Occupy As A Means To Financial Reform

[midas]

Can Occupy Wall Street transform Obama into a great Lincolnian president (sans Ford's theater)?

ALREADY, these wonderful protests have completely changed the political dialog in America from a right wing dominated one (deficits, the "evils" of Obamacare) to a clearly left wing one (massive unemployment, unjust economic inequality).

So will Obama be pushed left by OWS to fight for the people? It hasn't happened yet. Time will tell.

So has the agitation of Occupy Wall Street begun to change the context of our discussion. Politicians and commentators who had been silent about economic inequality and the excesses of the financial sector are finally facing up to economic injustice and the irresponsibility of the financial elites. In the meantime, Obama’s moderation has won him absolutely nothing. Having done much to save Wall Street and the banks, he receives in return only ingratitude and criticism. Bankers and financiers who needed the rest of America to bail them out now respond arrogantly when the rest of America complains about the unpaid promissory note it holds.

...

By following Lincoln’s example and acting against the injustices of our time, Obama could also come to occupy the high ground.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lincoln-points-obama-to-the-high-ground/2011/10/19/gIQANh7kyL_story.html

If the “Occupy” Movement and Tea Party Join Together, We Can End the Malignant Partnership Between Big Government

Sorry to spoil the party Jingthing

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/%3F-older-posts-if-%E2%80%9Coccupy%E2%80%9D-movement-and-tea-party-join-together-we-can-end-malignant-part

[Jingthing]

Not going to happen. Tea party people are addicted to Fox News. Fox News has thoroughly demonized the Occupy movement. The majority of Americans support the goals of the Occupy movement. You can't say the same thing about the radical right wing fringe tea party. Also, on social issues the tea party are total fascists. I agree they agree on some limited things.

[midas]

Best Occupy Video

[Jingthing]

The FDR quote was stellar. Onward Occupy!

[IMA_FARANG]

Probably essentially useless for me to post this here.

My opinion anyway...and what do I know.

I don't believe any real reform of the "economic system" is possible...unless...:

The current system is a "top down" system.

Profits from investments and other financial deals are poured in at the top.

In theory these profits "trickle down" to those below.

The problem is that by the time any profits trickle down to the majority from the wealthy above, only the dregs are left.

So the majority effectively pay with their need to maintain the lifestyle of the well-off.

The only way to change that is to make the well-off pay more taxes.

Now I can hear a lot of you fuming with anger already.

I'm just a simple person, I know I can't spend more than I earn or I'll go broke.

In my opinion no "inter-linked global economic system" (or whatever buzz-word terminology you want to use) changes that simple fact.

That applies to countries, economies, financial institutions, or whatever.

That's why I support occupation...as in Occupy Wall Street.

It's not a perfect answer...far from it. But right now it's all we, the majority have going for us.

We need to change the way the economic system runs...from "top down"...if not to "bottom up" at least to "majority up".

End of sermon...now you can all start screaming at me.

[flying]

The only way to change that is to make the well-off pay more taxes.

What would stop the well off....or at least the ones still producing in the US

from leaving?

That aside what exactly does more taxes (Federal income taxes) buy anyone?

More funding for wars that for the most part We The People do not support?

More funding for bailing out the banks that made bad bets & now want to unload those bad

assets on We The People?

More handouts in financial aid to countries like Israel & Egypt?

Or worse yet to countries we owe money to yet the aid is not deducted from the debt?

How about instead we cut income taxes out altogether?

Talk about trickle down.... Instead the peoples income would not leave in the first place.

Where would that money probably be spent? Yes probably right here at home....Now that is

more than waiting for trickles.

Impossible?

Using 2007 as an example.....

Income tax makes up approximately 40% of the federal revenues. If the Federal Government were shrunk to

roughly 1997 size that would be equal to a 40% reduction.

Can we live with a Federal Government of 1997 size? He11 we can live with a lot less than that.

The answer does not lay in increasing taxes & government size....Because when you increase taxes you will of course increase government size/spending. They are already a bloated behemoth that we can no longer support....nor should we.

The first ax to fall should be on government size/spending.. especially spending that which they do not have.

Of course it is a pill they will never swallow on their own.

Edited October 22, 2011 by flying

[waza]

The only way to change that is to make the well-off pay more taxes.

What would stop the well off....or at least the ones still producing in the US

from leaving?

That aside what exactly does more taxes (Federal income taxes) buy anyone?

More funding for wars that for the most part We The People do not support?

More funding for bailing out the banks that made bad bets & now want to unload those bad

assets on We The People?

More handouts in financial aid to countries like Israel & Egypt?

Or worse yet to countries we owe money to yet the aid is not deducted from the debt?

How about instead we cut income taxes out altogether?

Talk about trickle down.... Instead the peoples income would not leave in the first place.

