|
On October 11 2011 02:49 H0i wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 02:44 xDaunt wrote:On October 11 2011 02:37 DrainX wrote:On October 11 2011 02:32 xDaunt wrote:On October 11 2011 02:21 DrainX wrote:On October 11 2011 02:15 xDaunt wrote:On October 11 2011 02:09 H0i wrote:On October 11 2011 01:59 PlayX wrote:
I'm wondering if the majority of the americans support that protest. Or is it a rather "small" movement like the tea party thing? Actually the movement is spreading across the globe and oct 15th it's starting in a lot of major cities in Europe. It's growing every day and a lot of people who are not physically there still support it. It's hard to really talk about the size, because so many people support it but have not joined the protest (yet). It's also growing and fast, media coverage is only just getting started. I can see OWS-type movements becoming really big in Europe where things are about to get really ugly. I just don't see it catching on in the US. First, conditions aren't bad enough in the US (yet). Second, Americans as a whole just are less tolerant of OWS-type movements. Inequality is much worse in the US than it is in Europe. Europe might have more of a tradition of leftwing protests but I think people in the US have much more reason to protest at the moment. I strongly disagree with this. Minorities, in particular, are far worse off in Europe than in the US. There's less racism in the US and more social mobility. Maybe it's different in Sweden where everyone's white, but I'll offer the seemingly annual race riots in Paris as exhibit A. Everyone isn't white in Sweden, we have lots of immigrants. I'm pretty sure racism and segregation is a lot worse in the US than it is in Sweden. Social mobility is also higher in Europe than it is in the US. One reason for this is probably that many countries in Europe have free higher education. Source: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/2/7/45002641.pdf "Lots of immigrants?" Less than 10% of your population is non-white. Who are you kidding? Since when is the definition of an immigrant "non-white"?
Sweden is 85% Swede, 5% Finn, and 10% everything else. Not exactly a nation of immigrants.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Sweden
EDIT: Anyway, whatever. No point derailing this thread.
|
On October 11 2011 03:07 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 01:51 xDaunt wrote:On October 11 2011 01:42 GeyzeR wrote:
I guess because they do not see how it is connected with their everyday life. True. On October 11 2011 01:42 GeyzeR wrote:
They do not understand why banks and corporation are the ones to blame. It depends upon what you're blaming the banks and corporations for. They aren't responsible for the current economic situation. Governments are. Ultimately, the people who elected the governments that enacted all of these stupid policies and shat up their fiscal situation are truly the responsible parties. On October 11 2011 01:42 GeyzeR wrote:
And, the most important, they do not understand what do the protesters want. As far as I can tell, not even the protesters understand what they want. When you argue a problem with the people electing the wrong candidates it is important to look at what choises they have. It seems these poeple are unsatisfied with both the republican and democratic candidates and especially presidents. Thus it might not be as simple as pointing at the voters.
lets just look at track records... in general, democrats want more regulation (which is what protestors want now) and in general republicans want less regulation (which is what George Bush did in the last 2 some hours of his presidency...
The problem, is that even though the democratic president and almost all democratic congress was elected, is there was enough decension and enough "counteraction" that prevents the democratic government from putting more regulations through without the republicans taking scissors and hacksaws to it and turning it into useless mush.
This is especially evident with the way that the republican media belittles and slams on the protesters, calling them no more than a mob... and refusing to recognize their right to assembly and their right to petition (which is basically what this is)...
I'm especially put out by 'Cain how said that these protestors are "complaining about successful people out of jealousy"
I don't think of a bunch of greedy assholes getting bailed out by taxpayers as successful... that sounds more like the banks owe the people a fuck ton, and instead of paying off the people... they're just taking everyone and their neighbor's house...
