Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
When we speak of redistributing the wealth, as many in this movement do, what would you call them? Obama has tried , much like the new deal, poring money into public works but he is using credit like it was real money. FDR was playing on a much smaller field.
"Redistributing wealth"? So the tax structure that the US had, between the New Deal and the Reagan administration, you would call "communism"? The liberal proposal isn't even about returning to those tax rates, but about closing loopholes, and instituting a faint resemblance to the tax structure of the middle decades of the last century. That was the era of improvements in infrastructure, exponential growth of the middle class, abundant social services for those who needed them, quality universities, and other hallmarks of a prosperous society. Communism should have it so good.
Whose fault is it that Obama has had to run the country on debt? Who started wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that we couldn't afford? Who instituted tax cuts for the rich that the country couldn't afford? ("Thanks, but I don't need the extra money", says the tells-it-like-it-is Iaccocca.) Yes, FDR began with a debt-free budget. He was also a real leader who could get things done, convince a reluctant Congress, use the "bully pulpit" when necessary. They accused him of communism, too.
People who label an equitable tax structure "communism" don't know what communism is.
I vote with Dakini. The words "communism" and "socialism" have a meaning. If you're not sure of the meaning, this doesn't imply that you can make one up to suit your bias. It just means that a little research wouldn't hurt.
I do not see debt as bad, only reckless ill managed spending.
The USA is fast becoming a consumer nation without producing much. Because Wall mart has cheap imported good we buy them: somebody else has a job in some other country. Globalization , the idea that the world is now so interconnected, makes this sort of thing inevitable. People here compete with slave labor in China and their products are shipped to us in three days, port to port.
My last comment was a joke and not name calling hence the smiley face.
Your harping on my lack of compassion is much more like name calling.
I just want to add my 2 cents here. FDR did what he did to save capitalism and free enterprise. He recognized that for a capitalist system to function, people have to earn money. The same reason Henry Ford first gave his workers a decent wage. He saw that as being logical to selling more cars. The state of our society now is that the corporation has all the power and the people have none. It is optimistic to think of future inventors and small business people getting back in the game but it is unrealistic to think they have a chance to succeed when the corporation writes the rules of that game. I think this country needs a major rewrite of the rules. First we need to remove the influence big money has on the government. There are plenty of examples of big business, such as the pharma industry, actually writing the laws that congressmen introduce to passage. We also need the tax laws rewritten so that everybody pays their own share. And I really don't mind paying taxes but I object to half of them going to war when they could be used to rebuild our infrastructure and put people to work. And I don't mind paying for welfare and food stamps and the like. I believe it is true that most everyone wants to work. Besides, I am already supporting corporate welfare. And how about the justice department start prosecuting people, like on Wall St, who have broken the laws we have on the books right now! We also need some kind of regulation of off shoring jobs. And we need to look at the waste, economically and morally, of our defense industry. War is a total racket, the purpose only to make money. And last of all, all of us as consumers, need to stop thinking we all are entitled to the lifestyle of the millionaire. Success is in knowing what you don't need.
Thank your for two cents. I hope we have earned it and not simply been tossed it. Yes corporations have incredible power but it is not always misused as you know. The tax structure needs revamping .(Flat Tax anyone?) A small guy with a big idea still has a chance: wait and see. Term limits on law makers would go a long way to fix the cronyism in government... let's get to it.
As to off shore jobs, how do you stop money from going elsewhere? Only collective decision by the people to purchase locally produced goods , not by protectionism I hope. Stay away from imported goods before it is too late (except Herradura Tequilla ).
War is a racket unless somebody needs killing, then it is a greater good. Most of the stuff going on today is B.S. I agree. I have been told , however, that , in terms of number of killed, this is a rather peaceful time on planet earth...I cannot say for sure however.
Do you believe shelter should be provided to everyone? If so or not , why?
@sndymorn I guess the way I would put your question to me is why not provide shelter to everyone? We certainly have the capability to do so. So the multi-millionaires will have a few million instead of several million each. Boo-hoo. There will always be poor but I don't think we as a nation should tolerate homelessness. I think homelessness is unethical as well as illness and death because of the private health industry. Look, I'm not advocating marxism or any total leveling of wealth. I just see it as the right thing to do and as far as the rich are concerned, it makes sense that they will be better off when everyone else is better off. That is not even compassion but just good business sense. We have seen how "trickle down" works so saying that taxing the rich more will inhibit jobs growth is not valid. Regarding socialism in general, I think that eventually we will evolve socially so that one day socialism will be the accepted norm and people will look back on capitalism pretty much the way we look back on feudalism now. But now is not the time, being as how man is still in the predatory phase.
"Give the money back"? There is no mechanism for the gov't tax office (or any gov't office, AFAIK) to receive charitable donations.
