Occupy Wall Street (1 Viewer)

[Fensalk]

What can you say....?...Sometimes that tree of liberty needs to be refreshed.

Absolutely. Let's get rid of big government.

Aside from the poopers and rapers and pee throwers and people of the such....couldn't your sentiment be a facet of what these people are looking for....that big business is too intricately tied into big government?

No. He said big government. Not big business.Personally, I trust big business far more than big government. That's because government acts as a check on big business. But there is no check on big government. I'm a strong believer in checks and balances. Maybe if we had a council of corporations that could review and veto big government actions, I would trust big government to do the right thing a little more. As it stands, big government is clearly is biggest obstacle to success in this country.

 

[Fensalk]

The biggest problem we have is a big government bureaucracy in bed with the unions operating largely unchecked. They funnel money to each other just to keep the gravy train rolling and don't really care what happens to America in the process.

You know, at least with corporations, if they screw up, they go bankrupt, or there can be legal action, or congressional hearing. Jeffery Skilling goes to jail. So the system works when it comes to policing corrupt corporations. But there is so much corruption in big government that no-one can do anything about.

 

[cobalt_27]

Too bad Occupy Wall Street can't agree exactly on what their message is

That was my issue at the outset. It still seems pretty fragmented, but I think if they keep going on with this it's inevitable that a common theme will emerge.By the way, here's an idea I just tweeted.

You posted this in September. Can you or anyone else articulate what the common theme is at this point? They've had over 2 months. Or is this just an excuse to poop in the streets and have it be socially appropriate--and even celebrated?

 

[Nash]

Look at this stat

68% of the Sons of the 1% Work at Their Dad's Company

Nepotism and wealth go together according to a study published in the Journal of Labor Economics. The researchers found that 68 percent of the sons of top-percentile income earners have at some point by the time they're age 33 taken a job at a firm their father also worked. That's significantly higher than the 55 percent rate for the sons of the second-highest percentile of earners and the 40 percent average for all income levels. Though the data was limited to Canadian males, the researchers were able to point to several factors that could be at play, some nepotistic and some not. While high earners tend to be self-employed or at least tend to hold sway over hiring decisions at their companies, the pattern could also involve "the formation of values and preferences" -- basically, that fathers tend to raise kids who would fit into their companies well. Whichever hypotheses turn out to be the most important, one of the study's authors, Miles Corak of the University of Ottawa, thinks it proves that something other than meritocracy is at work. He writes on his blog:

If the members of the top 1 percent are there because of connections or political power—rather than by the force of their talent, energy, and motivation—then we should be rightly critical about claims that they merit their fortunes, and question the contribution they make to economic productivity.

Make your own assessment with the chart from the study below, which graphs that father-son "same firm employment" rate for each income percentile.

That goes hand-in-hand with the poverty trap. Parents in poverty hand down their poverty to their kids by neglecting them. They aren't active in their kids' lives. They don't closely monitor their progress in school. Don't attend PTA meetings. And they certainly don't help them learn a trade, profession, or help them land a job.Wealthy parents are more likely to guide their children growing up and get them jobs when they are adults.

of course my children deserve the advantages that i've worked hard to provide. why else do i work and parent?

 

[guderian]

Look at this stat

68% of the Sons of the 1% Work at Their Dad's Company

Nepotism and wealth go together according to a study published in the Journal of Labor Economics. The researchers found that 68 percent of the sons of top-percentile income earners have at some point by the time they're age 33 taken a job at a firm their father also worked. That's significantly higher than the 55 percent rate for the sons of the second-highest percentile of earners and the 40 percent average for all income levels. Though the data was limited to Canadian males, the researchers were able to point to several factors that could be at play, some nepotistic and some not. While high earners tend to be self-employed or at least tend to hold sway over hiring decisions at their companies, the pattern could also involve "the formation of values and preferences" -- basically, that fathers tend to raise kids who would fit into their companies well. Whichever hypotheses turn out to be the most important, one of the study's authors, Miles Corak of the University of Ottawa, thinks it proves that something other than meritocracy is at work. He writes on his blog:

If the members of the top 1 percent are there because of connections or political power—rather than by the force of their talent, energy, and motivation—then we should be rightly critical about claims that they merit their fortunes, and question the contribution they make to economic productivity.