Fuck you 'Cain you moron... but i shouldn't say that because 'Cain is just covering his own ass, considering that he is financed heavily by these massive corps... and if he admits the corrupt truth, his head is on the financial guillotine!
|
On October 11 2011 03:01 Bigtony wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 02:13 H0i wrote:On October 11 2011 02:04 Bigtony wrote:On October 11 2011 01:59 PlayX wrote:
I'm wondering if the majority of the americans support that protest. Or is it a rather "small" movement like the tea party thing? It's would be a valid comparison to say this is a left wing/ liberal counterpart to the tea-party, but less specifically associated with either party. I have to say while I agree with the implications and some of the goals of this process, I am increasingly uncomfortable with all these "I am the 99%" things floating around of people complaining about their debt and how it's impossible to have a job and how they need help...again I realize we live in tough times, but that makes it even more important that you do not do things you cannot afford. You do not accumulate debt for no reason. You do not go to uni and study something stupid and useless. I'm a young person who went to uni, with little to no debt, worked most of the time, maintained a 3.0+ gpa, did 2 study abroad, and now have a nice full time job. That might be true for you, but a lot of other people are in trouble. There simply aren't enough jobs, there is a limit to growth and growth rate and we are hitting the limit. The +-8% unemployment rate is not the true one, in official numbers that include every person living in the US above 21 and below the retirement age there are more than 15% or even 20% unemployed. In this world it is nearly impossible to do something without debt because the world is based on it. Many people cannot buy a house, cannot go to a university, not without going in big debt. The point I'm making is that it is not just true for me. There is a difference between having some debt (lets say...under $50,000 in school loans) and being mired in debt ($200,000 in school loans like too many people have). the reality is that there are many jobs out there, especially in manufacturing, engineering, and computers. People go to uni for weak fields and then expect to pay back their school loans...very bad financial decision. Too many people move out from home too early, live at uni for no reason, go to a far away uni instead of close, go to the school they "love" instead of the one they can afford. How did I stay out of debt? I did good in high school so I got some scholarships for uni, I worked in high school and in uni, I went to an affordable school, I did not live on campus, I drove an old car, etc etc. I studied "my passion" but I had a clear, concrete goal for post uni and a viable career path. When I graduated I worked hard, lived with my parents, still drove the old car, and took every opportunity to improve myself. These are decisions that anyone can make.Someone posted a little bit about how we can't just "tax the rich." I think it's important to note that that rich in America are significantly richer than the rich in some other places, and there are more of them. Also, at this time some of them are almost completely avoiding paying taxes; just read the things that Warren Buffet keeps putting out.
You are implying anyone can just get very high grades and get a scholarship. People cannot find jobs. They graduate and cannot find a job, meanwhile their debt rises. I'm sure there is a reasonably big group that has no problems, but for the majority it doesn't work. I fully agree on taxing the rich.
On October 11 2011 01:51 xDaunt wrote:It depends upon what you're blaming the banks and corporations for. They aren't responsible for the current economic situation. Governments are. Ultimately, the people who elected the governments that enacted all of these stupid policies and shat up their fiscal situation are truly the responsible parties.
This is like saying the police are responsible for the death of a person because they couldn't stop the serial killer. Actually no, it's like saying the family of the murdered person is responsible because the police could not stop the murderer. Totally flawed logic.
|
On October 11 2011 03:24 H0i wrote:
This is like saying the police are responsible for the death of a person because they couldn't stop the serial killer. Actually no, it's like saying the family of the murdered person is responsible because the police did not stop the murderer. Totally flawed logic.
If the people keep voting in politicians who recklessly spend and build unsustainable welfare states, why isn't it the people's fault? If the people -- the voters, specifically -- aren't going to hold their elected officials accountable, who will?
|
On September 18 2011 07:43 shurgen wrote:
If you really think that Wall Street is this completely evil and corrupt force whose goal is to make the lives of the non-super rich awful, you have it very wrong.
I'm not saying no one in that industry is corrupt. There are corrupt people everywhere, from your local community organization, to the boards of the world's largest and most influential companies. But in all honesty, more than 99.9% of people who work in 'Wall Street' (the construct, not the actual street) are just normal people like you and I, doing something for a living that pays the bills and let's them have some financial freedom to enjoy their lives.