Where would that money probably be spent? Yes probably right here at home....Now that is

more than waiting for trickles.

Impossible?

Using 2007 as an example.....

Income tax makes up approximately 40% of the federal revenues. If the Federal Government were shrunk to

roughly 1997 size that would be equal to a 40% reduction.

Can we live with a Federal Government of 1997 size? He11 we can live with a lot less than that.

The answer does not lay in increasing taxes & government size....Because when you increase taxes you will of course increase government size/spending. They are already a bloated behemoth that we can no longer support....nor should we.

The first ax to fall should be on government size/spending.. especially spending that which they do not have.

Of course it is a pill they will never swallow on their own.

Great idea, but you dont pay much income tax when your unemployed.

[waza]

Probably essentially useless for me to post this here.

My opinion anyway...and what do I know.

I don't believe any real reform of the "economic system" is possible...unless...:

The current system is a "top down" system.

Profits from investments and other financial deals are poured in at the top.

In theory these profits "trickle down" to those below.

The problem is that by the time any profits trickle down to the majority from the wealthy above, only the dregs are left.

So the majority effectively pay with their need to maintain the lifestyle of the well-off.

The only way to change that is to make the well-off pay more taxes.

Now I can hear a lot of you fuming with anger already.

I'm just a simple person, I know I can't spend more than I earn or I'll go broke.

In my opinion no "inter-linked global economic system" (or whatever buzz-word terminology you want to use) changes that simple fact.

That applies to countries, economies, financial institutions, or whatever.

That's why I support occupation...as in Occupy Wall Street.

It's not a perfect answer...far from it. But right now it's all we, the majority have going for us.

We need to change the way the economic system runs...from "top down"...if not to "bottom up" at least to "majority up".

End of sermon...now you can all start screaming at me.

Good post

[Pakboong]

Probably essentially useless for me to post this here.

My opinion anyway...and what do I know.

I don't believe any real reform of the "economic system" is possible...unless...:

The current system is a "top down" system.

Profits from investments and other financial deals are poured in at the top.

In theory these profits "trickle down" to those below.

The problem is that by the time any profits trickle down to the majority from the wealthy above, only the dregs are left.

So the majority effectively pay with their need to maintain the lifestyle of the well-off.

The only way to change that is to make the well-off pay more taxes.

Now I can hear a lot of you fuming with anger already.

I'm just a simple person, I know I can't spend more than I earn or I'll go broke.

In my opinion no "inter-linked global economic system" (or whatever buzz-word terminology you want to use) changes that simple fact.

That applies to countries, economies, financial institutions, or whatever.

That's why I support occupation...as in Occupy Wall Street.

It's not a perfect answer...far from it. But right now it's all we, the majority have going for us.

We need to change the way the economic system runs...from "top down"...if not to "bottom up" at least to "majority up".

End of sermon...now you can all start screaming at me.

How the well off actually got well off seems to me to be at issue. If the game is rigged in their favor, there is no way the poor will tolerate such as that. Otherwise, there will always be disparity between rich and poor and the right to be rich, is not in question.

[midas]

Probably essentially useless for me to post this here.

My opinion anyway...and what do I know.

I don't believe any real reform of the "economic system" is possible...unless...:

The current system is a "top down" system.

Profits from investments and other financial deals are poured in at the top.

In theory these profits "trickle down" to those below.

The problem is that by the time any profits trickle down to the majority from the wealthy above, only the dregs are left.

So the majority effectively pay with their need to maintain the lifestyle of the well-off.

The only way to change that is to make the well-off pay more taxes.

Now I can hear a lot of you fuming with anger already.

I'm just a simple person, I know I can't spend more than I earn or I'll go broke.

In my opinion no "inter-linked global economic system" (or whatever buzz-word terminology you want to use) changes that simple fact.

That applies to countries, economies, financial institutions, or whatever.

That's why I support occupation...as in Occupy Wall Street.

It's not a perfect answer...far from it. But right now it's all we, the majority have going for us.

We need to change the way the economic system runs...from "top down"...if not to "bottom up" at least to "majority up".

End of sermon...now you can all start screaming at me.

ok,how do you reconcile the likes of Michael Moore sitting on $50 million and then

stoking up the crowd about the evils of being rich?

[Jingthing]

Moore was a major inspiration for Occupy Wall Street. If you don't believe that, watch the ending monologue from his last film, Capitalism A Love Story.

[Jingthing]

I find this relevant to our discussion.

The things in common and not in common between the right wing tea party and the left wing Occupy movement:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/for-tea-party-and-occupy-wall-street-movements-some-common-ground/2011/10/18/gIQAkIg07L_story_2.html

They agreed on the problem: a power structure that lets elected officials pay lip service to the voters and then do the bidding of the companies and unions that pay their way.

They agreed on what got us here: Wall Street firms that made irresponsible bets that brought down the housing market, employers that exported jobs by the millions, ever-widening income inequality across the nation.

