment of corporate money into the political system. I agree with this at 3:44, Chris Hedges makes the remarkably stupid statement that "Corporations don't produce anything" and "... that they believe falsely that money is real...". These are such giant generalizations. The banking industry should be punished and the government tried its hardest to prevent being the largest shareholder (eg the owner) of many of the financial institutions by giving loans to the bank at interest rates substantially lower than what banks give to consumers. But he's making generalizations beyond the banking sector to all corporations. My point still stands. Have you watched the video?
Regarding the second quotation, I'm pretty sure he only said that because he was taken back by the ad hominem he'd just received from the TV show host. In fact, he corrects himself right after by limiting his "corporation" to speculators (investment banks) and it might be arguable that speculators don't produce anything (I guess it counts as a service).
|
On October 10 2011 06:14 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2011 01:38 radiatoren wrote:On October 09 2011 10:31 DrainX wrote:http://www.politickerny.com/2011/10/07/peter-king-disapproves-of-occupy-wall-street/Long Island Republican Congressman Peter King blasted the Occupy Wall Street protesters as anti-American today on a right-wing talk show.
“The fact is these people are anarchists. They have no idea what they’re doing out there,” King told host Laura Ingraham. “They have no sense of purpose other than a basically anti-American tone and anti-capitalist. It’s a ragtag mob basically.”
Criticism from GOPers on the marches has been growing louder and more frequent. Earlier today, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor–who is coming to New York City this weekend– called the protesters “a growing mob.”
King called on Americans to condemn the marches.
“We have to be careful not to allow this to get any legitimacy,” he said, adding “I’m taking this seriously in that I’m old enough to remember what happened in the 1960s when the left-wing took to the streets and somehow the media glorified them and it ended up shaping policy. We can’t allow that to happen.” Disgusting. Apparently democracy is un-american. It did not work for Mubarak, Gaddafi nor Assad. It will be interesting to see if this tactic of calling the protesters mediawhores and implying they are criminals will work for an opposition! How does an opposition even think that trying to stop these protests will help them? Comparing what's happening in the US to what happened / is happening in Egypt, Libya, and Syria is laughable. Completely different conditions.
(laughs)
I was merely implying that I have not heard of any examples, where any kind of demonstration has stopped or even slowed down because a person has called the people participating criminals and mediawhores. In most cases the opposite happens...
Unwilling misrepresentation is often a sign that you dont want to face what was really written. Misrepresenting on purpose I won't even comment if it is obvious.
The situations of the people in the countries are very different yes, but what they are protesting is not completely unrelated. The 99 % might actually apply very well to Egypt because of the huge amount of money Mubarak posessed and same for Libya though the course of the protests were very different. Syria as far as I know is actually more or less in the same boat, with Assad.
|
sorry guys, but i'm the "1%," I'm all for corporate control of government and capital.
|
On October 10 2011 08:31 Boblion wrote:
Even if the poverty level is not the same in the USA than in Egypt, the mechanism is the same. The reason people get angry is also unemployment and/or ( perceived ) poverty not just the lack of freedom.
It's just poverty, percieved or otherwise, that makes people angry. Most people don't really get angry at the lack of freedom if they feel prosperous, as can be seen in the acceptance of authoritarian but economically strong governments like China and Singapore.
|
I dont really see the point of something like this. We all know capitalism is a system of classes and it always will be with the majority on the very bottom like working at 2 minimum wage jobs trying to make ends meet. Its just the way it works and there will never be a way to change that unless you try to change your own individual circumstances.
Also what does corrupt even mean? I mean people trying to make the most money possible that is just capitalism there is no such thing as corruption unless someone is cheating the system.
|
I actually believe that the corporations taking total control of the world is just the evolution of humanity. Corporations are faster, more efficient, and have better ways of developing and promoting talent within itself then governments every had. Just look how fast Ford turned around from the recession and then is a hella profitable company. Valve has the most bullshit business model the world has ever seen and yet they can monetize PC gameing like no one else could or can. Once (and they will) the corporations turn into super-corps where Wall mart and an oil company merge with burger king and GM then the public look of them will become so important that they'll be forced to take care of the people out of they're own motivation. They'll look at the moon and see potential mining value and more space. Competition between super corporations (as capitalism probes there's always profit in competing against another) will drive forward humanity in leaps and bounds ahead of what poor excuse of a government we have today.
people talk about freedom like its a good thing. Germany tought us anything its that if you give people a job food a house and send they're kids to camp you can commit genocides and everyone will look the other way.
|
On October 10 2011 10:51 sermokala wrote:
I actually believe that the corporations taking total control of the world is just the evolution of humanity. Corporations are faster, more efficient, and have better ways of developing and promoting talent within itself then governments every had. Just look how fast Ford turned around from the recession and then is a hella profitable company. Valve has the most bullshit business model the world has ever seen and yet they can monetize PC gameing like no one else could or can. Once (and they will) the corporations turn into super-corps where Wall mart and an oil company merge with burger king and GM then the public look of them will become so important that they'll be forced to take care of the people out of they're own motivation. They'll look at the moon and see potential mining value and more space. Competition between super corporations (as capitalism probes there's always profit in competing against another) will drive forward humanity in leaps and bounds ahead of what poor excuse of a government we have today.
people talk about freedom like its a good thing. Germany tought us anything its that if you give people a job food a house and send they're kids to camp you can commit genocides and everyone will look the other way.