I don't know enough about the protest movements to say if they're "subversive" or not. They don't look like it, and they haven't been taken over by Communist Party operatives, so ... idk.
Wow! When you do optimism, sndymorn, you really go all out! I'm the pessimistic one, re: the blossoming of an "American Renaissance". I hope you're right, it would be a dream come true.
I must say, I would feel a lot better about all the current deficit spending if we hadn't had the excesses of the GW Bush administration running the economy into the ground. If Obama had some after Clinton, who left the budget on a solid footing, then we would have been in a better position to deal with a downturn.
Educated Afghans interviewed on NPR yesterday said a) the US gov't is arming the worst of the warlords, thereby fueling a potential civil war and b) if the US pulls out, there will be a horrific civil war. We never should have gotten involved in the first place. There is no end in sight, and according to what these interviewees said, we're making the situation worse, rather than better.
Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it. Those who thumb their noses at history are just plain doomed.
Because Wall mart has cheap imported good we buy them: .
Speak for yourself. I will never buy at Wal-Mart. Boycott Walmart, gang! Sam's Club, too.
You're absolutely right, sndymorn, about exporting jobs overseas, and all. Obama wanted to invest in alternative energy development, to create jobs at home and to boost the manufacturing sector, for exports abroad. But the vote in Congress about the budget nixed that possibility.
Gui: right on! The only problem is, it's not just US corporations that we have to get under control. Corporations have pretty much taken over the world via the WTO. That either needs to be dismantled, or the rules need to change, or something. That's a tough nut to crack.
Well, I buy a few things at Wal-Mart and when feasible, buy American products. But, Sndymorn, if you're only buying products made in America, then you own virtually nothing and are walking around in the nude.
When we speak of redistributing the wealth, as many in this movement do, what would you call them? Obama has tried , much like the new deal, poring money into public works but he is using credit like it was real money. FDR was playing on a much smaller field.
"Redistributing wealth"? So the tax structure that the US had, between the New Deal and the Reagan administration, you would call "communism"? The liberal proposal isn't even about returning to those tax rates, but about closing loopholes, and instituting a faint resemblance to the tax structure of the middle decades of the last century. That was the era of improvements in infrastructure, exponential growth of the middle class, abundant social services for those who needed them, quality universities, and other hallmarks of a prosperous society. Communism should have it so good.
Whose fault is it that Obama has had to run the country on debt? Who started wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that we couldn't afford? Who instituted tax cuts for the rich that the country couldn't afford? ("Thanks, but I don't need the extra money", says the tells-it-like-it-is Iaccocca.) Yes, FDR began with a debt-free budget. He was also a real leader who could get things done, convince a reluctant Congress, use the "bully pulpit" when necessary. They accused him of communism, too.
People who label an equitable tax structure "communism" don't know what communism is.
I vote with Dakini. The words "communism" and "socialism" have a meaning. If you're not sure of the meaning, this doesn't imply that you can make one up to suit your bias. It just means that a little research wouldn't hurt.
Please search article " The Evidence For Neocommunism," by James Lewis
A quick-hit internet dictionary defines "communism" as "a political and economic system in which individual people cannot own property or industries and in which there are no important social class divisions"
As far as I can see, none of these attributes is currently applicable in the US and none of the envisioned changes suggests that they might/will/would be put into place. As far as I can see, governments do in fact apportion and regulate wealth, perhaps in the form of roads, perhaps in the form of medical care, perhaps in the form of banking or industry. This does not mean that governments are communist in any except the most sloppily-defined way.
Communism means, among other things, that the waiter and janitor are paid the same as the university professor, the doctor and the scientist. It's absurd to be bandying such a term about in the context of the US. Let's get real.
Communism means, among other things, that the waiter and janitor are paid the same as the university professor, the doctor and the scientist. It's absurd to be bandying such a term about in the context of the US. Let's get real.
No, it doesn't; at least not in any serious definition of the term I'm familiar with. Communism, broadly speaking, is an economic system characterized by a egalitarian, stateless society where the means of production (i.e., productive property) are commonly owned. There's nothing in the definition of communism that dictates what people are paid—a decision that'd be up to such a society as a whole to determine.
A "stateless society"? I think maybe we're dealing with different pieces of a whole in our respective definitions of communism. What was regarded in the socialist bloc as "pure" communism involved everyone being paid equally, that was the definition of egalitarian. Cuba achieved this, I don't know about China. In Russia they were always saying they're "only" socialist, they hadn't realized their goal yet of communism.
The sad reality is that in these socialist and communist countries, society as a whole determined nothing. Everything was imposed by the Party structure. That is far from "stateless". The Shakers--now there was an egalitarian, stateless society in which the means of production was commonly owned.
A "stateless society"? I think maybe we're dealing with different pieces of a whole in our respective definitions of communism.
Perhaps, but that's the general definition, especially in the Marxist sense.