Make your own assessment with the chart from the study below, which graphs that father-son "same firm employment" rate for each income percentile.

This shows how the OWS crowd is just as greedy as those they protest. If they were sincere about addressing income inequality, they'd be much more active in promoting choice in education. The rich get to choose which schools their kids go to. The poor and middle class are mostly told by the government where to send their kids. One could speculate that's because a certain political party is beholden to teachers' unions. However, OWS seems mostly concerned with corporate money in politics and less so with union money. The most publicized education policy of OWS is "forgive my student loans" whilst they rant against greed.

 

[davidbostonsbicepsfan]

Why are they not in Detroit????

http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/283579/shocker-losses-taxpayers-gm-revised-upward-greg-pollowitz

 

[bueno]

Look at this stat

68% of the Sons of the 1% Work at Their Dad's Company

Nepotism and wealth go together according to a study published in the Journal of Labor Economics. The researchers found that 68 percent of the sons of top-percentile income earners have at some point by the time they're age 33 taken a job at a firm their father also worked. That's significantly higher than the 55 percent rate for the sons of the second-highest percentile of earners and the 40 percent average for all income levels. Though the data was limited to Canadian males, the researchers were able to point to several factors that could be at play, some nepotistic and some not. While high earners tend to be self-employed or at least tend to hold sway over hiring decisions at their companies, the pattern could also involve "the formation of values and preferences" -- basically, that fathers tend to raise kids who would fit into their companies well. Whichever hypotheses turn out to be the most important, one of the study's authors, Miles Corak of the University of Ottawa, thinks it proves that something other than meritocracy is at work. He writes on his blog:

If the members of the top 1 percent are there because of connections or political power—rather than by the force of their talent, energy, and motivation—then we should be rightly critical about claims that they merit their fortunes, and question the contribution they make to economic productivity.

Make your own assessment with the chart from the study below, which graphs that father-son "same firm employment" rate for each income percentile.

OCCUPY YONGE STREET

Or Bay Street

 

[KiddLattimer]

Up here in Albany they're talking about Occupying one of the malls on Black Friday... this can only end badly

 

[Otis]

So it's been over two months now. Is there a published list of demands that could be met to end their "occupation"?

Yes and the first time I read it I was certain it was from The Onion. I think they took it down once they realized they were just embarrassing themselves again.

 

[Otis]

So it's been over two months now. Is there a published list of demands that could be met to end their "occupation"?

lol they now disclaim it as not theirs but a particular member's demands.http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-ows-demands/

 

[Otis]

So it's been over two months now. Is there a published list of demands that could be met to end their "occupation"?

lol they now disclaim it as not theirs but a particular member's demands.http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-ows-demands/

I love how transparent this all is. This list of demands was so clearly written by someone who doesn't like hard work and doesn't want others to be able to work hard even if they want to (which would leave this loser even further in the dust). And things like "Allow workers to elect their supervisors." Clearly coming from a guy who has been peed on by his supervisors at his whole life -- probably deservedly so. Anything else we can do to improve your life for you at the expense of others, loser?

 

[Otis]

Some folks doing the lord's work in here:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/dont-you-people-have-anything-better-to-do/

 

[Fallerjw]

What can you say....?...Sometimes that tree of liberty needs to be refreshed.

Absolutely. Let's get rid of big government.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

What can you say....?...Sometimes that tree of liberty needs to be refreshed.

Absolutely. Let's get rid of big government.

Aside from the poopers and rapers and pee throwers and people of the such....couldn't your sentiment be a facet of what these people are looking for....that big business is too intricately tied into big government?