They found common ground about tactics: Whether through tea party rallies or Occupy encampments, it’s imperative to become an irritant, to grab the attention of fellow Americans who might otherwise watch a TV dance contest.

But there would be no “Kumbaya” moment. Their differences over solutions were too great. They both found President Obama to be a huge disappointment, but the tea party man wanted a president who would liberate business, reduce spending and cut taxes, and Reges craved a leader who would make government an activist in creating jobs, building infrastructure and wielding tax authority to reduce inequalities. “We voted for Obama for change, hope, creating new jobs, and what we see is concessions to the right again and again,” Reges said.

[midas]

It works both ways, the bankers were wrong to give out the loans, and the people were idiots to borrow more than they knew they could pay, especially going into the real estate bubble.

here is another way of expressing that the Banskters want it all one-way

Woman speaks planily about Irish Banking at Occupy Dame Street 22 Oct 2011 .mp4

“If the banks won’t share their profits, then why are we being asked to share in their losses?’

[beechguy]

I just said it works both ways and I didn't say it was 50-50.

Just to set the record sraight, I'm not in favor of bailing out the banks or any other business for that matter, but I'm also not in favor of bailing out people who over estimated their financial situation, especially the speculators that were so sure they were going to get rich in real estate. If it was predatory lending then let the legal system deal with it. If we are going to bail out people, should people that lost money in stocks and bonds be included?

I haven't seen any law requiring people to use a bank, however convenient it is though. But I haven't applied for a mortgage or a car loan in over 15 years.

[midas]

USA Today recently called the Occupiers a “ragtag assortment of college kids, labor unionists, conspiracy theorists and others” hinting they’re a flash-in-the-pan “devoid of remedies ”

But then just look back at that famous painting of George Washington crossing the Delaware on Christmas 1776, leading what historians also called a “ragtag” Continental Army, surprising the British, and winning the Battle of Trenton. !

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/eu-bank-failures-will-crash-wall-street-again-2011-10-18

[midas]

How about Occupy London? Right or Left??

Left. Obviously.

Next ...

Jingthing you have repeatedly claimed the " proprietorship " of OWS belongs to the left but with this latest

event involving a shooting by police in Oakland things are becoming very confusing

first we had Obama failing to push for prosecution of any of those responsible for this financial crisis.

Now we have the President of the United States who voices his so-called support of the protesters on TV news on the one hand

and yet at the same time firstly turns a blind eye to the use of tear gas on protesters. Now you could say he has been complicit in allowing police brutality of the most extreme kind to the extent that even Arab nations are shocked after seeing video footage of this event that has gone viral on the Internet.

The President is supposed to be the most powerful person in the world so why does it appear once again he is clearly screwing the ordinary people? With one stroke of an Executive Order he has the power to stop any further police brutality against the people

he claims he supports so why doesn't he do this?

Does this show once and for all his true nature?

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/egyptian-brutality-comes-america-police-fire-rubber-bullets-peaceful-protesters

Edited October 27, 2011 by midas

[Naam]

Does this show once and for all his true nature?

no doubt about that. add the fact that he was born in Kenya, goes for friday prayers in a Mosque camouflaged as a Hindu Temple Christian Church, not liked by Flying...

[flying]

Does this show once and for all his true nature?

no doubt about that. add the fact that he was born in Kenya, goes for friday prayers in a Mosque camouflaged as a Hindu Temple Christian Church, not liked by Flying...

To be fair there are no politicians...or lawyers for that matter that I like...except maybe Ron Paul

But if I had a choice I would not need any politicians or lawyers at all.

[cloudhopper]

Disturbing- http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/10/license-to-lie-most-transparent.html

[midas]

Disturbing- http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/10/license-to-lie-most-transparent.html

from the article

" Wrongly accused persons might go to prison or guilty persons purposely protected based on this law.

All that is required is for some government official (possibly protecting himself or his department) to think information is "too sensitive".

And they could end up in a Corrections Corporation of America Private facility in which

Goldman Sachs and American Express are major shareholders. What a world we are heading into

[Jingthing]

Does this show once and for all his true nature?

no doubt about that. add the fact that he was born in Kenya, goes for friday prayers in a Mosque camouflaged as a Hindu Temple Christian Church, not liked by Flying...

President Obama has no jurisdiction over the Oakland, California police department.

The person you want to complain to is the MAYOR OF OAKLAND!

Duh.

[flying]

President Obama has no jurisdiction over the Oakland, California police department.

The person you want to complain to is the MAYOR OF OAKLAND!

Duh.

Weak............

Yes we would not want our elected president to speak out against such things.