What was regarded in the socialist bloc as "pure" communism involved everyone being paid equally, that was the definition of egalitarian. Cuba achieved this, I don't know about China. In Russia they were always saying they're "only" socialist, they hadn't realized their goal yet of communism.
Heh, they weren't even socialist in the strictest sense; but that's a topic for a different thread.
The sad reality is that in these socialist and communist countries, society as a whole determined nothing. Everything was imposed by the Party structure. That is far from "stateless". The Shakers--now there was an egalitarian, stateless society in which the means of production was commonly owned.
Exactly, which is why I don't consider any of the communist or socialist in the technical sense, since they weren't. Moreover, nobody here is suggesting that we imitate Soviet Russia et al., so I don't see the point of constantly bringing them up.
Someone here was suggesting that there are elements in society that would take us to communism. This is why the conversation veered toward clarifying for that person what communism actually meant.
Marxist countries (at least those who proclaimed themselves such) were far from stateless. In any case, back to topic, adjusting tax and banking policy is a far cry from communism.
In any case, back to topic, adjusting tax and banking policy is a far cry from communism.
Apparently it isn't in some peoples' eyes. Apparently, to many people in America, the very concept of taxation (not taxation without representation - taxation period) is "communist", since a large number would seem to be bent on dismantling the federal government pretty much in its entirety. The idea of everyone paying (via taxes) to support the common good is "socialist" (sic) and/or "communist" (sic). Or in other words, "Mine for me, and to hell with the rest of you losers."
Communism, like Christianity, begins with a lovely premise... kindness. Like Christianity, communism has proven the fact that "the devil is in the details."
@sndymorn I'm just going to say one more thing and then I'm letting this discussion go. Yes, there are communists at OWS. Yes, communists recognize the crimes perpetuated by wall st on the rest of us. Yes, communists agree with OWS demands and (most likely, I didn't investigate to details) have additional demands of their own. Does that make OWS observations and demands to be communist? No. When I marched in Washington DC so many years ago against the invasion of Iraq, I saw communists marching next to me. I didn't then conclude that peace is a strictly communist idea. Best wishes to you. See ya around the water cooler.
Here's an Almanac Singers labor song from the 1930's that I grew up on in the 1940's -- a time when folk singer Pete Seeger was not yet widely known and approved ... but was more often reviled by those in power as a "socialist."
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
edited October 2011
I'm too lazy to look up the exact numbers but over the last 30 years or so worker productivity has gone up like 30% while the average worker income has only gone up like 3%. At the same time the average income of the top 1% of earners has gone up something like 250%. The top 400 people own as much wealth as the bottom 50% of americans. Some sort of policy to redistribute this wealth, maybe not in the form of handouts but in terms of wages or some other mechanism seems important to allowing people their basic dignity. Businesses right now are sitting on a big pile of cash. The reason they aren't reinvesting and hiring isn't because they need money through some type of tax break its because they don't see a high enough demand for their product or service.
When Henry Ford decided to pay his workers enough money so they could buy one of his cars he didn't just do it because he felt sorry for the poor people who didn't have a car, he recognized that people with money in their pocket to burn would help his business grow. Economic policy can't be entirely supply side, there needs to be a proper demand for goods as well and that means the average consumer needs wealth above and beyond what they use for their physical needs. Of course each individual can decide for him or herself to improve their situation but even if that person goes from cashier to nurse someone needs to fill that cashier position, so from a macro perspective people with their basic needs met and money to spend on consumer goods (70% of our economy is consumer based) makes the economy move.
Impoverishing the population and destroying the middle class not only guarantees there will be no market for the goods the corporations are selling, it sows the seeds of political destabilization, which often does take a sharp turn to the extreme left. Politicians and corporate leaders need to go back to college and take a basic political economics course. This is really elementary stuff. It mystifies me why the corporations are so hell-bent on shooting themselves in both feet in the long term, just for a little short-term gain, and furthermore, why the federal government is allowing them to do it.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
It mystifies me why the corporations are so hell-bent on shooting themselves in both feet in the long term, just for a little short-term gain, and furthermore, why the federal government is allowing them to do it.
My take on the why of it is that 'corporations' aren't some unified force, its the simple act of each one doing what is best for themselves, to my mind thats kind of a central principle of capitalism. The important question you ask though is why the federal government allowing them to do it?
Capitalism's strength I think lies in its efficient distribution of supply and demand. What I think it lacks though is long-term vision and a broad perspective. I feel that this is the role of the government in the market system. After all we have a mixed economy not laissez-faire capitalism or the political red herring of communism/socialism.
It mystifies me why the corporations are so hell-bent on shooting themselves in both feet in the long term, just for a little short-term gain, and furthermore, why the federal government is allowing them to do it.