No. He said big government. Not big business.Personally, I trust big business far more than big government. That's because government acts as a check on big business. But there is no check on big government. I'm a strong believer in checks and balances. Maybe if we had a council of corporations that could review and veto big government actions, I would trust big government to do the right thing a little more. As it stands, big government is clearly is biggest obstacle to success in this country.

1. big business take everything they can when they can - its programmed into its DNA by the profit motive - we only need look back to pre-WWI times to see how business unchecked by regulation will operate2. the check on the government is the people/democracy - at least in theory. that check seems to have been co-opted by monied power, hence the protests.3. we already have a council of corporations that check and veto government actions, its just not formalized - again, this is the essence of what is being protested.

 

[Thunderlips]

What can you say....?...Sometimes that tree of liberty needs to be refreshed.

Absolutely. Let's get rid of big government.

Aside from the poopers and rapers and pee throwers and people of the such....couldn't your sentiment be a facet of what these people are looking for....that big business is too intricately tied into big government?

No. He said big government. Not big business.Personally, I trust big business far more than big government. That's because government acts as a check on big business. But there is no check on big government. I'm a strong believer in checks and balances. Maybe if we had a council of corporations that could review and veto big government actions, I would trust big government to do the right thing a little more. As it stands, big government is clearly is biggest obstacle to success in this country.

The ability for The People to vote isn't a check on Big Government?

 

[Rayderr]

What can you say....?...Sometimes that tree of liberty needs to be refreshed.

Absolutely. Let's get rid of big government.

Aside from the poopers and rapers and pee throwers and people of the such....couldn't your sentiment be a facet of what these people are looking for....that big business is too intricately tied into big government?

No. He said big government. Not big business.Personally, I trust big business far more than big government. That's because government acts as a check on big business. But there is no check on big government. I'm a strong believer in checks and balances. Maybe if we had a council of corporations that could review and veto big government actions, I would trust big government to do the right thing a little more. As it stands, big government is clearly is biggest obstacle to success in this country.

The ability for The People to vote isn't a check on Big Government?

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." -Ben Franklin

 

[jon_mx]

What can you say....?...Sometimes that tree of liberty needs to be refreshed.

Absolutely. Let's get rid of big government.

Aside from the poopers and rapers and pee throwers and people of the such....couldn't your sentiment be a facet of what these people are looking for....that big business is too intricately tied into big government?

No. He said big government. Not big business.Personally, I trust big business far more than big government. That's because government acts as a check on big business. But there is no check on big government. I'm a strong believer in checks and balances. Maybe if we had a council of corporations that could review and veto big government actions, I would trust big government to do the right thing a little more. As it stands, big government is clearly is biggest obstacle to success in this country.

The ability for The People to vote isn't a check on Big Government?

When government consumes 40% of everything and has us $15 trillion in debt, it ain't working. Our biggest problem today is not that business is out of control, it is that government is too big, too inefficient, and too powerful.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

What can you say....?...Sometimes that tree of liberty needs to be refreshed.

Absolutely. Let's get rid of big government.

Aside from the poopers and rapers and pee throwers and people of the such....couldn't your sentiment be a facet of what these people are looking for....that big business is too intricately tied into big government?

No. He said big government. Not big business.Personally, I trust big business far more than big government. That's because government acts as a check on big business. But there is no check on big government. I'm a strong believer in checks and balances. Maybe if we had a council of corporations that could review and veto big government actions, I would trust big government to do the right thing a little more. As it stands, big government is clearly is biggest obstacle to success in this country.

The ability for The People to vote isn't a check on Big Government?

When government consumes 40% of everything and has us $15 trillion in debt, it ain't working. Our biggest problem today is not that business is out of control, it is that government is too big, too inefficient, and too powerful.

gov't is too powerful? Obama is kow-towing to business on almost everything. Bush just let business write the rules. Stop looking at the dummy and see who the ventriloquist is.

 

[Zeff]

What can you say....?...Sometimes that tree of liberty needs to be refreshed.

Absolutely. Let's get rid of big government.