Both ideas are not ecactly contradicting. It doesnt take evil people to do bad stuff. Otherwise no bad things would have happened in this world, ever.
I'd agree with you though that their goal isnt to make anyones lives awful, thats more of a side-effect that is not given any priority because the concept of humanity cannot be formulated in commercial terms. So people tend to avoid it altogether to optimize their personal feelings.
|
On October 11 2011 03:28 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 03:24 H0i wrote:
This is like saying the police are responsible for the death of a person because they couldn't stop the serial killer. Actually no, it's like saying the family of the murdered person is responsible because the police did not stop the murderer. Totally flawed logic. If the people keep voting in politicians who recklessly spend and build unsustainable welfare states, why isn't it the people's fault? If the people -- the voters, specifically -- aren't going to hold their elected officials accountable, who will?
Perhaps that's what happening right now?
Perhaps they vote in the politicians because they think they have a choice, while most of the politicians want exactly the same thing, and while all of them are corrupt before they become president/get into congress, through "sponsoring" from corporations/wall street? Maybe the image about the available and socially acceptable and good candidates to vote on is severely twisted by the media, owned by maybe the exact same people who are behind the buying politicians through lobbying/sponsoring (or at least they are connected)?
|
On October 11 2011 03:32 H0i wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 03:28 xDaunt wrote:On October 11 2011 03:24 H0i wrote:
This is like saying the police are responsible for the death of a person because they couldn't stop the serial killer. Actually no, it's like saying the family of the murdered person is responsible because the police did not stop the murderer. Totally flawed logic. If the people keep voting in politicians who recklessly spend and build unsustainable welfare states, why isn't it the people's fault? If the people -- the voters, specifically -- aren't going to hold their elected officials accountable, who will? Perhaps that's what happening right now? Perhaps they vote in the politicians because they think they have a choice, while most of the politicians want exactly the same thing, and while all of them are corrupt before they become president/get into congress, through "sponsoring" from corporations/wall street? Maybe the image about the available and socially acceptable and good candidates to vote on is severely twisted by the media, owned by maybe the exact same people who are behind the buying politicians through lobbying/sponsoring (or at least they are connected)?
Can't they just create their own party?
|
I'm just curious, the political structure is very different from what I'm used to from Europe: How is it possible to cover all the political width with just two parties?
With just two parties, you have just two choices. This means that the you have less political diversity. The chance that one of the two parties has a political view very closely to your own, is very slim?
|
On October 11 2011 03:56 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 03:32 H0i wrote:On October 11 2011 03:28 xDaunt wrote:On October 11 2011 03:24 H0i wrote:
This is like saying the police are responsible for the death of a person because they couldn't stop the serial killer. Actually no, it's like saying the family of the murdered person is responsible because the police did not stop the murderer. Totally flawed logic. If the people keep voting in politicians who recklessly spend and build unsustainable welfare states, why isn't it the people's fault? If the people -- the voters, specifically -- aren't going to hold their elected officials accountable, who will? Perhaps that's what happening right now? Perhaps they vote in the politicians because they think they have a choice, while most of the politicians want exactly the same thing, and while all of them are corrupt before they become president/get into congress, through "sponsoring" from corporations/wall street? Maybe the image about the available and socially acceptable and good candidates to vote on is severely twisted by the media, owned by maybe the exact same people who are behind the buying politicians through lobbying/sponsoring (or at least they are connected)? Can't they just create their own party?
They could, but it is really hard for a third party to get any power in the US. In order to have any real influence on a national level, they would have to become larger than either the democrats or the republicans. This is why the protestors want electoral reform.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_party_system#Causes
|
On October 11 2011 03:28 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 03:24 H0i wrote:
This is like saying the police are responsible for the death of a person because they couldn't stop the serial killer. Actually no, it's like saying the family of the murdered person is responsible because the police did not stop the murderer. Totally flawed logic. If the people keep voting in politicians who recklessly spend and build unsustainable welfare states, why isn't it the people's fault? If the people -- the voters, specifically -- aren't going to hold their elected officials accountable, who will?
