Re: Occupy America I'll tell you a secret. This country is remarkably resilient if completely left to its own paces. Businesses rise and fall. It's what they do. And they'll always do it. Where one business falls, better businesses will succeed. And we're better for it. What this country will not as easily survive is bailouts and government intervention. Like a parent trying to stand under a kid at the top of the jungle gym, the kid will never learn that it hurts to fall or jump off. The Financial Industry and the Automotive Industry have learned that when they do bad things the Government will be there to bail them out. Instead of bad companies dying off to be replaced by good companies, we've now given life support to brain dead companies. We're artificially supporting poor decisions to the long term benefit of no one. The body is still there, and it will be in the short term. But no one is gaining anything from it in the long term, and the collapse will be all the more spectacular because of it.
Re: Occupy America So let me ask you this, if an employee can be replaced by a cheaper and more efficient alternative, should the company be legally obligated to keep them on the payroll so they still have a job? Should banks keep branches open and fully staffed even though online banking has largely eliminated the need for them? Should we keep toll booths fully staffed despite the fact that EZ-pass is (shockingly slowly in the northeast at least) removing the need for them?
Re: Occupy America Also, just because we're prohibited from using political terminology doesn't mean this isn't an inherently political conversation.
Re: Occupy America What this thread has devolved into summarized in one quote: Enough with the retarded straw men and generalizations. For those who missed them, 5 specific real world issues with OSW that have not gone answered:
Re: Occupy America Funny how they bitch about their right to peacefully protest yet are demanding we limit our other first amendment right to petition, which lobbying is considered. Personally I don't like the idea of lobbyist, of any group, writing the actual legislation. I couldn't tell you who is ultimately accountable for the actual writing of laws under our constitution but allowing said lobbying groups free reign to write the legislation seems wrong. This really sounds like they don't like the fact that there is a global market now and we have to compete with foreign workers for labor jobs. What do they define as anti-competative practices? How can labor associations help us be more competitive on the global market? I guess they don't like financial institutions and need some sort of blanket statement like this? Seriously who and what do they not like and what do they suppose we do? Again a problem with having ill defined goals I am a limited government type guy. Lower taxes all around, less government spending. What? The to big to fail and should the government have a hand in mitigating booms and bust in the economy are beyond me right now. If that's on the table entitlement reform should be as well, that collapse would make 2008 look like nothin'.
Re: Occupy America Look, like always a protest starts as a message, then soon dissolves into clusterfucks with all sorts of "groups" attaching their brands once it gets fame and then everybody starts shouting from the top of their soapboxes, fucking everything up. Such is this one, which has been going on for a long time before Inspector Gadget went "Go-Go-Gadget I.A. Investigation!!!" on those girls. I was watching it on a live stream here and there and essentially it's your typical generic bullshit: people in bandanas hitting drums and chanting though bullhorns. Non unlike the wild-eyed, urine-stained nutbags you see on street corners screaming about Jesus. Way to go wrong about it. Again. Protests rarely get their messages properly heard because they always lack quality leadership. For every one smart and suave Martin Luther Kings, there are one thousand bug-eyed, shit-heeled Abbie Hoffmans running around in loud clothes getting idiots to follow their one-dimensional shouty opinions. You never know what might happen with this one, it seems to be growing in numbers but it still LACKS AN ACTUAL FOCAL POINT. Much like the Tea Party (and no, not the awesome band), the title of this novel seems to be The Audacity Of "Huh?" The middle and lower class in America has reasons to be mad at the wealthy of corporate America, but for specific reasons. There are two that personally blow my skirt up. Be warned, these are what you call "facts": 1) The top 1% income makers in America have more collective wealth than the bottom 90%. I cannot explain how this happens in a democracy, but I know it sounds very, very wrong to me. 2) The average income of a CEO in the United States is appox. 400 times that of the average salary in the united states. This does not count the CEOs that make ten to one hundred times more than just the average. Maybe it's just me, but no CEO is 400 times smarter, works 400 times harder, is 400 times more deserving, or sucks dick 400 times better than any other fucking human being on the planet, and that includes cradling the balls while working the shaft at once. Somebody that sits in an air-conditioned office all day yelping orders int a confrrence call phone does not deserve billions upon billions of dollars, than give almost none of it back. These CEOs 40 years ago did not roll up their sleeves and build the very foundation of the building they work in. They got in there using their obvious smarts, not to mention their powers of evil and sleaze because that is how you succeed in the corporate world: by shutting off your emotions at work. Cold, unblinking and reptilian is the way to go. To a certain degee and especially and especially with Wall Street, the big guys screws the little guy and a lot less often than we know. However, a lot of the people complaining do little more action than protest. They talk about when they busted Bernie Madoff like he was the Kingpin of Turdcrime Island. Please. If anything, he was the perfect patsy to take the heat off of the thieves that were stealing much bigger than him (and still are). Another thing that pisses me off about this protest is that they're acting like this shit is The Now. We're tired of big corporate bully-man! BLAH BLAH BLAH why weren't you tired years ago? Like it's fucking news that various deep-pocketed committees have control over various forms of the government. Look at Utah, for example. Tell me that the JCLS doesn't have an iron-fisted control over what goes on in that state: they goes as far as to edit books and movies to the liking of the Mormon religion in Utah, and make it much harder to get quality booze. I guess that goes to show you that with the right amount of bling-bling you can have an entire state run by a religion that idiolizes a raging psychopath.