Aside from the poopers and rapers and pee throwers and people of the such....couldn't your sentiment be a facet of what these people are looking for....that big business is too intricately tied into big government?

No. He said big government. Not big business.Personally, I trust big business far more than big government. That's because government acts as a check on big business. But there is no check on big government. I'm a strong believer in checks and balances. Maybe if we had a council of corporations that could review and veto big government actions, I would trust big government to do the right thing a little more. As it stands, big government is clearly is biggest obstacle to success in this country.

The ability for The People to vote isn't a check on Big Government?

When government consumes 40% of everything and has us $15 trillion in debt, it ain't working. Our biggest problem today is not that business is out of control, it is that government is too big, too inefficient, and too powerful.

It's like watching third graders debate.

 

[Fensalk]

What can you say....?...Sometimes that tree of liberty needs to be refreshed.

Absolutely. Let's get rid of big government.

Aside from the poopers and rapers and pee throwers and people of the such....couldn't your sentiment be a facet of what these people are looking for....that big business is too intricately tied into big government?

No. He said big government. Not big business.Personally, I trust big business far more than big government. That's because government acts as a check on big business. But there is no check on big government. I'm a strong believer in checks and balances. Maybe if we had a council of corporations that could review and veto big government actions, I would trust big government to do the right thing a little more. As it stands, big government is clearly is biggest obstacle to success in this country.

The ability for The People to vote isn't a check on Big Government?

That's like saying voting is a check on big business. You need governmental agencies that can review and regulate business. Likewise, being able to vote isn't the same as a non-governmental expert agency, like a panel of corporations, that can review and regulate government.We expect corporations to pay taxes, to create jobs, to fuel the economic engine, but if you believe in checks and balances, they also need to have a pretty big voice when it comes to what government does.

 

[guderian]

So it's been over two months now. Is there a published list of demands that could be met to end their "occupation"?

Yes and the first time I read it I was certain it was from The Onion. I think they took it down once they realized they were just embarrassing themselves again.

Funny thing about this OWS--Otis and I are usually on different sides of the political spectrum, yet the OWS folks have us Somehow I don't think that's what these folks intended...

 

[Otis]

So it's been over two months now. Is there a published list of demands that could be met to end their "occupation"?

Yes and the first time I read it I was certain it was from The Onion. I think they took it down once they realized they were just embarrassing themselves again.

Funny thing about this OWS--Otis and I are usually on different sides of the political spectrum, yet the OWS folks have us Somehow I don't think that's what these folks intended...

That's the beauty of these morons -- they are so incredibly far off the path that pretty much everyone agrees they are idiots. They really are bringing the country together, though I think perhaps in a different way than they had intended.

 

[JerseyToughGuys]

Since it's all over the news this morning,

copious amounts of "awareness" being dropped like bombs on folks.

 

[guderian]

So it's been over two months now. Is there a published list of demands that could be met to end their "occupation"?

Yes and the first time I read it I was certain it was from The Onion. I think they took it down once they realized they were just embarrassing themselves again.

Funny thing about this OWS--Otis and I are usually on different sides of the political spectrum, yet the OWS folks have us Somehow I don't think that's what these folks intended...

That's the beauty of these morons -- they are so incredibly far off the path that pretty much everyone agrees they are idiots. They really are bringing the country together, though I think perhaps in a different way than they had intended.

Occupy Wall Street: Uniting the Productive Since 2011

 

[Thunderlips]

What can you say....?...Sometimes that tree of liberty needs to be refreshed.

Absolutely. Let's get rid of big government.

Aside from the poopers and rapers and pee throwers and people of the such....couldn't your sentiment be a facet of what these people are looking for....that big business is too intricately tied into big government?

No. He said big government. Not big business.Personally, I trust big business far more than big government. That's because government acts as a check on big business. But there is no check on big government. I'm a strong believer in checks and balances. Maybe if we had a council of corporations that could review and veto big government actions, I would trust big government to do the right thing a little more. As it stands, big government is clearly is biggest obstacle to success in this country.

