Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Protesting for the sake of protesting. We all know the type, whiny college kids who were brought up getting participation trophies and told their whole life that they were unique and special snowflakes, now coming to grips with their own insignificance. faced with this stark reality they are hungry for meaning, protesting is their natural outlet. Too bad they still do not matter, even when protesting
Another right winger, like the current crop, dodging the issue in favor of a tantrum.
Let me guess, you supported demonstrations by the teabaggers because, foolish or not, they spoke your language. At least sincere people could, and did, argue against their views and misguided "platform" piece by piece, and give reasons for their disagreement.
Since you have nothing on OWS, you contribute nothing - and instead are reduced to indulging in an insincere, infantile hissy fit, again dishonoring the thread.
Here's a good link to an article that shows how the OWS "agenda" is in fact ignorant, all of its agenda claims are debunked rather easily. The article even tells them who they should be protesting and where jsut to attempt to help them get their "movement" going : The Incoherent Agenda Of Occupy Wall Street
A good link? To a year-old opinion piece by right-winger Mataconis. OK he's entitled, and nobody's denying that demonstrations are often with certain gripes, in this case corporate malfeasance, without defined solutions. The teabaggers were no more explicit, although their demonstrations were better organized - courtesy of Wall Street.
Mataconis makes a ridiculous argument by noting that corporations don't yet have total control of government and therefore there is nothing to demonstrate against - thus rendering the entire movement silly and needless.
Here is his argument: "This “corporations run the government” meme has been around since the 1970s, and it’s no more true now than it was then. As Rick Moran points out, if corporations really ran the government would we have an EPA, OSHA, SEC, the EEOC, the FHA, the Department of Labor, or any of the other number of state and federal agencies regulate corporate behavior? If corporations truly “ran” the government, then why would any of these organizations exist? "
So as you see, in the fascist view there is no corporate malfeasance or undue influence in our government, so why don't the demonstrators all just go home or apply for Wall Street jobs? Right...
We didn't have Reaganomics and deregulated trickle-down in the 1970s. Reaganomics was the wellspring of the fascist inroads to repubs and blue dog dems in government which we endure today. Sleepy voters put these corporate types into office.
Things have changed since then - as you will soon find out. Since a year ago, there are umpteen spinoff organizations working behind the scenes, which will of course be ignored by Faux News.
A good link? To a year-old opinion piece by right-winger Mataconis. OK he's entitled, and nobody's denying that demonstrations are often with certain gripes, in this case corporate malfeasance, without defined solutions. The teabaggers were no more explicit, although their demonstrations were better organized - courtesy of Wall Street.
Mataconis makes a ridiculous argument by noting that corporations don't yet have total control of government and therefore there is nothing to demonstrate against - thus rendering the entire movement silly and needless.
Here is his argument: "This “corporations run the government” meme has been around since the 1970s, and it’s no more true now than it was then. As Rick Moran points out, if corporations really ran the government would we have an EPA, OSHA, SEC, the EEOC, the FHA, the Department of Labor, or any of the other number of state and federal agencies regulate corporate behavior? If corporations truly “ran” the government, then why would any of these organizations exist? "
So as you see, in the fascist view there is no corporate malfeasance or undue influence in our government, so why don't the demonstrators all just go home or apply for Wall Street jobs? Right...
We didn't have Reaganomics and deregulated trickle-down in the 1970s. Reaganomics was the wellspring of the fascist inroads to repubs and blue dog dems in government which we endure today. Sleepy voters put these corporate types into office.
Things have changed since then - as you will soon find out. Since a year ago, there are umpteen spinoff organizations working behind the scenes, which will of course be ignored by Faux News.
You complain of my link being 1 year old, yet yours are 1 and 2 years old.
Think Progress? Those Progressive loons have never gotten anything correct, especially when they take out of context their original piece they are reporting on, as they did with your provided link. Think Progress is so pathetic that they have to link back to themselves to make their claims.
Do you not understand why "regulations" are not only stifling our economy, but they are causing jobs to be lost to include higher costs to consumers for product? I digress, the poor will only get poorer with more regulation. Economics 101.
Your links are only based on "proposals" and not actual implemented law. Sorry, thought you should at least be informed of more of your ineptness in comprehension.
Whats funnier is this from your EPA link
Quote:
President Barack Obama’s administration proposed an EPA budget of $8.3 billion, which is $105 million below the current funding level. EPA appropriations reached a record $11 billion in 2010.
Some of the spin-offs of OWS are quite worthy as the one helping the Sandy victims and the other purchasing debt from donations and helping low income families stay in their homes, for this there is no qualms. The issue was with the original OWS and their inane "agenda" and stupid antics.