My take on the why of it is that 'corporations' aren't some unified force, its the simple act of each one doing what is best for themselves, to my mind thats kind of a central principle of capitalism. The important question you ask though is why the federal government allowing them to do it?
Capitalism's strength I think lies in its efficient distribution of supply and demand. What I think it lacks though is long-term vision and a broad perspective. I feel that this is the role of the government in the market system. After all we have a mixed economy not laissez-faire capitalism or the political red herring of communism/socialism.
I think you're right.
Not that there hasn't always been speculation, etc., but there was a time when people felt that investing in a company -- long term -- was appropriate. Now, for the vast majority of "investors". it's buy and sell as often as needed to make the biggest buck. And companies have taken on that same modus operandi.
Hi, Person, thanks for your input. I would say that it does not behoove capitalism to take a short-term view. That would lead to short-term capitalism, i.e. an eventual collapse. And it didn't used to be the case that policy was based on the short-term, as the example of Henry Ford illustrates.
Years ago, back in the 90's I think, I read an article about small to mid-size companies in Germany. Their operating ethic was to support the communities around them. Their intent was to be good neighbors, and have a benign symbiotic relationship with the surrounding communities. This is healthy capitalism. What we have now is capitalism speeding toward self-destruction, I'm afraid.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
edited October 2011
Good point of long term vs. short term. The short term fixation has to do with chasing the share price and thus goes back to wall street. Occupy Wall Street! :ninja: :peoplefist:
Good point. Capitalism has turned into Wall Street-ism. Back in the old days, many companies were not publicly owned, and so did not have shareholders to feed dividends to. Could be that's a key factor in the short-term fixation. Very good point.
The fact that many more businesses are publicly-owned also means profits have to be maximized. This results in less pay for employees, poorer service, and higher prices for customers. They squeeze both ends to skim more profits off the top, both for the owners and regional managers, and for shareholders.
Here's a great "Buddhist analysis" of the Occupy Wall Street phenom, from Joan Halifax roshi:
"This is What Compassion Looks Like: a Buddhist View of Occupy Wall Street"
"It started 28 days ago, with a ragtag group of people who called themselves "Occupy Wall Street", planting themselves at Liberty Square Plaza in NY City under the shadows of skyscrapers. They gathered together to call attention to the disproportionate influence the wealthiest 1% of Americans have over our politican and economic system. Using the phrase "We are the 99%", they drew a circle of inclusiveness around the myriad forms of structural violence and suffering that so many .... are experiencing these days.
The Buddha would probably agree with their analysis. Numerous Buddhist texts point out that poverty is not any individual's fate or karma, but rather exists in a web of causes and conditions. The Buddha also noted that the way to build a peaceful society is to ensure equitable distribution of resources."
It turns out the Buddha had a number of teachings on good governance, with an eye to the kings of his day, some of whom were greedy, and others who had more of an interest in the well-being of their subjects.
I just spent the night/morning with a homeless guy while camping out for Occupy Detroit. After spending one night out in the cold and rain, and seeing what he had to got through just to survive on a daily basis, I can safely say that anyone who believes another human being doesn't deserve shelter, even just for the night, doesn't know what the hell they're talking about. Period.
Late to the party here I know, but I just got around to reading this thread. It always amazes me to see some on this (or some other Buddhist forum) espouse such views which are utterly lacking in compassion or empathy, and, I truly believe, antithetical to the Buddha's teachings. Whenever I see such posts I truly have to wonder what appeal they find in Buddhism in the first place.
Whenever there is an uprising among the people of this country in the form of protests and organized dissent, especially with a presidential election 13 months away, the discussion inevitably shifts to what it will mean for one of the nation's two political parties.
No matter how hard they've tried to suggest that they aren't partisan, the tea party is nothing more than a sub-group of the Republican Party. If there were a healthy number of tea party Democrats, then that would be true. But there isn't, so it's nonsensical to waste time not calling the tea party Republicans exactly what they are: tea party Republicans. From Day One the movement aligned itself with the GOP, and that is true today.
Yet the attempt by Fox News, conservative radio show hosts and the GOP presidential candidates to associate Occupy Wall Street protesters with the image of far-left radical hippies being in lockstep with the Democratic Party is wrong, shameful and pure intellectual dishonesty.
Being concerned about the nation's well-being, and the depths to which the big-monied interests are driving the nation's policies is not a partisan question; it is a moral one.
GOP presidential candidate wants to cheapen the discussion by suggesting Occupy Wall Street protesters hate capitalism. I sense they despise a nation that has come to be one in which Fortune 500 companies and big banks run ads talking about how great America is, but work hard to destroy America by shipping jobs overseas and engaging in shameful business practices that require the taxpayer to bail them out.
It's really simple, and insanely stupid, to examine the real anger of Occupy Wall Street as a bunch of young folks with nothing to do. If we recall March 2009 when the AIG bonuses came to light, every corner of this nation was angry with what we heard. Political ideology didn't matter. It was seen as a matter of right and wrong.