The ability for The People to vote isn't a check on Big Government?

That's like saying voting is a check on big business. You need governmental agencies that can review and regulate business. Likewise, being able to vote isn't the same as a non-governmental expert agency, like a panel of corporations, that can review and regulate government.We expect corporations to pay taxes, to create jobs, to fuel the economic engine, but if you believe in checks and balances, they also need to have a pretty big voice when it comes to what government does.

You didn't really answer my question, but that's cool.At the end of the day, I still have faith in the American people to do the right thing. I don't have it in the corporations to do that. My faith in Government is a bit better due to the opinion that I think the American people have the ability to have a tighter rein on Government....and that Government intervention in Big Business has been a staple of the national economy going back to post WWII. These OWS, aside from the poopers and rapers, are nothing more than the opposite side of the same coin to the Tea Baggers; they see something wrong with their country and are trying to bring attention to it.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

The ability for The People to vote isn't a check on Big Government?

No, it isn't. For some reason, everybody on the left understands this point when we're talking about invading other nations, torturing prisoners, wiretapping phone lines without a warrant, etc. But as soon as the topic moves away from those particular areas into a more general discussion of government, then you have people arguing that governments can never really get out of line as long as people can vote. I've never understood why people don't see the more general lesson here.

 

[Thunderlips]

The ability for The People to vote isn't a check on Big Government?

No, it isn't. For some reason, everybody on the left understands this point when we're talking about invading other nations, torturing prisoners, wiretapping phone lines without a warrant, etc. But as soon as the topic moves away from those particular areas into a more general discussion of government, then you have people arguing that governments can never really get out of line as long as people can vote. I've never understood why people don't see the more general lesson here.

You haven't changed my mind....but that's cool.

 

[jon_mx]

What can you say....?...Sometimes that tree of liberty needs to be refreshed.

Absolutely. Let's get rid of big government.

Aside from the poopers and rapers and pee throwers and people of the such....couldn't your sentiment be a facet of what these people are looking for....that big business is too intricately tied into big government?

No. He said big government. Not big business.Personally, I trust big business far more than big government. That's because government acts as a check on big business. But there is no check on big government. I'm a strong believer in checks and balances. Maybe if we had a council of corporations that could review and veto big government actions, I would trust big government to do the right thing a little more. As it stands, big government is clearly is biggest obstacle to success in this country.

The ability for The People to vote isn't a check on Big Government?

When government consumes 40% of everything and has us $15 trillion in debt, it ain't working. Our biggest problem today is not that business is out of control, it is that government is too big, too inefficient, and too powerful.

gov't is too powerful? Obama is kow-towing to business on almost everything. Bush just let business write the rules. Stop looking at the dummy and see who the ventriloquist is.

That is a nice narrative from whacky leftwing land. You do realize Bush is not in the legislative branch and does not write rules? People like Dodd and Frank wrote a lot of the rules and ignored Bush's warnings concerning the housing bubble. The bi-partisan repeal of Glass-Steagall under Clinton was more responsible than any other act. Obama is hardly kow-towing to anyone. They are regulating banks so much right now banks are terrified to lend. New health care requirements are not exactly kow-towing either. Certainly we are not at the point of totalitarianism where government completely controls production and distribution of goods, but that is not because Obama would not like too, our laws don't allow that.

 

[Tango]

The ability for The People to vote isn't a check on Big Government?

No, it isn't. For some reason, everybody on the left understands this point when we're talking about invading other nations, torturing prisoners, wiretapping phone lines without a warrant, etc. But as soon as the topic moves away from those particular areas into a more general discussion of government, then you have people arguing that governments can never really get out of line as long as people can vote. I've never understood why people don't see the more general lesson here.

You haven't changed my mind....but that's cool.