Last edited by Liquid Reigns; 03-17-2013 at 07:03 PM..
You complain of my link being 1 year old, yet yours are 1 and 2 years old.
Think Progress? Those Progressive loons have never gotten anything correct, especially when they take out of context their original piece they are reporting on, as they did with your provided link. Think Progress is so pathetic that they have to link back to themselves to make their claims.
Do you not understand why "regulations" are not only stifling our economy, but they are causing jobs to be lost to include higher costs to consumers for product? I digress, the poor will only get poorer with more regulation. Economics 101.
Your links are only based on "proposals" and not actual implemented law. Sorry, thought you should at least be informed of more of your ineptness in comprehension.
Whats funnier is this from your EPA linkSome of the spin-offs of OWS are quite worthy as the one helping the Sandy victims and the other purchasing debt from donations and helping low income families stay in their homes, for this there is no qualms. The issue was with the original OWS and their inane "agenda" and stupid antics.
Still no clue?? Really?? Or are you just desperate.
** The links only "proposals"? It's your repub heroes continually at work trying to deregulate their corporate base as denied by the author of your linked article.
** The age of my posts means nothing because they are pertinent to the obstructionism practiced during the Obama administration. The age of your link means a lot because the OWS is a young and recent development, September 2011 - not four years of repub obstructionism.
** Regulations: Reaganomics dictated a "hands off Wall Street" laissez faire approach to the economy which allowed banks to run wild and tank the economy. That's deregulation, a major part of trickle-down which caused the crash - and corporate fascists now want more of the same. Can you guess why?
Deregulated, Laissez-Faire, Trickle-Down Economics Destroyed U.S. Dominance - Business Insider
Excerpt: "But there we were, back in 1989, with our deregulated, laissez-faire, trickle-down, financialized economic philosophy of the Reagan-Bush era, the “voodoo economics” that thrives only by inducing debt fueled overconsumption. Like tent evangelists, we were preaching globalization to the world and giving each other high fives and belly bumps over the defeat of socialism by the Shining City upon a Hill."
Tell me how this author, or anybody Fox doesn't like, is a know-nothing in your mind, and that our business community was "over-regulated".
** Jobs?? Supply side economics, or "Reverse Robin Hood" - funnelling money to the upper class "job creators" which failed. Rewarding corporations to send jobs overseas. Huge tax breaks for billion-dollar corporations allowing them to avoid taxes altogether.
What "regulations" ARE YOU talking about?
Still no clue?? Really?? Or are you just desperate.
** The links only "proposals"? It's your repub heroes continually at work trying to deregulate their corporate base as denied by the author of your linked article.
** The age of my posts means nothing because they are pertinent to the obstructionism practiced during the Obama administration. The age of your link means a lot because the OWS is a young and recent development, September 2011 - not four years of repub obstructionism.
** Regulations: Reaganomics dictated a "hands off Wall Street" laissez faire approach to the economy which allowed banks to run wild and tank the economy. That's deregulation, a major part of trickle-down which caused the crash - and corporate fascists now want more of the same. Can you guess why?
So the regulation mandating that FAS 157 (FASB accounting rule) be implemented had no effect? Dude, you know so very little of anything that all you are able to do is parrot what Progressive propaganda you have to demonize those whom you think are "right wingers". Your ignorance is once again on full display.
Quote:
Originally Posted by detwahDJ
Deregulated, Laissez-Faire, Trickle-Down Economics Destroyed U.S. Dominance - Business Insider
Excerpt: "But there we were, back in 1989, with our deregulated, laissez-faire, trickle-down, financialized economic philosophy of the Reagan-Bush era, the “voodoo economics” that thrives only by inducing debt fueled overconsumption. Like tent evangelists, we were preaching globalization to the world and giving each other high fives and belly bumps over the defeat of socialism by the Shining City upon a Hill."
Tell me how this author, or anybody Fox doesn't like, is a know-nothing in your mind, and that our business community was "over-regulated".
Do you actually understand what the author is talking about or are you simply googling certain words and then finding them in the articles? I hope you are smart enough to understand the author is talking about a changing economy from nationalistic to global, for which the change at the federal level wasn't timed right.
Quote:
This challenge of global integration really amounts to waiting out the growth in emerging market demand to offset some of the excess supply. In the interim, we must do our part to generate demand – but, please, not through more household borrowing or over-stimulation of the private sector.
and this
Quote:
we must cease policy aimed at attempting to reflate the price side of the economy, as wages in current circumstances will not and cannot inflate with prices – there is simply too much domestic and global labor relative to demand. Policy must rather be oriented towards providing buffers to the slow recalibration of domestic wages to the point of being competitive globally.
which translates to our wages will continue to fall until the world catches up to us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by detwahDJ
** Jobs?? Supply side economics, or "Reverse Robin Hood" - funnelling money to the upper class "job creators" which failed. Rewarding corporations to send jobs overseas. Huge tax breaks for billion-dollar corporations allowing them to avoid taxes altogether.
