Occupy Wall Street

[Hicks]

...they should tell Moore to go back to his million dollar lake house and ask him to stop exploiting them for his next movie.

lol.  yeah, moore is a real johnny come lately on the issue of corporate greed   :roll:

and i believe the end of his last movie called for this type of action.

LOL indeed.

Talk about trying to have it both ways, so people that are lower class have no one but themselves to blame for their situations but Moore got to where he is through exploitation?

[nab]

I could give two shits about Moore personally, lets talk about his ideas.  My opinion of course:


1.  Appeal to fairness.  Broad based and populist.  Class warfare generalizations. 

2.  Again, too general and hard to define.  Ignores the global nature of ecconomics in the 21st century.  More class warfare drivel.

3.  First reasonable suggestion in the list.  Will require a definition of "earnings" to include money made on moving money.  Doesn't address the amount of money already paid by employers on behalf of thier employees into social security and how that factors into "balancing the playing feild".  If Moore's numbers are correct, and the groups in the upper income bracket are in fact paying less SS tax on personal incomes, I could agree that increasing those taxes could better fund SS.  Bottom line, decent suggestion but needs to be worked out a little more.

4.  Agree.  Not too much to comment on this one for me.  I agree with his stance.

5.  See #4.

6.  Shouldn't this be done on a regular basis anyway? 

7.  Appeal to populism again.  I've gone back and forth on this issue.  My current stance:  It's not as scary as the right presents it and its not as easy as the left presents it.  Still under consideration for me. 

8.  Playing to the base.  Regardless of where you stand on cabon fuels, the fact remains that carbon fuels became the standard becasue they were profitable, not because they were govt mandated.  If you want to mandate lower emmisions, fine.  This isn't nessesarily a bad goal, but please stick to the issue at hand.  If you want to work toward the ecconomic side of the carbon fuels issue, go against factors that make the marketplace for alternative energies unfair.

9.  New idea to me, need to think about this one some more.  Positives:  Places the employee in a position of ownership in the company, possibly increasing interest in employee issues and in employee participation, all without a third party (union).  Sounds like a win.  Negative:  Equivicates legally capital and interest ownership in a company.  Apples and oranges imo.

10. 

a.  Wow, did you get that all out there?  1. LOL.  "We'll call them gifts instead".  2.  Sort of like this proposal, but haven't really thought it through yet.  See #1.  3.  Is the fact that elections take place on week days really the prime reason that most people don't vote.  I could see how it could be a contributing factor, but probably a little ways down the list.  Is 9-5 M-F really still the norm for non-union employees?  4. People who want to vote will register themselves.  If you can't take the time to register, how invested are you in making informed decisions.  I'm sure there is a sympathetic NPR spot proving me wrong though.  5.  I agree.  There should be a paper trail for every vote.

b.  I still fail to see how corporate personhood has benefited anyone but the people who run the corporations.  I agree with the sentiment of this point, but question its inclusion in the Constitution.  Is personhood defined in the Constitution?  (serious question here).

c.  Hopefully this list isn't exhausitve.  These issues presented need to be quantified.  Not all of them are as black and white as presented.  See the conversation on education earlier in this tread for an example of context.




My take, worth about two shits.   

   

[Hicks]

At the very least repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.

We were doing just fine before they were instituted.

[runawayjimbo]

...they should tell Moore to go back to his million dollar lake house and ask him to stop exploiting them for his next movie.

lol.  yeah, moore is a real johnny come lately on the issue of corporate greed   :roll:

and i believe the end of his last movie called for this type of action.

I tried to watch that movie, but there was something a couple minutes into it that made me turn it off. If "Capitalism is an evil" was his thesis, I'm glad I did.

I understand that Moore has been preaching this utopian socialist view for a while now. It makes perfect sense that he would embrace the movement. He'll probably even make a big show about donating all of the proceeds of the movie to the movement (since he doesn't need the money). Of course, to get it made and distributed and DVDs pressed, he'll need to embrace many of the capitalistic evils he so loathes. Maybe he should just release it for free over the internet (still using the technological advances made available by ambitious, profit-seeking entities, but much less so).

My problem with him is that he refuses to acknowledge that is is a member of the class that he now vilifies, as if being successful is something he should be ashamed of. I don't doubt that he is sincere in his desire to impose the ideals he preaches, but he's so disingenuous it's hard for me to take him seriously. At least Bernie Sanders has the balls to admit he's a socialist.

LOL indeed.

Talk about trying to have it both ways, so people that are lower class have no one but themselves to blame for their situations but Moore got to where he is through exploitation?

I never said lower class has no one to blame but themselves, you're thinking of Herman Cain. You can distort my words all you want, but it makes me think you'd rather shout down opinions that differ from yours rather than have an intelligent conversation. You should leave that to a certain news organization I may or may not work for (IYO).