You can't pin even most of this on "unsustainable welfare states" when most of the debt created in the past decade were direct results of tax cuts and the waging of new wars that were paid with American money instead of American lives.
|
On October 11 2011 04:07 aksfjh wrote:You can't pin even most of this on "unsustainable welfare states" when most of the debt created in the past decade were direct results of tax cuts....
....and the waging of new wars that were paid with American money instead of American lives. Dude, wtf does that even mean?
|
On October 11 2011 04:03 Undrass wrote:
I'm just curious, the political structure is very different from what I'm used to from Europe: How is it possible to cover all the political width with just two parties?
With just two parties, you have just two choices. This means that the you have less political diversity. The chance that one of the two parties has a political view very closely to your own, is very slim?
There are a lot more than just two parties, but the republican and democrat parties have a lot more money than the others. So I guess it comes down to "lesser of two evils" situation where people eventually end up having to select between the two.
|
On October 11 2011 04:20 XerrolAvengerII wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 04:07 aksfjh wrote:You can't pin even most of this on "unsustainable welfare states" when most of the debt created in the past decade were direct results of tax cuts....
....and the waging of new wars that were paid with American money instead of American lives. Dude, wtf does that even mean?
We outsourced jobs from the military to contractors. Instead of issuing a draft to fill the boots, we contracted companies to do the same jobs for much more than it takes for a service member to do them. This was done to keep the people on the side of the war, since people don't object to borrowing money nearly as much as they object to people they know being forced into military service.
|
On October 11 2011 04:05 DrainX wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 03:56 RvB wrote:On October 11 2011 03:32 H0i wrote:On October 11 2011 03:28 xDaunt wrote:On October 11 2011 03:24 H0i wrote:
This is like saying the police are responsible for the death of a person because they couldn't stop the serial killer. Actually no, it's like saying the family of the murdered person is responsible because the police did not stop the murderer. Totally flawed logic. If the people keep voting in politicians who recklessly spend and build unsustainable welfare states, why isn't it the people's fault? If the people -- the voters, specifically -- aren't going to hold their elected officials accountable, who will? Perhaps that's what happening right now? Perhaps they vote in the politicians because they think they have a choice, while most of the politicians want exactly the same thing, and while all of them are corrupt before they become president/get into congress, through "sponsoring" from corporations/wall street? Maybe the image about the available and socially acceptable and good candidates to vote on is severely twisted by the media, owned by maybe the exact same people who are behind the buying politicians through lobbying/sponsoring (or at least they are connected)? Can't they just create their own party? They could, but it is really hard for a third party to get any power in the US. In order to have any real influence on a national level, they would have to become larger than either the democrats or the republicans. This is why the protestors want electoral reform. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_party_system#Causes
The protestors apparently want a lot of stuff it might be wise if they actually went for only a couple of points like making it easier to create a party and if they are indeed the 99% as they claim to be they shouldn't have any problem getting big. You can't expect to ask for a million things and get it all better go to the core of the perceived problem and solve it that way. But that's just my opinion I guess.
|
On October 11 2011 04:20 XerrolAvengerII wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 04:07 aksfjh wrote:You can't pin even most of this on "unsustainable welfare states" when most of the debt created in the past decade were direct results of tax cuts....
....and the waging of new wars that were paid with American money instead of American lives. Dude, wtf does that even mean?
he wants to fund the development of mobile dolls, seen in gundam wing, so that war between countries relies wholly on economic costs rather than human costs. Well the cost of war for super powers anyways.
I found a photo of aksfjh off of google.