We should not need the government's help to shut down corporations that are not serving their customers. The people can and often do shut them down and have have done so many, many times right up to today; but our power to do so is dwindling because of government intervention/i.e. corporatism. We dont need George W's help or Obama's help to shut them down unless they have monopoly power or are defrauding people. If the corps f you over, then our strong government (acting as referee, not a player) needs to be there to hold them accountable for fraud or for having monopolistic power, but right now many large corps and govt are in bed with one another.What our system needs to do is to bring the power back to the people and out of the govt/corporations hands and that is done through deregulation and re-establishing a strong government that encourages free competition and not picks and chooses corporate winners (for the worst example of corporatism, see Obamacare or, for the 2nd worst, see Bush's drug program).

Whether my fellow citizens at OWS want to admit it or not, this is mostly a failure of government over-reach; a gov't that is all too willing to not stop at its role of strong, impartial referee in the capitalistic system and instead, to increase its own power, abuses its power as referee to move the goal-posts around for the players (i.e. corps) depending on who lobbies best or, worst of all, attempts to become a referee and player at the same time.

As much as I like him on other issues, perhaps the biggest idiot on TV right now is Jon Stewart mainly because he operates under an assumption that the battle that is being waged is government vs corporations; that is 100% false and misleading. It's the corporations and the gov't conspiring together against the freedom of individuals; that's the battle we are fighting here.

 

[guderian]

1. big business take everything they can when they can - its programmed into its DNA by the profit motive - we only need look back to pre-WWI times to see how business unchecked by regulation will operate2. the check on the government is the people/democracy - at least in theory. that check seems to have been co-opted by monied power, hence the protests.3. we already have a council of corporations that check and veto government actions, its just not formalized - again, this is the essence of what is being protested.

The only way you change #1 is by moving to a non-capitalist system. You either have a capitalist system or socialism/communism. As you said, the 'check' on business in a capitalist system is the government. So why are we protesting businesses for executing their role? If the rules were wrong, who's fault is that? If the rules were ignored, who's fault is it for not prosecuting the guilty? It seems to me that the logical problem is the government--not Wall Street or the business community. If fast drivers successfully lobby to have the speed limit raised to 100 mph, why protest speeders for driving 100? If they drive 120 and still no one does anything about it, why protest the speeders? That's why these protests are really about class warfare, anti-capitalism and redistribution of wealth. Their actions say that's what they're protesting against because if they were protesting the government being co-opted, they should all be in DC.

 

[jon_mx]

1. big business take everything they can when they can - its programmed into its DNA by the profit motive - we only need look back to pre-WWI times to see how business unchecked by regulation will operate2. the check on the government is the people/democracy - at least in theory. that check seems to have been co-opted by monied power, hence the protests.3. we already have a council of corporations that check and veto government actions, its just not formalized - again, this is the essence of what is being protested.

The only way you change #1 is by moving to a non-capitalist system. You either have a capitalist system or socialism/communism. As you said, the 'check' on business in a capitalist system is the government. So why are we protesting businesses for executing their role? If the rules were wrong, who's fault is that? If the rules were ignored, who's fault is it for not prosecuting the guilty? It seems to me that the logical problem is the government--not Wall Street or the business community. If fast drivers successfully lobby to have the speed limit raised to 100 mph, why protest speeders for driving 100? If they drive 120 and still no one does anything about it, why protest the speeders? That's why these protests are really about class warfare, anti-capitalism and redistribution of wealth. Their actions say that's what they're protesting against because if they were protesting the government being co-opted, they should all be in DC.

Good point. If we wanted the police to crack down on criminals, it wouldn't make much sense to go to some random criminal's house and protest.

 

[badmojo1006]

One day after pepper-spraying, UC Davis students silently, peacefully confront Chancellor Katehi

 

[Steve Tasker]

Chancellor Katehi sounds like a Star Wars character.

 

[dickey moe]

1. big business take everything they can when they can - its programmed into its DNA by the profit motive - we only need look back to pre-WWI times to see how business unchecked by regulation will operate2. the check on the government is the people/democracy - at least in theory. that check seems to have been co-opted by monied power, hence the protests.3. we already have a council of corporations that check and veto government actions, its just not formalized - again, this is the essence of what is being protested.