What "regulations" ARE YOU talking about?
So, tell us how we keep globalization from happening. What you want is more nationalistic in nature. How do you force corporations to remain in the US and pay the highest corporate taxes in the world to include employee benefits, which are also the highest in the world.
C'mon Einstein, explain how you or OWS would have this actually work.
So stock options is the issue and you blame the Republicans? Do you know who pays the taxes from those options? HINT: The people that got those options, i.e. the CEO's and execs to include the shareholders. So you blame the corporation for not paying taxes when all they did was have their execs pay the taxes.
Quote:
Congressional critics of options say they are used by companies to avoid taxes. Thanks to differences between tax laws and accounting rules, companies don't have to report options as an expense on their profit-and-loss statements, yet they can deduct them as an expense from their taxes when they are exercised. Corporate tax avoidance is an important issue, but any loss in corporate tax revenue from options is more than made up for in the personal income taxes paid by individuals exercising options. Some 40% of all federal income tax is paid by the top 1% of taxpayers.Indeed, much of the budget surplus in the '90s came from taxes paid on options exercised. Hurt options and you hurt federal tax revenues.
You are so clueless about economics and government that you should sit back and learn vs using your Progressive propaganda that makes you look foolish.
Last edited by Liquid Reigns; 03-17-2013 at 11:29 PM..
So the regulation mandating that FAS 157 (FASB accounting rule) be implemented had no effect? Dude, you know so very little of anything that all you are able to do is parrot what Progressive propaganda you have to demonize those whom you think are "right wingers". Your ignorance is once again on full display.
Do you actually understand what the author is talking about or are you simply googling certain words and then finding them in the articles? I hope you are smart enough to understand the author is talking about a changing economy from nationalistic to global, for which the change at the federal level wasn't timed right.
and thiswhich translates to our wages will continue to fall until the world catches up to us.So, tell us how we keep globalization from happening. What you want is more nationalistic in nature. How do you force corporations to remain in the US and pay the highest corporate taxes in the world to include employee benefits, which are also the highest in the world.
C'mon Einstein, explain how you or OWS would have this actually work.
So stock options is the issue and you blame the Republicans? Do you know who pays the taxes from those options? HINT: The people that got those options, i.e. the CEO's and execs to include the shareholders. So you blame the corporation for not paying taxes when all they did was have their execs pay the taxes. Don't Blame the Stock Options - Businessweek
You are so clueless about economics and government that you should sit back and learn vs using your Progressive propaganda that makes you look foolish.
I was aware of the global marketplace before I read the article. Globalization needs to be dealt with. Don't know why I waste time on your merry-go-round, but you are unaware that some trading partners are practicing protectionism which we are not?
I want you to address these "job killing" regulations which you spoke of - that was the reason for the linked article since you said "we" are over-regulated and that is what is killing jobs. You stopped just short of blaming Obama for it.
The author, and many others, know that deregulation of Wall Street, for instance allowing banks to merge into a "too-big-to-fail" consortium, caused the 2008 crash, and then a necessary bailout - which investors love of course. This corporate welfare is what molds your views on these issues, no?
Then a republican obstructionist congress attempted to continue the damage for political capital in 2012 (which fell short) and now in 2014. You refuse to address that.
Yeah, and Wall Street-run-wild, the idea that corporations if left to themselves without nasty regulations will self-regulate for the good of all , is exactly what "right-wing" tinkle-down is all about. Yeah I blame the sleazy mentality that promotes this.
These things are what OWS became cognisant of in 2011, then approached Wall Street, and it totally explains your right-wing disdain for them. If they were demonstrating for more corporate influence in government and more corporate handouts (govt-guaranteed solvency), I think you would love them as allies - because imo you sound every bit the investor-class advocate simply looking out for number one.
I was aware of the global marketplace before I read the article. Globalization needs to be dealt with. Don't know why I waste time on your merry-go-round, but you are unaware that some trading partners are practicing protectionism which we are not?
You don't think the US practices trade protectionism? You are so f'n clueless about how economies actually work and what the US actually does. When the government subsidizes local industries with tax credits or even direct payments this lowers the price of locally produced goods and services. It works even better than tariffs because now the goods are cheaper even when shipped overseas. This works well for the U.S., but even better for countries that rely mainly on exports.