[runawayjimbo]

At the very least repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.

We were doing just fine before they were instituted.

The Bush tax cuts decreased rates for everyone. So, to get to your conclusion, you'd have to let them expire for everyone.

I'll play along with nab.

#1
Assuming raising taxes during a recession is a good idea (and it isn't), doesn't Moore understand that raising corporate tax rates (already among the highest in the world) would push more companies out of the country or how it would fail to result in more revenue (since the remaininig companies will continue to use the advantageous favors already written into the complex code)? Also, trading needs to be more transparent, not less; taxing transactions would only create further distortions that would be arbitraged by those with the expertise to do so (i.e., the people Moore is railing against).

#2
Do you want to pay $1000 for an iPhone? How about $10,000 for a new computer? Protectionism is stupid, but when you combine this idea with #1 you are begging companies to flee the country. Free trade has enabled lower to middle class people to afford things they could only dream about 30 years ago and has lifted millions of people around the world out of poverty. This idea would dramatically take back both of those things.

#3
Have to disagree with my friend nab here in that I don't see this as a reasonable suggestion. If Moore wants to tax people in excess of the SS Wage Base (currently $107k), would he pay benefits on the full income as well? If not, then he is changing SS from a retirement program into a welfare program. Also, would companies have to kick in the 6.5% of unlimited wages as well? If so, his first 3 ideas all result in dramatic new taxes on US companies that would directly result in an exodus in businesses. A much more reasonable solution to the SS funding problem IMO would be means testing, which would prevent unreasonable taxation but would make sure the people in need would have the most security.

#4
Glass-Steagall was never repealed, only the provision preventing the merger of investment banks, commercial banks, and insurance companies. This did not create the securitization market or the sub-prime mortgage market or reduce the standards on financial companies leverage ratios. In fact, the companies that fell apart (Bear, Lehman, Countrywide) were exactly the ones that did NOT diversify their operations and have the support of stable commercial banking deposits. Reinstating that provision would not change the banks' excessively risky behavior, especially given the explicit guarantee by the US gov't. Take away the protection of limited liability of the companies' directors and officers, on the other hand, and you would immediately see far more risk averse practices.

#5
I support this idea 100%.

#6
I fully agree the spending priorities need to be reordered, but I have sincere doubts that even after this reshuffling we could afford any of the amenities Moore dreams of.

#9
Why are the rights of the owners of the company subservient to the workers? Why 10,000 employees, why not 5,000? These types of arbitrary demands make for a nice populist sentiment, but they do little to address the issues they purport to correct. And the German example is total nonsense. Of all the reasons for Germany's manufacturing success, little to none of it has to do with letting workers elect 50% of the BoD.

#7, 8 10c
I would love to hear Moore explain how we pay for these things. How can a country who currently spends more than 40% of what it takes in afford free health care, education, and retirement for all? We have $9T in public debt and the debt service is expected to exceed all Social Security spending in 20 years and Moore is talking about massively increasing the size and scope of our spending? This is insanity.

In the last 60 years, the federal gov't collected revenues in excess of 20% of GDP exactly once, under Clinton in FY2000. I have no idea how much Moore's proposals would cost but let's pretend under the rosiest of assumptions that we would need to spend 35% of GDP to do these things (which is probably being far too generous). You simply cannot fund that by raising taxes on the rich and the corporations; you would need to massively raise taxes on everyone, resulting in an even more regressive system (not to mention economic ruin).

[Hicks]

LOL indeed.

Talk about trying to have it both ways, so people that are lower class have no one but themselves to blame for their situations but Moore got to where he is through exploitation?

I never said lower class has no one to blame but themselves, you're thinking of Herman Cain. You can distort my words all you want, but it makes me think you'd rather shout down opinions that differ from yours rather than have an intelligent conversation. You should leave that to a certain news organization I may or may not work for (IYO).

Maybe not quite, but refusing to admit that opportunities are diminished for those that are less privileged is not that far off from the viewpoint of Cain et al.

Inequality will exist, but give everyone the same chance to get ahead. That same chance is diminishing.

Is this really true, though? What is preventing industrious and talented people from going out and getting ahead, whether that is starting a small business or developing the next Twitter?

What's preventing a lower income person from starting the next twitter?  Maybe they don't have a computer or internet access.  Maybe they are too exhausted from working multiple low paying jobs to do anything but scrape by.  It's fucking draining being poor and it's pretty frustrating how little empathy people have for others that are in that situation.

[sls.stormyrider]

the thing about SS tax is that you're only taxed the first 110K or so, but the benefit is also maxed out at 110k. So, if they were to increase the tax so tht everyone pays the same %, what would they do with the benefit? Maybe propose a needs test, just be honest and up front.