The only way you change #1 is by moving to a non-capitalist system. You either have a capitalist system or socialism/communism. As you said, the 'check' on business in a capitalist system is the government. So why are we protesting businesses for executing their role? If the rules were wrong, who's fault is that? If the rules were ignored, who's fault is it for not prosecuting the guilty? It seems to me that the logical problem is the government--not Wall Street or the business community. If fast drivers successfully lobby to have the speed limit raised to 100 mph, why protest speeders for driving 100? If they drive 120 and still no one does anything about it, why protest the speeders? That's why these protests are really about class warfare, anti-capitalism and redistribution of wealth. Their actions say that's what they're protesting against because if they were protesting the government being co-opted, they should all be in DC.

The protestors aren't protesting the "government" because they would be protesting against their own side -- these people elected Obama and put boatloads of politicians into office in 2008. I suppose they could choose to limit their focus to the current House of Representatives, but that wouldn't have much credibility now, would it?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

gov't is too powerful? Obama is kow-towing to business on almost everything. Bush just let business write the rules. Stop looking at the dummy and see who the ventriloquist is.

That's why the government's expansive scope of power is problematic. If the government's powers were limited, business wouldn't bother cozying up to it, and we wouldn't care if it did.The ventriloquist is impotent to rig the law in his own favor, except through the dummy.

 

[D_House]

Since it's all over the news this morning,

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

gov't is too powerful? Obama is kow-towing to business on almost everything. Bush just let business write the rules. Stop looking at the dummy and see who the ventriloquist is.

That's why the government's expansive scope of power is problematic. If the government's powers were limited, business wouldn't bother cozying up to it, and we wouldn't care if it did.The ventriloquist is impotent to rig the law in his own favor, except through the dummy.

Big government expansive scope has also given us many good things too that wouldn't have happened without its reach. Government can actually enact things that are in the people's interest over business or monied interests. I would rather have something powerful enough to stand up to big business or any other 500 pound gorilla that can also be a zombie for other interests if co-opted than have no instrument powerful enough to stand up to very powerful entities.in other words, government doesn't mess things up, government in the hands of the wrong people messes things up. the NRA should love this argument.

 

[The Comedian]

1. big business take everything they can when they can - its programmed into its DNA by the profit motive - we only need look back to pre-WWI times to see how business unchecked by regulation will operate2. the check on the government is the people/democracy - at least in theory. that check seems to have been co-opted by monied power, hence the protests.3. we already have a council of corporations that check and veto government actions, its just not formalized - again, this is the essence of what is being protested.

Businesses exist to make a profit. They are not completely unregulated.You may characterize #2 and #3, both of which I sympathize with, as the "essence" of what is being protested, but that's the problem with OWS - there is no essence of the protest. Some people want to do away with capitalism. Some just don't want banks. Actually some want to scrap the monetary system in general. Some want to legalize marijuana. Some want more government handouts. Some want free college tuition. Some want to get out of Iraq. Most, I think, are just angry at rich people, and want them to give them more money via the government.If Sigmund Bloom were elected chairman of the OWS movement, I would take it seriously. The problem is they have no direction, no leadership, and from what I've seen, no one as articulate or intelligent as you, or most of the population of the FFA. OWS is just a mass of annoying people sitting in a park, now clashing with police, with each of them having a different idea as to why they're there.

 

[The Comedian]

I don't know the legal ground upon which it is built, but personally, I wish we could do away with corporate personhood. I don't think corporations should be able to donate to political candidates or campaigns at all as it disadvantages the common voter, who I think should have more of the influence. I think this idea would be in line, in general, with the OWS ideas, but that doesn't mean I'm automatically a supporter of the movement, which I'm not, because I think it's mostly absurd.

 

[oso diablo]

in other words, government doesn't mess things up, government in the hands of the wrong people messes things up. the NRA should love this argument.

but Big Business had its flaws embedded in its DNA, right?

