When Occupy Wall Streen Accomplishes Nothing - You heard it here first

reply to post by L00kingGlass


Ya, I'm late to the conversation. Whatever.

The right wing to left wing paradigm is the problem, man. As soon as you can escape that mindset you will be able to move onto the true issue; there has been a covert and sub-verse take over of freedom loving society. It has nothing to do with right v. left but it has everything to do with ignorance, and greed.

OPEN YOUR EYES. There is more happening than what is on CNN or FOX.

The US government no longer has America's best interest at its core. That has long been replaced by the effort to gain a profit by the individuals who are in positions of power.

Occupy wall street is people finally taking a stand. Maybe not every one agrees with it verbatim, but at least they're out on the streets, doing something. Better than playing computer desk warrior and preaching to a bunch of people who do nothing but rant on blogs and sites like ATS all day.

AM I GUILTY? YES I AM.

DO I WANT REAL CHANGE? YES I DO.

AM I ANONYMOUS? YES.

ARE YOU? YES.

Are you saying it is better to blindly accept than it is to challenge?

Would you rather follow than lead?

Are you content to pay taxes and die?

Are you truly free?

Difficult questions to answer...

#Occupy Wall St. has already succeeded. People are aware, and now there are other Occupy protests happening. It's all a matter of time.

Am i intentionally being cryptic??? Only to the people who don't know what is going on as we speak.

Originally posted by Yukitup

Originally posted by Harte
Long gone, yukitup, which is why I could read your post in the first place.

harte

I gave you a star, seems you could use it.

Personally, I enjoy ATS and didn't agree that this site is crap...

To each their own.

Obviously, I agree with you on this matter of "crap-ness." LOL

Harte

Originally posted by FlySolo
I just want to edit to add: Why can't the government make big corp's bonuses dependable on the employment stats of the country?

Gee, I don't know.

Why can't the government just pay us all 100K a year so we won't have to fight about it?

Looks like there are elements on both sides of this debate that don't understand "what Marxism, Communism, or Socialism is" or Capitalism either. for that matter.

Harte

reply to post by Harte


Arguing against individual concepts with partisan labels is monumentally ridiculous. Shed the bias and address the idea or you have already admitted defeat.

Originally posted by Witness2008

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Witness2008
reply to post by macman

 

Let's face it, if this movement is successful in any degree, many of your loved ones may witness greater freedoms and justice in the future.

Only if the Communists/Socialists/Marxists don't get what they want.

Unless they are bankers. But, ho hum, they aren't people either.

I scratch my head every time I read one of your posts.

Sooooo....an American citizen that attempts to right a few wrongs (social injustices) and direct attention back to the constitution and it's actual and meaningful content, is either a Marxist, Communist or Socialist?

How are these people for the Constitution when they are backed, and funded by those listed groups, and have the mentality of Eat the Rich?

Social Injustice is Progressive Speak for Wealth Redistribution. Sorry, but I thought you might actually try to be a bit more subtle then this.

Originally posted by Partisanity
reply to post by Harte

 

Arguing against individual concepts with partisan labels is monumentally ridiculous. Shed the bias and address the idea or you have already admitted defeat.

Please note that I was paraphrasing MrXYZ's post here and was not utilizing any sort of partisan labeling.

Also, rarely do I admit defeat.

Harte

I can only speak to what is in my own mind, and I do and will continue to support this movement because the message is my own.

I think that the BP disaster is a good example of what has gone so terribly wrong. That very big corporation got away destroying a large portion of our natural environment, and the negligent, maybe even intentional homicide of American citizens. Crimes against humanity such as what BP committed is committed on varying scales all over this world on a daily basis. And let's face it, those crimes are committed for financial gain. That's the social injustice I am talking about.

I'm demanding that my elected official represent the people, not the Pharma industry, not Monsanto, not the military complex, not banks. In fact I would go as far as to say that we really should not allow corporations to rub noses with our elected officials at all...let's say if a corporation has profit in excess of one million they and any and all of their representatives are slapped with a political, legislative, judicial and Executive restraining order.

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by FlySolo
I just want to edit to add: Why can't the government make big corp's bonuses dependable on the employment stats of the country?

Gee, I don't know.

Why can't the government just pay us all 100K a year so we won't have to fight about it?

Looks like there are elements on both sides of this debate that don't understand "what Marxism, Communism, or Socialism is" or Capitalism either. for that matter.

Harte

In case you didn't notice, the system is failing. What's wrong with suggesting a new one?

Originally posted by Witness2008
I'm demanding that my elected official represent the people, not the Pharma industry, not Monsanto, not the military complex, not banks.

All of the above are people.

Screw with the oil industry in Louisiana or Texas (or Alaska) and see who yells the loudest.

Hint - it's not the owners/stockholders.
It's the employees.

Originally posted by Witness2008
In fact I would go as far as to say that we really should not allow corporations to rub noses with our elected officials at all...let's say if a corporation has profit in excess of one million they and any and all of their representatives are slapped with a political, legislative, judicial and Executive restraining order.

So, you are advocating we abandon free speech, then.

After all, "corporations" don't rub noses with anyone, they don't have noses.

People that run corporations communicate with government officials on behalf of the stockholders of their companies. You're saying these stockholders, one of which is me (and probably you as well) should have no voice?

The problem behavior you attribute to corporations is actually the behavior of the political system. While lobbying can't be banned, it can be made more open and less nefarious-seeming through political action by the government.

That's what you should be advocating for.

Harte

Originally posted by FlySolo
I just want to edit to add: Why can't the government make big corp's bonuses dependable on the employment stats of the country?

Just a quick FYI Solo- If the government made a law that CEO bonuses were based upon employment numbers, CEO's would get higher salaries and lower bonuses. They'd also move the company off shore so that the CEO didn't work for an American company.