Re: Occupy America It's more things like Wal-Mart contracting with a supplier, then dicking the supplier, and then giving them the old "You can take the pittance we offer, or you can sue us for breach of contract and we'll bleed you dry for the next ten years while we don't even notice, assuming you can even afford the lawyers in the first place" type shit. Financial institutions profits, as a share of GDP have doubled in the last fifty years, and as a share of domestic corporate profits have tripled. For an industry that creates value only by helping create value in the wider economy (by allocating capital to the ultimate producers), it seems really odd that their share of the pie has grown so drastically and that they continue to make massive profits even when the rest of the economy falters. So am I, but there's no way our current fiscal situation is getting solved without big concessions both on revenue and on spending.
Re: Occupy America This is why I don't understand how so many people can be against raising taxes for the rich. I'm not saying we need to hit guys hard who are making 100k, but the amount of money these people roll in is ridiculous compared to what the average American makes. I haven't really heard much of an argument against raising taxes for the rich. It usually boils down to 'it's their money', or 'if you tax them they'll start firing everyone in their company and businesses can't grow! herpa derp!' Both are bullshit arguments to me. Yes, it's their money, but if they are going to reap the benefits of capitalism to such extremes there is no reason they shouldn't be giving more back. Everyone wants lower taxes, but at some point we need to start thinking about how we are going to pay for all the wars we fight, as well as all the other assorted bullshit. It shouldn't be all on the rich, but they can and should pay higher taxes. This I can agree with as well. Top employees are paid exorbitantly more than they are worth. Naturally they are more valuable to the company than the filing clerk, but they aren't performing functions at all reflective of the value they stuff into their pockets. Yeah I know, welcome to the world dip shit. There isn't really an easy (or even foreseeable) fix to a problem like this, but it is a problem and the distribution of wealth in this country is very disturbing. Sure, they worked hard for their money. So did the people beneath them though.
Re: Occupy America I'm not really following what's going on. Like others, I think the lack of leadership and direction is not helping this movement. But more than that, I'm not clear on why these are the issues that people are protesting today. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there bigger things for us to be worried about? Like Scootah mentioned, cancer is claiming 1500 lives per day (nih.gov) in the US. Shouldn't we be protesting our trillion dollar wars? Cancer kills more people in 3 days than terrorists have in in the last decade (US). Our public school systems are shit. Our college students are broke and in-debt (though, count me in the camp of people that believe that's something that could be avoided. Get a job, take classes at a community college etc...) Certainly, the lack of transparency makes it very hard to follow these issues and even these debates. I can see that people have different opinions but there doesn't seem to be a way to prove one way or the other. Shouldn't that be something to protest? Or this whole focus on partisanship. The impression I get of our politics is that it's closer to a soap opera designed to entertain the lowest common denominator (see public schooling issue) than an open discourse about what sort of changes these politicians want to put forth for the good of the PEOPLE and not them/their party/special interest. Sorry if I'm off focus. This thread seems to be a bit all over the place.