That's why the various leaders of Occupy Wall Street, no matter how local and decentralized, must look at their effort as not being a galvanizing force to put one party into office. Instead, it should be about candidates of both political parties, as well as independents, speaking to their needs and desires.
This tea party vs. Occupy Wall Street construct is a ridiculous one. From a media perspective, it's a cheap and easy narrative that, in the end, doesn't tell the full story.
As someone who is more enamored with studying the intricacies of the civil rights movement rather than memorizing key speeches of its leaders, what was clear from Day One was that it wasn't about getting a Democrat or Republican elected. It was always about ensuring full freedom and equality for African-Americans who were denied their rights as citizens.
At different points, Republicans and Democrats were allies of the civil rights movement, while at the same time some Republicans and Democrats were virulent opponents. It wasn't about party for civil rights leaders; it was about principle.
And that is exactly where we sit today. As I listen to the Occupy Wall Street protesters and watch as their protest spread across the country, similar to the lunch counter sit-ins that spread like wildfire across the South in 1960, the goals and ideals sound eerily familiar. While in the 1960s it was about race, the civil rights battlefront today is about class. It is about the widening gap between the rich and poor, and how the middle class is being pushed down to the poor, rather than being helped upward.
This struggle is the moral dilemma the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. frequently discussed. If folks would stop focusing on the last part of his "I Have A Dream" speech and read all of what he said at the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom on Aug. 28, 1963, they would understand that.
So what if Russell Simmons, Kayne West and other celebrities have millions and are showing support for Occupy Wall Street? When Harry Belafonte, Dick Gregory, Sidney Poitier, Bob Dylan, Joan Baez, Peter, Paul and Mary, Charlton Heston, Mahalia Jackson and other celebrities attended the 1963 March, no one said how dare those individuals with big bank accounts stood in solidarity with those with no bank accounts. When it comes to fairness, your values matter more than your tax bracket.
If labor unions and politicians want to stand in solidarity with Occupy Wall Street, that is a good thing. If individuals who work on or used to work on Wall Street want to show their support for the need to systemic changes to this system, more power to them. If self-identified Democrats and Republicans want to show their moral outrage, praise God.
Moral movements aren't supposed to be poisoned by politics. When they do, that's when their legitimacy is lost. If politicians want to use their voices in support, they should. But at no time should Occupy Wall Street be about getting one party elected to local, county, state and national office.
The time has come for men and women of conscience in this nation to stand up. It's vital that we elected individuals, regardless of party, who choose not to be an incestuous relationship with the rich in this country who are only about fattening their bottom lines while ignoring the plight of others.
As Dr. King said: "An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity."
I just spent the night/morning with a homeless guy while camping out for Occupy Detroit. After spending one night out in the cold and rain, and seeing what he had to got through just to survive on a daily basis, I can safely say that anyone who believes another human being doesn't deserve shelter, even just for the night, doesn't know what the hell they're talking about. Period.
If anyone's interested in reading more about my experience, I wrote about it here.
For a really different view of what "Occupy Wall Street" means to some people, this video, done by a former Saturday Night Live star ( turned conservative and "religious" ) is quite telling....
Well I am very inspired by the Occupy Wall Street movement.
It is not about entitlement at all, as some want to make it out to be. It is about inequality and injustice.
We have a time honored tradition of peaceful civil disobedience used to right wrongs here in the USA. Civil rights, women's rights, and the end to the Vietnam war to mention recent history.
Entitlement??? People work like dogs here in the US. But the rich keep getting richer and everyone else has to get by with less and less. Since the politicians require huge amounts of $ to get elected they are beholding to the corporations and the rich that pay them. That is why the tax system is so f'd up and that is why the criminals that brought on the mortgage/credit collapse have not been jailed.
The corporation's stated purpose is to always make more money for it's own good. It must be regulated and taxed to prevent the insane results that greed always leads to if unchecked.
The system has been steady getting worse for the last 30 years. I believe we will eventually turn it around. This is just the start. That is why I'm hopeful! Occupy Wall Street.
Occupy Wall Street was very successful in bringing light to a problem that exists for Americans, Republicans, Democrats and all between.
I don't see much difference in the Tea Pay and these folks... both are recognizing a problem, but looking at it at different ends... Tea Partiers see ourselves digging a hole with our debt that we can't get out of, while the Occupiers recognize the inbalance and greed IRT the funds that we do have. Where these meet is that our country could do more for the jobless and under-paid if such a large portion of our taxes didn't go towards the interest on our debts.
I can't believe that any Conservative looks at a homeless hungry person and thinks "the lazy person got what they deserve" as many of the Liberals seem to believe they do, but I think it's more "how could we ever afford to pay that bill.