Lastly, then you'd have companies over hiring a bunch of cheap labor and you'd reduce the average salary of all employees.

Use your head bud.

My step daughter is in a Christian school (5th grade) and her teacher was talking about how her father said that all politicians are thieves because they steal our money. My daughter (whose probably been hanging around me for too long) said, "no, it's not the politicians, its the world banks"

awesome

Originally posted by gncnew

Originally posted by FlySolo
I just want to edit to add: Why can't the government make big corp's bonuses dependable on the employment stats of the country?

If the government made a law that CEO bonuses were based upon employment numbers, CEO's would get higher salaries and lower bonuses. They'd also move the company off shore so that the CEO didn't work for an American company.

How did you get that idea? An average high salary now for a CEO is 255k. Not enough? I would be pretty damn happy with half that.
Look for yourself
Lower bonuses? Did you even read what I said? You even quoted me. "dependable on the employment stats" Soooo, the higher the employment rate, the more bones are thrown. Bones being bonuses of course

Lastly, then you'd have companies over hiring a bunch of cheap labor and you'd reduce the average salary of all employees.

Here is a list of companies we've confirmed are "Exporting America." These are U.S. companies either sending American jobs overseas, or choosing to employ cheap overseas labor, instead of American workers. 3Com 3M A Accenture Adaptec ADC Adobe Systems Advanced Energy Industries Aetna Affiliated Computer Services AFS Technologies A.G. Edwards Agere Systems Agilent Technologies AIG Alamo Rent A Car Albertson's Allen Systems Group Alliance Semiconductor Allstate Alpha Thought Global Amazon.com AMD American Express American Household American Management Systems American Standard AMETEK Amphenol Corporation Analog Devices ANDA Networks Andrew Corporation Anheuser-Busch AOL A.O. Smith Apple Applied Materials Art Leather Manufacturing ArvinMeritor A.T. Cross Company AT&T AT&T Wireless A.T. Kearney Automatic Data Processing Avanade Avanex Avaya Avery Dennison

And this is just the A's overseas, and not even including the call centers. Tell me what's different buddy?
List of compaines overseas

Use your head bud.

edit on 7-10-2011 by gncnew because: (no reason given)

Use google. While I have a brain, it's a no-brainer.

reply to post by gncnew


Not to mention that it is not the business of the Govt to tell what a Company can pay someone.

Originally posted by FlySolo

How did you get that idea? An average high salary now for a CEO is 255k. Not enough? I would be pretty damn happy with half that.

It not your business to decide what others make.

Why is that so difficult to understand?

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by FlySolo

How did you get that idea? An average high salary now for a CEO is 255k. Not enough? I would be pretty damn happy with half that.

It not your business to decide what others make.

Why is that so difficult to understand?

It should be. Capitalism doesn't work on it's own. Think of jobs, business, economy are like relationships. You have to have a variety of interests and differences to make it work. Having too much of one type of system is bad.

Originally posted by FlySolo

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by FlySolo

How did you get that idea? An average high salary now for a CEO is 255k. Not enough? I would be pretty damn happy with half that.

It not your business to decide what others make.

Why is that so difficult to understand?

It should be. Capitalism doesn't work on it's own. Think of jobs, business, economy are like relationships. You have to have a variety of interests and differences to make it work. Having too much of one type of system is bad.

No!!! That is how Capitalism and a Free Economy are Supposed to work.

What you want is a half breed Economy. A Progressive Wet Dream.

I don't need Govt telling my Employer what I am worth. I define that, by who I work for and what pay I work for.

reply to post by macman


I agree to how unpopular this would be, but a merit/demerit system should be in place. Perhaps "bonuses" is not the best example of where I am going with this.

You can keep your Capitalism and most likely using a merit system would help Capitalism reach it's full potential. Indirectly, this is what the wall street occ is all about. There is no demerit system in place to penalize those who mishandled and gambled your economy.

BTW, your company decides what you are worth based on your performance. Why should a government not do the same to your company? And performance should not be synonymous with how much money you make. I think you might change your mind when you receive an unexpected EXTRA bonus because your company did well.

reply to post by Harte


Whats good for the few and screw the many. That is pretty much what you are saying. I wonder how many stock holders profited from the mess in the gulf.

Each stockholder has his own individual voice, just like the rest of us. Are they so spoiled and lazy they cant speak for themselves.

Corporations are buying legislation or paying to get rid of regulation.

Originally posted by Witness2008
Whats good for the few and screw the many. That is pretty much what you are saying. I wonder how many stock holders profited from the mess in the gulf.

Each stockholder has his own individual voice, just like the rest of us. Are they so spoiled and lazy they cant speak for themselves.

Corporations are buying legislation or paying to get rid of regulation.

If you maintain that the last bit is true, then you need to admit that it is not corporations, but lobbyists.

You know, like AFL-CIO, the AARP, the Teamsters, the IBEC, the SEIU, the NFL, etc.
Click here for a short, not nearly complete, list of non-corporate lobbyists who regularly do what you claim corporations do.

Harte

Originally posted by FlySolo


There is no demerit system in place to penalize those who mishandled and gambled your economy.

Um there was until, *Drum roll please* the Govt gave the banks a bailout.
The natural course that would have happened is the bank CEO does poorly, the Bank looses Money, the Bank closes.
Please insert what ever other company name you want in place of Bank. As the Govt gets in the way, again.

Originally posted by FlySolo
BTW, your company decides what you are worth based on your performance. Why should a government not do the same to your company? And performance should not be synonymous with how much money you make. I think you might change your mind when you receive an unexpected EXTRA bonus because your company did well.

Because the Company (Not on the Bail out List) does not work for the Govt.