Quote:
Originally Posted by detwahDJ
I want you to address these "job killing" regulations which you spoke of - that was the reason for the linked article since you said "we" are over-regulated and that is what is killing jobs. You stopped just short of blaming Obama for it.
My exact words were in question form to you and never stated we were "over-regulated". Do you not understand why "regulations" are not only stifling our economy, but they are causing jobs to be lost to include higher costs to consumers for product? If a regulation forces a corporation to have additional costs who ends up paying for those costs? HINT: The consumer for the product.
If some of the regulations effecting say cable TV were removed we could have lower costs for the same thing we have now, but those "regulations" increase costs. Wages are stagnant or decreasing, yet costs continue to climb, who gets hurt the most? and what is the cause?
Quote:
Originally Posted by detwahDJ
The author, and many others, know that deregulation of Wall Street, for instance allowing banks to merge into a "too-big-to-fail" consortium, caused the 2008 crash, and then a necessary bailout
you have got to be one of the dumbest posters on here. Your linked author doesn't even blame the recession on that. It was a conglomeration of things that lead to the recession, gov't de-regulation in 1992 by the Democrats making available more money for the issuance of home loans, derivatives, etc. Causes of Economic Recession
Here is the actual wording from your own link, which states nothing as to your ignorant claim as being said
Quote:
the developed nations of Western Europe, the U.S. and Japan are facing the aftereffects of having for decades pursued policies, and tolerated private sector activity, that has been nearly the opposite of how they should have responded to the tectonic shifts in the structure of the global economy. We did not have a mere recession in 2007 and 2008, we experienced the beginning of the culmination of an era of ideologically-driven mismanagement occurring amidst, and partially in response to, one of the most massive changes in political economics in modern times. The fundamental catalyst was the emergence, and integration into the global free market, of nations that are home to the roughly 3.5 billion people formerly near-irrelevant to trade within the modern capitalist world – during the period prior to 1989 when they remained under the yoke of totalitarian “socialism” and other dysfunctional regimes.
[LEFT]
Read more: Deregulated, Laissez-Faire, Trickle-Down Economics Destroyed U.S. Dominance - Business Insider
[/LEFT]
Quote:
Originally Posted by detwahDJ
This corporate welfare is what molds your views on these issues, no?
No, its an actual understanding of economics and our economy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by detwahDJ
Then a republican obstructionist congress attempted to continue the damage for political capital in 2012 (which fell short) and now in 2014. You refuse to address that.
There's that Progressive propaganda.
Quote:
Originally Posted by detwahDJ
Yeah, and Wall Street-run-wild, the idea that corporations if left to themselves without nasty regulations will self-regulate for the good of all , is exactly what "right-wing" tinkle-down is all about. Yeah I blame the sleazy mentality that promotes this.
Look at that, even more propaganda. I see it as: fewer costs incurred by regulation, the cheaper the product, the better for the worker and poor,; they can afford to purchase product and attain a higher life style. However, I will revert back to this phrase I bolded in an earlier comment about wealth: "If you’ve no debts and have $10 in your pocket you have more wealth than 25 percent of Americans."
Quote:
Originally Posted by detwahDJ
These things are what OWS became cognisant of in 2011, then approached Wall Street, and it totally explains your right-wing disdain for them. If they were demonstrating for more corporate influence in government and more corporate handouts (govt-guaranteed solvency), I think you would love them as allies - because imo you sound every bit the investor-class advocate simply looking out for number one.
I am looking out for number one, namely me and my family.
Last edited by Liquid Reigns; 03-18-2013 at 07:54 PM..
I agree, Liberals, democrats and the Obama sheep dance around the truth.
Oh I don't think so. The. undisputed, invincible kings of propaganda and jingoism, with their little lapel flag pins to appear as if they gave a sh_t about this country, are right wingers. In fact, books analyzing right wing propaganda and their highly expert use of language meant to deceive, are published and make very interesting reading.
You don't think the US practices trade protectionism? You are so f'n clueless about how economies actually work and what the US actually does. When the government subsidizes local industries with tax credits or even direct payments this lowers the price of locally produced goods and services. It works even better than tariffs because now the goods are cheaper even when shipped overseas. This works well for the U.S., but even better for countries that rely mainly on exports.
Here is the actual wording from your own link, which states nothing as to your ignorant claim as being said
No, its an actual understanding of economics and our economy.
There's that Progressive propaganda.
Look at that, even more propaganda.
I am looking out for number one, namely me and my family.
Untrue. You, like all right wingers look out for, and protect those who already have all the power. Right wingers don't merely look out for themselves. They kowtow to the rich and powerful... maybe hoping to one day be like them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
: 