I believe that the truth normally lies in the middle... could we afford to pay for homes for everyone regardless if they are working? Probably not, but we could do so much more than we are... Do we really need such kick ass military to protect us? probably not, especially considering that housing and food is also considered "protection".
So good on the Occupiers for bringing light on this.... curious as to the next and necessary step though... the movement needs an action plan and leader/spokesperson, which will be important for success
Fox News is correct when they find people occupying who are Communists and Jew haters, ignorant to our current tax structure, willing to turn to violence and other questionable individuals, but what they are missing are the conditions that led to the gathering, and until the Occupiers come up with a plan and someone that can speak to it, I'm afraid that the news will continue to pick the group apart by singling out individuals on their own, to label motives,interests and intentions of the group as a whole.
Fox News is correct when they find people occupying who are Communists and Jew haters, ignorant to our current tax structure, willing to turn to violence and other questionable individuals...
Because, being Fox "News" (aka "Sensationalism 101") that's what they're looking for. I'm sure if you looked for left handed, brown eyed people named Francine you could find some of them too, but what would be the percentage of the hundreds of thousands of people present?
I disagree that the OW and Tea Party movements are essentially the same thing from different angles. IMHO they are diametrically opposite. The basic premise of the tea party is (when you boil it right down) personal greed. "Mine for me and to hell with everybody else". That's not what the OW movement is about at all.
I don't agree with your Tea Party premise... too much Kool-Aid drinking
"President Obama Tuesday characterized the Occupy Wall Street crowd and the Tea Party as sort of two sides of the same coin, suggesting they were both just venting frustration that the system isn’t working for them."
"President Obama Tuesday characterized the Occupy Wall Street crowd and the Tea Party as sort of two sides of the same coin, suggesting they were both just venting frustration that the system isn’t working for them."
You're assuming that I agree with everything the President says. I don't. I disagree with him profoundly on that point. The teabaggers are (like the rest of the GOP) basically a bunch of greedy, self-serving people. Their positions would undermine what's left of anything remotely smacking of a social safety net, and their avowed purpose is to eviscerate the federal government, including those parts (like the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, health care reform, etc, etc) that are designed to help everyone.
Comments
The USA is fast becoming a consumer nation without producing much. Because Wall mart has cheap imported good we buy them: somebody else has a job in some other country. Globalization , the idea that the world is now so interconnected, makes this sort of thing inevitable. People here compete with slave labor in China and their products are shipped to us in three days, port to port.
My last comment was a joke and not name calling hence the smiley face.
Your harping on my lack of compassion is much more like name calling.
Thank your for two cents.
I hope we have earned it and not simply been tossed it.
Yes corporations have incredible power but it is not always misused as you know. The tax structure needs revamping .(Flat Tax anyone?)
A small guy with a big idea still has a chance: wait and see.
Term limits on law makers would go a long way to fix the cronyism in government... let's get to it.
As to off shore jobs, how do you stop money from going elsewhere? Only collective decision by the people to purchase locally produced goods , not by protectionism I hope. Stay away from imported goods before it is too late (except Herradura Tequilla ).
War is a racket unless somebody needs killing, then it is a greater good. Most of the stuff going on today is B.S. I agree.
I have been told , however, that , in terms of number of killed, this is a rather peaceful time on planet earth...I cannot say for sure however.
Do you believe shelter should be provided to everyone? If so or not , why?
See, we are bonding!
I don't know enough about the protest movements to say if they're "subversive" or not. They don't look like it, and they haven't been taken over by Communist Party operatives, so ... idk.
Wow! When you do optimism, sndymorn, you really go all out! I'm the pessimistic one, re: the blossoming of an "American Renaissance". I hope you're right, it would be a dream come true.
I must say, I would feel a lot better about all the current deficit spending if we hadn't had the excesses of the GW Bush administration running the economy into the ground. If Obama had some after Clinton, who left the budget on a solid footing, then we would have been in a better position to deal with a downturn.
Educated Afghans interviewed on NPR yesterday said a) the US gov't is arming the worst of the warlords, thereby fueling a potential civil war and b) if the US pulls out, there will be a horrific civil war. We never should have gotten involved in the first place. There is no end in sight, and according to what these interviewees said, we're making the situation worse, rather than better.
Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it. Those who thumb their noses at history are just plain doomed.
You're absolutely right, sndymorn, about exporting jobs overseas, and all. Obama wanted to invest in alternative energy development, to create jobs at home and to boost the manufacturing sector, for exports abroad. But the vote in Congress about the budget nixed that possibility.
Gui: right on! The only problem is, it's not just US corporations that we have to get under control. Corporations have pretty much taken over the world via the WTO. That either needs to be dismantled, or the rules need to change, or something. That's a tough nut to crack.