What the fuck did I just read?
|
On October 10 2011 10:51 sermokala wrote:
I actually believe that the corporations taking total control of the world is just the evolution of humanity. Corporations are faster, more efficient, and have better ways of developing and promoting talent within itself then governments every had. Just look how fast Ford turned around from the recession and then is a hella profitable company. Valve has the most bullshit business model the world has ever seen and yet they can monetize PC gameing like no one else could or can. Once (and they will) the corporations turn into super-corps where Wall mart and an oil company merge with burger king and GM then the public look of them will become so important that they'll be forced to take care of the people out of they're own motivation. They'll look at the moon and see potential mining value and more space. Competition between super corporations (as capitalism probes there's always profit in competing against another) will drive forward humanity in leaps and bounds ahead of what poor excuse of a government we have today.
people talk about freedom like its a good thing. Germany tought us anything its that if you give people a job food a house and send they're kids to camp you can commit genocides and everyone will look the other way.
The Nazi's at EA (with their Origin Adware) are making a game just for you 
+ Show Spoiler +
|
I've been pondering making a contribution to this movement and I've considered the lack of message to be a rather damning issue. Correct me if I'm wrong but does this sound like some good points to aim for?
Primary
Increase taxes on the wealthy and reduce the tax loopholes for them and corporations.
Regulate the finance industry and bring those who broke laws in the GFC to account.
Eliminiate political contributions for politicians and parties.
Secondary
Reduce the military budget and close military bases abroad.
Reduce the dependency on foreign oil.
Boost social programs and investment in scientific research.
Do these make sense as 6 speaking points?
|
On October 10 2011 14:43 Heosat wrote:
I've been pondering making a contribution to this movement and I've considered the lack of message to be a rather damning issue. Correct me if I'm wrong but does this sound like some good points to aim for?
Primary
Increase taxes on the wealthy and reduce the tax loopholes for them and corporations.
Regulate the finance industry and bring those who broke laws in the GFC to account.
Eliminiate political contributions for politicians and parties.
Secondary
Reduce the military budget and close military bases abroad.
Reduce the dependency on foreign oil.
Boost social programs and investment in scientific research.
Do these make sense as 6 speaking points?
Heosat, that would make too much sense. They have there own mandate here http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-please-help-editadd-so-th/
Also I love how in the USA people that protested the republicans are branded, left wing, communists, anarchists, socialist eg, how about calling them what they are people who are angry at their government/ past government.
|
I guess I need to modify it a bit then.
Primary
Increase taxes on the wealthy and eliminate the tax loopholes for them and corporations. (Buffett tax and committee to find and close loopholes)
Regulate the finance industry and bring those who broke laws in the GFC to account. (Re-implement Glass-Steagall Act)
Eliminiate political contributions for politicians and parties, improve the legislation process. (Reversal of Citizens United, banning of riders, cooling off period for politicians legislating on an industry and being able to work in that industry)
Secondary
Reduce the military budget and close military bases abroad.
Reduce the dependency on foreign oil.
Fund social security, implement universal healthcare and increase scientific spending.
|
On October 10 2011 15:08 Heosat wrote:
I guess I need to modify it a bit then.
Primary
Increase taxes on the wealthy and eliminate the tax loopholes for them and corporations. (Buffett tax and committee to find and close loopholes)
Regulate the finance industry and bring those who broke laws in the GFC to account. (Re-implement Glass-Steagall Act)
Eliminiate political contributions for politicians and parties, improve the legislation process. (Reversal of Citizens United, banning of riders, cooling off period for politicians legislating on an industry and being able to work in that industry)
Secondary
Reduce the military budget and close military bases abroad.
Reduce the dependency on foreign oil.
Boost social programs and investment in scientific research.
Eliminating loopholes - Which ones ? And you don't need a committee to "find loopholes". It's not like they weren't intentionally written into the code by the very politicians we have in office.
Taxing corporations - cool idea. Encourages corporations to do their business in lower taxed countries, as in NOT the U.S.
Regulate the finance industry - It's been regulated, except the elected officials who were responsible for overseeing it are corrupt and not doing their jobs, and taking money from the very people they are supposed to regulated.
Eliminate political contributions - now this is one I can get behind. Have to deal with Free Speech issues, but nothing stopping us from putting a 100% tax on money spent on political activities.
Military budget - should be determined based on security needs, not financial.
Reduce foreign oil dependency - everybody claims to want this. But making it illegal to drill in the U.S. makes it pretty difficult. So, is opening up domestic drilling part of the suggestion ?
Boost social programs - Let State governments worry about this. The federal government is not supposed to manage everything.
Investment in scientific research - awesome. I want $100 million to research the mating habits of imported Koala bears and their impact on the local water supply. Can I has too ?
|
the fed is the real enemy
occupy the fed
edit: 1000 get
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