![[image loading]](http://cdn.myanimelist.net/images/characters/4/40379.jpg)
|
On October 11 2011 04:26 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 04:05 DrainX wrote:On October 11 2011 03:56 RvB wrote:On October 11 2011 03:32 H0i wrote:On October 11 2011 03:28 xDaunt wrote:On October 11 2011 03:24 H0i wrote:
This is like saying the police are responsible for the death of a person because they couldn't stop the serial killer. Actually no, it's like saying the family of the murdered person is responsible because the police did not stop the murderer. Totally flawed logic. If the people keep voting in politicians who recklessly spend and build unsustainable welfare states, why isn't it the people's fault? If the people -- the voters, specifically -- aren't going to hold their elected officials accountable, who will? Perhaps that's what happening right now? Perhaps they vote in the politicians because they think they have a choice, while most of the politicians want exactly the same thing, and while all of them are corrupt before they become president/get into congress, through "sponsoring" from corporations/wall street? Maybe the image about the available and socially acceptable and good candidates to vote on is severely twisted by the media, owned by maybe the exact same people who are behind the buying politicians through lobbying/sponsoring (or at least they are connected)? Can't they just create their own party? They could, but it is really hard for a third party to get any power in the US. In order to have any real influence on a national level, they would have to become larger than either the democrats or the republicans. This is why the protestors want electoral reform. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_party_system#Causes The protestors apparently want a lot of stuff it might be wise if they actually went for only a couple of points like making it easier to create a party and if they are indeed the 99% as they claim to be they shouldn't have any problem getting big. You can't expect to ask for a million things and get it all better go to the core of the perceived problem and solve it that way. But that's just my opinion I guess.
It kind of runs against their ideals though. There's no assurance a new party is going to right some of the stuff they want rather than just become corrupt in the same way. Even if they do get some seats, the party is powerless to do anything big without dem/rep support.
On top of all that the movement is supposed to be a little more bi-partisan than going for a new party. Or supposed to be, is in practice it's mostly people on the left, but still changing the goal like that wouldn't help.
|
Panic of the Plutocrats
"What’s going on here? The answer, surely, is that Wall Street’s Masters of the Universe realize, deep down, how morally indefensible their position is. They’re not John Galt; they’re not even Steve Jobs. They’re people who got rich by peddling complex financial schemes that, far from delivering clear benefits to the American people, helped push us into a crisis whose aftereffects continue to blight the lives of tens of millions of their fellow citizens. "
some true words of paul kurgman .... he has his moments. and with it comes the wisdom of who rules this country.
|
On October 11 2011 04:31 Endymion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 04:20 XerrolAvengerII wrote:On October 11 2011 04:07 aksfjh wrote:You can't pin even most of this on "unsustainable welfare states" when most of the debt created in the past decade were direct results of tax cuts....
....and the waging of new wars that were paid with American money instead of American lives. Dude, wtf does that even mean? he wants to fund the development of mobile dolls, seen in gundam wing, so that war between countries relies wholly on economic costs rather than human costs. Well the cost of war for super powers anyways. I found a photo of aksfjh off of google.
Wait, I thought he (or I in this case?) was against the increased use of mobile dolls...
Anyways, I was merely providing commentary on the subject. When somebody employed at Haliburton loses 3 limbs or dies, the public doesn't hear about it or care. When somebody who is in service of their country dies, it's a much bigger deal and American citizens begin to turn against the war much quicker.
I can't comment either way on this, since there are benefits to both approaches and it's already said and done anyways.
|
|
|
On October 11 2011 04:03 Undrass wrote:
I'm just curious, the political structure is very different from what I'm used to from Europe: How is it possible to cover all the political width with just two parties?
With just two parties, you have just two choices. This means that the you have less political diversity. The chance that one of the two parties has a political view very closely to your own, is very slim?
I've got understanding that this is because it does not matter who do you vote for, politics serve to the rich. To make things easier and cheaper, the rich agreed to have only 2 parties.
Actually this is what OWS do not like, as far as I understood, they feel like they are not participating anymore in the political life. And they cannot create another party, because they do not have money. I do not see any solution within the system, only to change the system. But again, they do not have power to do this. Mass media is very important in politics and it belongs to the rich. OWS just do not have means to bring the message to population, just internet, but it is not enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