As far as I can see, none of these attributes is currently applicable in the US and none of the envisioned changes suggests that they might/will/would be put into place. As far as I can see, governments do in fact apportion and regulate wealth, perhaps in the form of roads, perhaps in the form of medical care, perhaps in the form of banking or industry. This does not mean that governments are communist in any except the most sloppily-defined way.
Just my take.
The sad reality is that in these socialist and communist countries, society as a whole determined nothing. Everything was imposed by the Party structure. That is far from "stateless". The Shakers--now there was an egalitarian, stateless society in which the means of production was commonly owned.
Marxist countries (at least those who proclaimed themselves such) were far from stateless. In any case, back to topic, adjusting tax and banking policy is a far cry from communism.
Best wishes to you. See ya around the water cooler.
When Henry Ford decided to pay his workers enough money so they could buy one of his cars he didn't just do it because he felt sorry for the poor people who didn't have a car, he recognized that people with money in their pocket to burn would help his business grow. Economic policy can't be entirely supply side, there needs to be a proper demand for goods as well and that means the average consumer needs wealth above and beyond what they use for their physical needs. Of course each individual can decide for him or herself to improve their situation but even if that person goes from cashier to nurse someone needs to fill that cashier position, so from a macro perspective people with their basic needs met and money to spend on consumer goods (70% of our economy is consumer based) makes the economy move.
Capitalism's strength I think lies in its efficient distribution of supply and demand. What I think it lacks though is long-term vision and a broad perspective. I feel that this is the role of the government in the market system. After all we have a mixed economy not laissez-faire capitalism or the political red herring of communism/socialism.
Not that there hasn't always been speculation, etc., but there was a time when people felt that investing in a company -- long term -- was appropriate. Now, for the vast majority of "investors". it's buy and sell as often as needed to make the biggest buck. And companies have taken on that same modus operandi.
Years ago, back in the 90's I think, I read an article about small to mid-size companies in Germany. Their operating ethic was to support the communities around them. Their intent was to be good neighbors, and have a benign symbiotic relationship with the surrounding communities. This is healthy capitalism. What we have now is capitalism speeding toward self-destruction, I'm afraid.
"This is What Compassion Looks Like: a Buddhist View of Occupy Wall Street"
"It started 28 days ago, with a ragtag group of people who called themselves "Occupy Wall Street", planting themselves at Liberty Square Plaza in NY City under the shadows of skyscrapers. They gathered together to call attention to the disproportionate influence the wealthiest 1% of Americans have over our politican and economic system. Using the phrase "We are the 99%", they drew a circle of inclusiveness around the myriad forms of structural violence and suffering that so many .... are experiencing these days.
The Buddha would probably agree with their analysis. Numerous Buddhist texts point out that poverty is not any individual's fate or karma, but rather exists in a web of causes and conditions. The Buddha also noted that the way to build a peaceful society is to ensure equitable distribution of resources."
for the complete version of this essay see, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/roshi-joan-halifax/buddhism-and-occupy-wall-street_b_1010228.html
It turns out the Buddha had a number of teachings on good governance, with an eye to the kings of his day, some of whom were greedy, and others who had more of an interest in the well-being of their subjects.
PART I
Whenever there is an uprising among the people of this country in the form of protests and organized dissent, especially with a presidential election 13 months away, the discussion inevitably shifts to what it will mean for one of the nation's two political parties.
No matter how hard they've tried to suggest that they aren't partisan, the tea party is nothing more than a sub-group of the Republican Party. If there were a healthy number of tea party Democrats, then that would be true. But there isn't, so it's nonsensical to waste time not calling the tea party Republicans exactly what they are: tea party Republicans. From Day One the movement aligned itself with the GOP, and that is true today.
Yet the attempt by Fox News, conservative radio show hosts and the GOP presidential candidates to associate Occupy Wall Street protesters with the image of far-left radical hippies being in lockstep with the Democratic Party is wrong, shameful and pure intellectual dishonesty.
Being concerned about the nation's well-being, and the depths to which the big-monied interests are driving the nation's policies is not a partisan question; it is a moral one.
GOP presidential candidate wants to cheapen the discussion by suggesting Occupy Wall Street protesters hate capitalism. I sense they despise a nation that has come to be one in which Fortune 500 companies and big banks run ads talking about how great America is, but work hard to destroy America by shipping jobs overseas and engaging in shameful business practices that require the taxpayer to bail them out.
It's really simple, and insanely stupid, to examine the real anger of Occupy Wall Street as a bunch of young folks with nothing to do. If we recall March 2009 when the AIG bonuses came to light, every corner of this nation was angry with what we heard. Political ideology didn't matter. It was seen as a matter of right and wrong.
That's why the various leaders of Occupy Wall Street, no matter how local and decentralized, must look at their effort as not being a galvanizing force to put one party into office. Instead, it should be about candidates of both political parties, as well as independents, speaking to their needs and desires.