I think Moore's "corporation is not a person" stems from the recent (ridiculous) SC decision regarding corporation funding of campaigns.

As far as Moore himself, yes he is a Utopian, but as the article you posted said, we do not live in a free market society - I think theyword they used was cronie capitalism. And face it, there is class warfare - the 1% fix the rules so they stay there. I agree that many of his suggestions sound good but aren't reality.

[rowjimmy]

If I see another fucking right winger cry class warfare when the left tries to level the playing fuel I'm going to flip the fuck out.

The rich have been kicking the shit out of the rest of us for ages now. we've already got class warfare. It's time we fired the fuck back.

[runawayjimbo]

LOL indeed.

Talk about trying to have it both ways, so people that are lower class have no one but themselves to blame for their situations but Moore got to where he is through exploitation?

I never said lower class has no one to blame but themselves, you're thinking of Herman Cain. You can distort my words all you want, but it makes me think you'd rather shout down opinions that differ from yours rather than have an intelligent conversation. You should leave that to a certain news organization I may or may not work for (IYO).

Maybe not quite, but refusing to admit that opportunities are diminished for those that are less privileged is not that far off from the viewpoint of Cain et al.

Inequality will exist, but give everyone the same chance to get ahead. That same chance is diminishing.

Is this really true, though? What is preventing industrious and talented people from going out and getting ahead, whether that is starting a small business or developing the next Twitter?

What's preventing a lower income person from starting the next twitter?  Maybe they don't have a computer or internet access.  Maybe they are too exhausted from working multiple low paying jobs to do anything but scrape by.  It's fucking draining being poor and it's pretty frustrating how little empathy people have for others that are in that situation.

Again, you're either intentionally twisting my words or you misunderstood my point. The reason I mentioned Twitter was not to suggest it's easy to be invent something revolutionary; it was just to contrast with a more common endeavor like opening a small business (which itself is no small feat). But I do believe there are still opportunities for anyone who has an idea, is willing to take a risk and works hard to make it happen (Obama used his story very effectively while he was campaigning to illustrate this). Does that mean every person will ultimately succeed? Unfortunately, no, oftentimes by no fault of their own. But does that mean that people who don't or can't are slackers or failures who don't deserve any respect? Of course not, and I've never said that nor have I alluded to it.

As for the empathy comment (which I assume was directed at me), if you think I don't feel for people who are struggling or that I don't understand that frustration, you are mistaken. Just because I believe that the federal gov't already taxes and spends (and wastes) enough of our money doesn't mean I think people should be left to fend for themselves. In fact, I've talked about how an essential piece of the libertarian position is for people to voluntarily help those in need and I practice that to the extent I can.

So I get that we may not see eye to eye on a lot of things economically, but please don't assume that I have little empathy for people just because I have a different opinion than you. I am convinced that free market principles will benefit everyone, most notably lower to middle income people who would see increases in income mobility and purchasing power through technological advances. We can debate those ideas and whether or not they would have the outcomes I believe or whether it would result in further inequity. But you should know that no one has disdain for the poor and that no one profits from other people's misery.

[Hicks]

If I see another fucking right winger cry class warfare when the left tries to level the playing fuel I'm going to flip the fuck out.

The rich have been kicking the shit out of the rest of us for ages now. we've already got class warfare. It's time we fired the fuck back.

This.

Especially when those that are declaring class warfare are themselves lower or middle class.

It blows my fucking mind how people can take positions that are so diametrically opposed to their own self interest.

[sls.stormyrider]

I am convinced that free market principles will benefit everyone, most notably lower to middle income people who would see increases in income mobility and purchasing power through technological advances.

I agree that govt wastes $, and that obviously should be stopped. I also agree that many regulations, while well meaning, don't work and need to be changed somehow.

the problem, imo, is that the free market really isn't free. the large will dominate and take over the small. It's great that Walmart and Home Depot, and Amazon sell stuff for cheaper, the price we pay for that is the loss of the neighborhood, family owned store, and for that matter the neighborhood "downtown" area. Which way are we better off? ymmv.

To assume that the free market is really free, and all things lie in free market solutions (without government interference) in many ways is just as Utopian as some of Moore's ideas, only from a different POV.

[mbw]

But you should know that no one has disdain for the poor and that no one profits from other people's misery.

is this a typo??

[Hicks]

But you should know that no one has disdain for the poor and that no one profits from other people's misery.

is this a typo??

Seriously, sometimes I have to wonder if the dude himself even believes what he types.

I was gonna type out a long diatribe referencing the hundreds of thousands of dead civilians that scumbags like Halliburton have profited off of and insurance companies that deny claims because of policy technicalities and Goldman Sachs robbing schmucks of their retirement funds, but what's the fucking point.