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

in other words, government doesn't mess things up, government in the hands of the wrong people messes things up. the NRA should love this argument.

but Big Business had its flaws embedded in its DNA, right?

perhaps if people lived in groups of a few hundred, we could do without government, but otherwise I'm not sure how we humans can function without some people whose full-time job it is to look after the superstructure of our civilization - you know rule of law and personal property and what-not.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

If Sigmund Bloom were elected chairman of the OWS movement, I would take it seriously.

seriously, I consider that quite a compliment coming from you.I'll get crackin on it as soon as football season is over.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

in other words, government doesn't mess things up, government in the hands of the wrong people messes things up. the NRA should love this argument.

but Big Business had its flaws embedded in its DNA, right?

perhaps if people lived in groups of a few hundred, we could do without government, but otherwise I'm not sure how we humans can function without some people whose full-time job it is to look after the superstructure of our civilization - you know rule of law and personal property and what-not.

Nobody is arguing in favor of abolishing the government. The argument is that unless you keep the size/scope of government severely constrained, it has an inherent tendency to do the kind of stuff you and the OWS people are objecting to. This is NOT just a case of having the "wrong" kind of people in government. A government that gets itself in a position to pick winners and losers is inherently going to find itself with these sorts of people in positions of influence.

 

[Apple Jack]

in other words, government doesn't mess things up, government in the hands of the wrong people messes things up. the NRA should love this argument.

but Big Business had its flaws embedded in its DNA, right?

perhaps if people lived in groups of a few hundred, we could do without government, but otherwise I'm not sure how we humans can function without some people whose full-time job it is to look after the superstructure of our civilization - you know rule of law and personal property and what-not.

Nobody is arguing in favor of abolishing the government. The argument is that unless you keep the size/scope of government severely constrained, it has an inherent tendency to do the kind of stuff you and the OWS people are objecting to. This is NOT just a case of having the "wrong" kind of people in government. A government that gets itself in a position to pick winners and losers is inherently going to find itself with these sorts of people in positions of influence.

Are you suggesting get rid of Congress? Who will make the laws? Or are you saying no laws? Because you can strip all the "big government" away and you still are going to be left with people who make the laws and appropriate whatever money there is to be appropriated. As long as there is that, in this system, there is going to be widespread corruption. That's the OWS's issue.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

in other words, government doesn't mess things up, government in the hands of the wrong people messes things up. the NRA should love this argument.

but Big Business had its flaws embedded in its DNA, right?

perhaps if people lived in groups of a few hundred, we could do without government, but otherwise I'm not sure how we humans can function without some people whose full-time job it is to look after the superstructure of our civilization - you know rule of law and personal property and what-not.

Nobody is arguing in favor of abolishing the government. The argument is that unless you keep the size/scope of government severely constrained, it has an inherent tendency to do the kind of stuff you and the OWS people are objecting to. This is NOT just a case of having the "wrong" kind of people in government. A government that gets itself in a position to pick winners and losers is inherently going to find itself with these sorts of people in positions of influence.

big problem require big solutions. constraining the size/scope of gov't on ideological grounds isn't going to get us any closer to solutions because there is nothing in the private sector that is going to solve our many connected problems (poverty, health care, education, and so on). Government is just an apparatus for us to exercise our collective will, no inherent tendencies to do anything really, just what we command/allow it to do.

 

[mr roboto]

You guys figure out what these hippies want yet?

 

[Fensalk]

So as was widely expected, the police weren't perfect, made a mistake somewhere, and now the media will try to use it to fuel faux outrage and further protests. Meanwhile, they excuse acts of violence on the part of AWS members as not representative of the movement. Standard playbook by the left everyone can see a mile away.

 

[TylerRoseFan]

You guys figure out what these hippies want yet?

Free stuff.

 

[mr roboto]

You guys figure out what these hippies want yet?

Free stuff.

#### yea, me too!

 

[Otis]

Since it's all over the news this morning,