Re: Occupy America I believe that the government hasn't been acting in the average citizen's best interests. The fact that the bulk of the real bailouts total amount was done in a shady behind the scenes manner and will be a tab that WE all have to cover is more than enough to protest. I wish the protest could find a singular message and voice because unfortunately the kooks that they're showing on TV drive people away. I support protest.
Re: Occupy America I think it is precisely this lack of direction and leadership that allows it to grow so big. Once a leader comes in a sets the whole thing in a certain direction it will reduce in size. They will make specific demands and set certain goals, alienating some of the base. Right now it is just a group of people who want to point fingers and don't like Wall St -- basically, a shitload of people. Situations like these are gold mines for the media, they can spin it anyway they want, and the media likes it and they want to keep it that way: a directionless, leaderless movement who bitches about Wall St.
Re: Occupy America Just curious, how many people have you hired at the business you own? It seems that part of the complaints among OWS protestors is about greedy corporations led by greedy CEO's. If the taxes go up, you're saying that just out of the goodness of these greedy bastards hearts, because there's a new law in place, they're going to take home less money? Why would they do that? They're greedy, remember? So, the only way for them to take home the same amount, is to pay for less employees or cut costs. But, they've already cut costs to the bone, because they're greedy, remember? Couldn't we just cut back on the other assorted bullshit? Why?
Re: Occupy America Cutting costs is smart. Doesn't make them greedy bastards, but this point of view is at least partially wrong to me for a few reasons. 1. Not everyone in that upper bracket owns a business. A lot of them don't. Taxing their income more heavily will not affect hiring procedures what so ever. 2. Ok so wealthy person x owns a business. He makes the hiring decisions. Is he paying all his employees out of his own income? Not quite, he's paying them from revenues generated by the business. You're assuming that his employees generate limited revenue so... essentially he's paying them for more than they're worth, right? Except he probably isn't because he's trying to make the most money for himself. Taxes might hurt his income, but releasing productive employees could hurt it even more. And if the person hasn't been productive and isn't worth their paycheck? Well, then they should be gone anyway. 3. If the business is doing well and has potential for growth, he's going to keep adding employees. It doesn't matter what the taxes are. 4. Are the wealthy really going to shy away from their business or make slight cuts in their disposable income? What do you really think is more likely? 5. So lets say it hurts hiring a bit. This will be less significant than the tax revenue generated. Taxes can hurt businesses. A shitty economy will damage them much more. Sure we could, you know, if we weren't already in a massive debt. Also, most of the cuts governments make piss people off. Then they complain about government spending. You can't have it both ways. We aren't taking care of the debt problem very well, and sitting on a couch saying 'just cut back on the bullshit' isn't going to make it go away. Because they can afford it. Because they don't need another yacht. Because low income families are struggling to get by right now, and it's the rich, not them, who are paid more than they are worth. Other than that see above.
Re: Occupy America 1.) Taxing the higher income bracket has always led to lower hiring and more layoffs. Always. 2.) Revenues generated by his business are driven by the value of his service (or good). It is almost guaranteed that he is getting the best money he can for the product. Any increase in the cost of business will not be born by the customers without a dent in the sales. Increasing taxes will hurt his business. How much is the question, but it will hurt his business. 3.) See #2. Business growth is determined by Supply and Demand. Increasing his costs via Taxes affect the cost, but don't change anything else. So demand goes down. Or in this situation, doesn't increase as much as it would have. Taxes still hurt business. 4.) They are. A portion of it is due to the taxes, but a bigger portion is due to the uncertainty of what the legislators will do next. They increased the taxes and will not see the results they predicted, so they'll often try to increase taxes again. 5.) Every time tax rates go up, tax revenues go down. Every time. Every time tax rates go down, tax revenues go up. Every Time. This may seem counter intuitive, but it's not. What you are changing is the number of tax payers. When the tax rates go up, you lose a lot of tax payers. Each tax payer is paying more, but because of the effect this has on businesses it is greatly offset by the number of people no longer paying any taxes. The converse is true as well. A lower tax rate spurns many hires by business, and suddenly there are many more people paying taxes. It may seem small and innocuous, but if you get to make one claim on another man's work, another man's livelihood, then where does it end? He's rich, sure he can probably bear it. But what gives you the right to claim a single penny you never earned?