I'll just say this: when we are drifting off peacefully to sleep in our turkey comas tonight, maybe give a passing thought to all the people that are getting ready to go to work for minimum wage at Walmart or wherever because they will be open at midnight and stay open all night long so spoiled rotten consumers can save a few bucks on a new iPhone or some other piece of crap that was made by wage slaves in China and will be tossed in the trash in a couple years. 

Fuck it, William Burroughs can say it much better than I can:

[runawayjimbo]

To assume that the free market is really free, and all things lie in free market solutions (without government interference) in many ways is just as Utopian as some of Moore's ideas, only from a different POV.

I think you're mistaking the "free" market as it currently exists (which, as you accurately point out, is not actually free) and what I mean when I say free market solutions. A free market to me does not mean "without gov't interference" since responsible regulation - rules that are easy to understand and to implement, are not based on the favored interests of the majority, and (most importantly) apply to all members - is a vital piece of a functioning free market. What I object to is our current system of arbitrary, reactionary rules that are written and then manipulated by the dominant players (oftentimes well-intentioned but foolish politicians) which results in dangerous distortions in demand, supply, price, etc., ultimately hurting those who have the least. It may be utopian in that it will never happen because people have become so dependent on gov't, but I don't see how it's less realistic than free healthcare, education, jobs and retirement for everyone.

But you should know that no one has disdain for the poor and that no one profits from other people's misery.

is this a typo??

Seriously, sometimes I have to wonder if the dude himself even believes what he types.

I was gonna type out a long diatribe referencing the hundreds of thousands of dead civilians that scumbags like Halliburton have profited off of and insurance companies that deny claims because of policy technicalities and Goldman Sachs robbing schmucks of their retirement funds, but what's the fucking point.

I'll just say this: when we are drifting off peacefully to sleep in our turkey comas tonight, maybe give a passing thought to all the people that are getting ready to go to work for minimum wage at Walmart or wherever because they will be open at midnight and stay open all night long so spoiled rotten consumers can save a few bucks on a new iPhone or some other piece of crap that was made by wage slaves in China and will be tossed in the trash in a couple years.

Halliburton didn't kill hundreds of thousands of civilians, the US Army did (commanded by both Republicans and Democrats, BTW). It may not seem fair that insurance companies make every attempt to uphold the terms of their contract (wait, how is that not fair?), but they've also increased access to expensive and life saving care to literally millions of times more people. Goldman can eat a bag of dicks as far as I'm concerned, but I don't see how you can make the argument they (indirectly) stole people's money with the express intention of harming the lower classes. Ask the wage slaves in China if they'd rather make $2 a day or $0 a day.

Especially when those that are declaring class warfare are themselves lower or middle class.

It blows my fucking mind how people can take positions that are so diametrically opposed to their own self interest.

I am middle class, but it blows my mind how people can believe the current Keynesian policies/proposals are for the benefit of one's self interest (unless of course, you're a banker). We're 3 yrs into a recession, how's it working out for people?

I just don't see how we can continue to increase federal spending year after year without ever asking "Do we actually need all this shit?" For all the talk of the "draconian" sequestration (that Congress will likely ignore), spending is projected to increase 40% over the next decade (how you call that a cut is beyond me). Debt service will cost as much as Social Security by 2020. So (to tie it all together), if OWS' only plan is to continue adding a ton of new spending, they'll first have to tell me how to pay for the $15T and counting we already spent.

[mbw]

But you should know that no one has disdain for the poor and that no one profits from other people's misery.

is this a typo??

Seriously, sometimes I have to wonder if the dude himself even believes what he types.

I was gonna type out a long diatribe referencing the hundreds of thousands of dead civilians that scumbags like Halliburton have profited off of and insurance companies that deny claims because of policy technicalities and Goldman Sachs robbing schmucks of their retirement funds, but what's the fucking point.

I'll just say this: when we are drifting off peacefully to sleep in our turkey comas tonight, maybe give a passing thought to all the people that are getting ready to go to work for minimum wage at Walmart or wherever because they will be open at midnight and stay open all night long so spoiled rotten consumers can save a few bucks on a new iPhone or some other piece of crap that was made by wage slaves in China and will be tossed in the trash in a couple years.

Halliburton didn't kill hundreds of thousands of civilians, the US Army did (commanded by both Republicans and Democrats, BTW). It may not seem fair that insurance companies make every attempt to uphold the terms of their contract (wait, how is that not fair?), but they've also increased access to expensive and life saving care to literally millions of times more people. Goldman can eat a bag of dicks as far as I'm concerned, but I don't see how you can make the argument they (indirectly) stole people's money with the express intention of harming the lower classes. Ask the wage slaves in China if they'd rather make $2 a day or $0 a day.

its official, he does believe his own bullshit.