We would not want him to do as he did with Libya

Speaking about the Libyan revolution in March, Obama hailed “the rights of peaceful assembly, free speech, and the ability of the Libyan people to determine their own destiny,”

No can't have that....Because after all he is Cream Of Nothing

Edited October 27, 2011 by flying

[Jingthing]

Anything who seriously believes Obama is opposed to the rights of all Americans to protest is simply completely blinded by toxic hatred of Obama. It's a pathetic attack line you are trying.

Actually, who do you think you're fooling anyway? The rapidly fading right wing movement that is obsessed with demonizing Obama is the Tea Party, not Occupy.

No of course Occupy doesn't exist to promote Obama, but you can't escape the obvious left wing orientation of this exciting, rapidly growing people's movement. The fact the economic inequality kills people is now back again in the public debate for the first time in many decades.

Edited October 27, 2011 by Jingthing

[flying]

Anything who seriously believes Obama is opposed to the rights of all Americans to protest is simply completely blinded by toxic hatred of Obama. It's a pathetic attack line you are trying. Get back to the topic, OCCUPY, OK?

ummm it is on topic & we are speaking about the occupy & its results.....which in turn is earning the usual blind eye from the usual promise the world & ignore the requests of his employers....Except of course those he bails due to campaign contributions.

It is not a fawn over the prez thread.....OK?

The occupy movement is just a continuation of what we have seen since 2009....Dissatisfaction

Same as we see in many countries worldwide.

To that end the prez is consistent...... same as he ignored the crowds on 9-12-09 while he flew right over them in

Marine One....Later claiming he was not aware they were there.....Yeah....easy to miss such a tiny crowd

Same as now he will easily miss all the news on the tube & in the papers today.

He will not speak out for the rights of his own country....Neither will the chubby one Hillary.

Yet they will claim loudly for other countries the rights they speak nothing of for their own.

While Rome Burns

[canuckamuck]

Heard a good one today. The protestors are known as the "flea party" LOL.

Flea Party, perfect.

They should be happy with this moniker. It is easier to say than: Dirty hippies casting blame on society to compensate for and to hide their own failings and demanding handouts while becoming the newest useful idiots pushing the perpetually failing communist ideology party.

[Jingthing]

You just talked up a Tea Party protest! A virulently right wing protest. This is absurd. Except for a few areas of agreement, both poles are frustrated and desire radical change, they are indeed polar opposites. You expected Obama to respond to the Fox News tea party, the same group calling him a communist, calling him a non-American? Why would he? On the other hand in the last few days, wisely without mentioning the Occupy movement because it is indeed bigger than partisan politics, Obama has suggested Occupy friendly legislation related to both suffering homeowners and holders of student loan debt. Really, if your only agenda is demonizing Obama, I don't feel that you belong with the Occupy movement. Really, face the reality. Tea party fascists want to kill so called Obamacare and let people who can't get access to care to simply die. Occupy movement is now clearly consolidating over the UNIVERSAL single payer left wing health care solution. Yes the Occupy movement has big issues with Obama, mainly because Obama is not nearly left wing ENOUGH.

Edited October 27, 2011 by Jingthing

[flying]

You just talked up a Tea Party protest! A virulently right wing protest. Really, if your only agenda is demonizing Obama, ......I don't feel that you belong with the Occupy movement.

Silly boy.....We were talking about these things years before you were here or even aware of them.

I did not talk up the tea party I said this is a continuation of the dissatisfaction the citizens of the USA feel.

All these things were born out of the bail outs. Unlike you I do not cheer a side.... I talk about the causes & effects.

You do not feel? I live in the US & feel more than you can imagine. I am not an X-Pat....Remember if I did not bring it to your attention in the world news section you did not even know of it till it was 12 days underway. At that time you claimed you were following it on Countdown

Try to stick to the topic....

EDIT: PS if you change your posts after I post your quotes may seem confusing...

Again try to stay on topic...It is not about Obama care...Left, Right, yada yada yada etc etc etc.

Edited October 27, 2011 by flying

[Jingthing]

Look, I know your posting history and there is no doubt about your sold far right wing bias. No wonder you can't get behind the politics of Occupy. What right winger could? Why wouldn't you want to pick a side? Most Americans have and Occupy now has MUCH more people's support than the reactionary tea party. Tea party said nothing about issues like economic inequality and the suffering of poor people. It was more about angry white men pissed their taxes are too high.

Edited October 27, 2011 by Jingthing

[flying]

Look, I know your posting history and there is no doubt about your sold far right wing bias.

Again you have just proven how little you know about my thoughts or the movements in general. If you did you would know I often say left wing...right wing...same corrupt bird.

Try to stick to the topic if you have anything real to add.

Edited October 27, 2011 by flying

[BEENTHEREDONETHAT]

I agree with Flying who could or would want to pick a side when they are both totally corrupt. Just because you don't like one side does not mean you like the other. I don't think JT can comprehend that. He feels you either have to be one side or the other.