This tea party vs. Occupy Wall Street construct is a ridiculous one. From a media perspective, it's a cheap and easy narrative that, in the end, doesn't tell the full story.
As someone who is more enamored with studying the intricacies of the civil rights movement rather than memorizing key speeches of its leaders, what was clear from Day One was that it wasn't about getting a Democrat or Republican elected. It was always about ensuring full freedom and equality for African-Americans who were denied their rights as citizens.
At different points, Republicans and Democrats were allies of the civil rights movement, while at the same time some Republicans and Democrats were virulent opponents. It wasn't about party for civil rights leaders; it was about principle.
PART II
And that is exactly where we sit today. As I listen to the Occupy Wall Street protesters and watch as their protest spread across the country, similar to the lunch counter sit-ins that spread like wildfire across the South in 1960, the goals and ideals sound eerily familiar. While in the 1960s it was about race, the civil rights battlefront today is about class. It is about the widening gap between the rich and poor, and how the middle class is being pushed down to the poor, rather than being helped upward.
This struggle is the moral dilemma the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. frequently discussed. If folks would stop focusing on the last part of his "I Have A Dream" speech and read all of what he said at the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom on Aug. 28, 1963, they would understand that.
So what if Russell Simmons, Kayne West and other celebrities have millions and are showing support for Occupy Wall Street? When Harry Belafonte, Dick Gregory, Sidney Poitier, Bob Dylan, Joan Baez, Peter, Paul and Mary, Charlton Heston, Mahalia Jackson and other celebrities attended the 1963 March, no one said how dare those individuals with big bank accounts stood in solidarity with those with no bank accounts. When it comes to fairness, your values matter more than your tax bracket.
If labor unions and politicians want to stand in solidarity with Occupy Wall Street, that is a good thing. If individuals who work on or used to work on Wall Street want to show their support for the need to systemic changes to this system, more power to them. If self-identified Democrats and Republicans want to show their moral outrage, praise God.
Moral movements aren't supposed to be poisoned by politics. When they do, that's when their legitimacy is lost. If politicians want to use their voices in support, they should. But at no time should Occupy Wall Street be about getting one party elected to local, county, state and national office.
The time has come for men and women of conscience in this nation to stand up. It's vital that we elected individuals, regardless of party, who choose not to be an incestuous relationship with the rich in this country who are only about fattening their bottom lines while ignoring the plight of others.
As Dr. King said: "An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity."
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/want-to-see-a-conservative-former-snl-cast-member-grill-occupy-protesters/
It is not about entitlement at all, as some want to make it out to be. It is about inequality and injustice.
We have a time honored tradition of peaceful civil disobedience used to right wrongs here in the USA. Civil rights, women's rights, and the end to the Vietnam war to mention recent history.
Entitlement??? People work like dogs here in the US. But the rich keep getting richer and everyone else has to get by with less and less. Since the politicians require huge amounts of $ to get elected they are beholding to the corporations and the rich that pay them. That is why the tax system is so f'd up and that is why the criminals that brought on the mortgage/credit collapse have not been jailed.
The corporation's stated purpose is to always make more money for it's own good. It must be regulated and taxed to prevent the insane results that greed always leads to if unchecked.
The system has been steady getting worse for the last 30 years. I believe we will eventually turn it around. This is just the start. That is why I'm hopeful!
Occupy Wall Street.
I don't see much difference in the Tea Pay and these folks... both are recognizing a problem, but looking at it at different ends... Tea Partiers see ourselves digging a hole with our debt that we can't get out of, while the Occupiers recognize the inbalance and greed IRT the funds that we do have. Where these meet is that our country could do more for the jobless and under-paid if such a large portion of our taxes didn't go towards the interest on our debts.
I can't believe that any Conservative looks at a homeless hungry person and thinks "the lazy person got what they deserve" as many of the Liberals seem to believe they do, but I think it's more "how could we ever afford to pay that bill.
I believe that the truth normally lies in the middle... could we afford to pay for homes for everyone regardless if they are working? Probably not, but we could do so much more than we are... Do we really need such kick ass military to protect us? probably not, especially considering that housing and food is also considered "protection".
So good on the Occupiers for bringing light on this.... curious as to the next and necessary step though... the movement needs an action plan and leader/spokesperson, which will be important for success
I disagree that the OW and Tea Party movements are essentially the same thing from different angles. IMHO they are diametrically opposite. The basic premise of the tea party is (when you boil it right down) personal greed. "Mine for me and to hell with everybody else". That's not what the OW movement is about at all.
"President Obama Tuesday characterized the Occupy Wall Street crowd and the Tea Party as sort of two sides of the same coin, suggesting they were both just venting frustration that the system isn’t working for them."
PS: I'm done with this urination competition...