Re: Occupy America Who says taxing the rich will actually solve any of our problems? Who the fuck thinks these people in government aren't going to absolute fucking waste any additional revenue they bring in? These are the same people that take your SS "taxes" write an IOU for themselves in that amount and then blow the fucking money. Why would you trust them any less than you would corporation? As if all these additional revenues, shit all tax revenues in general, go to 100% benevolent and effective causes? This is why limited government/free market ideas always appealed to me. You have at least some choice in voting with your wallet or at least it seems like you have more choice than you do choosing a government. Another problem is that there really is no answer to how much they need or want to cover what ever programs they come up with. It is ever expanding because, like this current fiasco has illustrated how unwilling, congress is to cutting shit. They couldn't find 2-4 billion dollars in cuts in a 1.2 trillion dollar budget in that whole debt default BS. It seems every single dollar the government needs is absolutely essential. Some see it as helping the less fortunate, some see it as dislocating the money in inefficient places. Yachts, are constructed by companies that employ labors too.
Re: Occupy America First off, this country's survived an attempt to crush a 20-year old rebellion, a civil war, countless boom-bust cycles, two world wars, and the tensest stand-off in world history, and you think that it's going to collapse because the government monitors/controls business more carefully? This is not a discussion about what is profitable for companies. This is precisely why you are not understanding why these people are angry. You are focused on the ledgers of the company, where the maximum good is to maximize profits. These people are angry because they want to be able to work. They want to be able to afford a place to sleep. They want to be able to go to a hospital when they get sick and not have to declare bankruptcy because of it. They want to be able to live the dream that has been promised to them by their family, by their teachers, by their media. These people are angry because they think people who think just like you in that above post are the ones making all the decisions in this country, and that because of that this country has lost its moral compass or guiding principles, that this country is for sale to the highest bidder. Rather than working on making this country great, they fear that the country is working on making it profitable. They are not thinking with their calculators. If you do not understand that, you will not understand them. As for the company bit: People hope for loyalty from a company. Their parents and grandparents might've had pensions that they got for working for a company for 20 or 30 or 40 years, something to show that the company cares and respects the work that they've put into it. Wages don't cut it for most people. Bullshit. American History does not support you, this is a blatant lie. Single example, proving you incorrect: 1950s: Tax rate increased, hiring increased, layoffs did not increase.
Re: Occupy America Why taxing the rich more makes sense: Spoiler I don't believe in income redistribution, but the nation has bills to pay and it just makes sense to pay the bills in a way that causes the least loss of utility. Once you have a big enough pile of money, the rational strategy is to stabilize the system so you don't lose it. I have no idea why, but we aren't seeing this psychological shift to risk aversion after a certain income level. Seems to be the opposite in many cases.
Re: Occupy America It was higher in the 90s when our economy was doing a hell of a lot better than it is now. Also, you need a source for number 5. In the 50s they were taxing a whopping 90% of income over 400k. You want to tell me tax revenues went down as a result of that because I'm calling bullshit. The revenues didn't decrease. In fact the amount the upper bracket is being taxed now is historically quite low. There's no reason they can't pay 39% like the did in the 90s as opposed to 35%. Also, tax revenues took a slight dip in the early 2000s as taxes for the upper bracket began to come down. Seriously, did you just make this shit up? Also, with regards to hiring a lot of small businesses have a set number of people they are likely to hire. Think about law firms, small medical practices, and insurance agents. A tax hike is unlikely to mean they will lay off the secretary. Next, I have to point out again that not everyone in the upper bracket owns their own business. It just isn't the case. You can offer tax incentives to small businesses if it's absolutely necessary as well. It doesn't have to be as simple as just raising taxes for the upper bracket. Since it looks like a lot of your post was just made up theory I'll stop here. I'm not saying it's going to solve everything and that would be very naive indeed. It would help though, and while the way our government spends money might be a bigger problem a slight tax hike would be a good start. Edit: People, let's please keep the discussion intelligent and not just pull bullshit out of thin air because it supports our arguments. We're all wrong sometimes, but lets not just write things hoping they turn out to be facts.