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.
OK, so let me get this straight, this started off initially as a movement against Wall St. then the Democrats, the Unions and the Democrat base got involved,
I think your description of what happened is right on the money.
Here's why I think this happened: "Wall St" is a pretty nebulous target. Were the protestors complaining about loan originators, investment banks, retail banks, financing arms of conglomerates and/or auto manufacturers, hedge funds and proprietary trading desks, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, or did they simply not understand the difference between these things ? And what, specifically was their legislative agenda ?
In my opinion, "Wall St" is just vague a reference to some mythical villain who "caused" "the problem". After all, if bad stuff happened, it's got to be an identifiable "bad guy" who caused it. That bad guy has a name -- "Wall St". "The problem" varies depending on who you are, but given the poor state of the economy, people are going to be more unhappy than usual. Underwater on your mortgage ? "Wall St" did it. Got evicted from your apartment ? Yeah, that was "Wall St" too. 401k not doing so well ? Blame "Wall St". Got the flu ? That was probably "Wall St"'s fault too.
Given that the protestors never identified a specific tangible problem, it is not surprising that they propose no solution in the form of policy prescription (they don't even propose any lousy ideas let alone good ones).
Generally, lack of a specific agenda makes it very easy for someone who does have a specific agenda to come along and hijack the group. This is pretty much what happened with the tea party -- there were a bunch of angry people who weren't very well organized, so a bunch of imposters came along and tried to proclaim themselves as "leaders" of the movement. It wouldn't surprise me if we likewise see some big name democrats emerge as "leaders" of the occupy wall street "movement".
Of course those that run corporations are greedy. If they weren't there wouldn't be a need to lobby congressmen constantly AND set up themselves offshore to avoid US taxes. I'm pretty sure all the lobbying they do allows them to pull such an anti-American scam. You & I pay taxes and can't "offshore" ourselves, why should they? According to Republicans like yourself, corporations are people after all!
this is government's fault, not corporations. pass legislation to prevent this (and enforce it) and it wont happen. but politicians are as greedy as any corporate ceo, so they dont want to put the brakes on their gravy train.
politicians create an environment where corporations need to contribute to them in order to remain competitive. you can either be on the list of donors that gets the contracts/protection or you can be on the list of businesses that dont give and you get the shaft.
At least the unwashed drugged out hippies know how to spell after they spent 6 years getting their degree in sociology...
...and you seriously wonder why I call them "teabaggers". How can anyone throw in with that lot is beyond me.
one of my biggest grammar peeves is when someone misuses "It's" vs. "Its". i know the english language is tough, but if you're marching with people who want to make english the "ofical" language of america, you might want to double check your signage before you march...
There should be as many coal plants as possible, none of them should be closed because of the EPA wanting to regulate them out of business so their friends can benefit financially from unsubstantiated alternatives, friends such as Al Gore. We should be doing everything we can to become self-sufficient as far as energy goes. Cuba is allowing Chinese owned Companies to explore off-shore, yet the US 35 miles away can't do that? we can't drill in Alaska?
you can say all you want about Al Gore. I personally don't give a crap what he says, and what he makes money off of. The best way of becoming independent as far as energy goes is moving towards renewables. Even if you wanted to focus on coal since we have plenty of it, you still are at the mercy of market demands for pricing. You can start drilling in every available place in the U.S., and that will barely make a dent in our demand, let alone the fact that it won't hit our supply for almost 10 years. But why debate with facts and science?
for the record, I have zero issues with drilling, i just recognize that it won't do much for us. I've wanted to see more renewable research for a while now, but even I was shocked when I read this:
Did they pay 99 weeks worth into it? and you're totally missing the point, getting paid for not working, most people don't have a problem with those collecting short-term, but 99 weeks?
unemployment has been extended in every country in the world in special circumstances, throughout history. i personally think that 99 weeks is too long as well, but it doesn't change the fact that it's one of the most beneficial economic stimulus programs a government could use. in contrast to giving a tax break of $1,000 to a bunch of people who won't really change their spending drastically (say, the payroll tax cut that I enjoy right now, but put every cent of it into my savings account since it's just extra money), unemployment checks are pretty much spent in full.
I know it's probably old fashioned, but some people have pride and don't want a hand-out of any kind. Like I said, I have no problem helping people out when they need it, but when it turns into something that's continuous? yeah people have a problem with that. I refuse to find fault with this man because he was too proud.
you don't get it. it's not a "handout" when it's something you've paid for.
if you get into a car accident, do you call your car insurance provider and say "i don't want people's rates in NJ to go up, don't worry about fixing my car, I'll fix it myself"? no, you use the insurance you have paid into. you pay unemployment insurance, so to collect if you become unemployed isn't accepting a handout.
I guess you plan on declining medicare and social security, and you don't use any roads paid for by government. those would all be handouts.
I know several people who have been collecting, and collecting, and collecting. And working part time cash jobs on the side to supplement while basically taking it easy. This is a common practice. Illegal? You bet. And who cares? Nobody.
99 weeks of payouts is not unemployment, it is welfare.
Unemployment benefits should not exist. Saving money for use during periods of unemployment should be an individual responsibility. Unemployment simply makes it easy to sit on your you know what, turning down jobs that you don't like, but which you would take in a heartbeat were it not for the welfare check.
And please nobody tell me that you paid in. In most areas you either do not pay in, pay in a putrescent amount that does not begin to cover the cost of the benefit, or employers are taxed to cover most of the expense. Making them inefficient and non-competitive and contributing one more factor towards transferring jobs abroad.
Providing income to out-of-work people is not a legitimate function of government. A job is not a right and not a guarantee. It is simply a relationship between one person and another. A free relationship that should be subject to termination by either party for any or no reason.
But once again, the left has transmogrified the concept, seeking to make rights out of thin air where none exist. Rights that are to be paid for. By who? By whoever.
The protesters are able to fantastically claim a right to a "living wage". A RIGHT!!!!! To a LIVING WAGE!!!!. At whose expense? Whoever HAS IT! We'll just define them as "the rich". And we'll simply take it away from them using the police power of the state. Why? Because they have it. And we need it.
THAT is what the "Occupy Wall St" imbeciles are really after. Disgusting to a degree that is difficult to describe without expletives.
introduce me to 1 of the people you know collecting unemployment in this way. I'd like to chat with them.
Paying for insurance and collecting a benefit when a legitimate claim exists is fine. Unemployment "insurance" that is effectively paid for by taxpayers and basically amounts to a entitlement program? Not fine.
Unemployment insurance should be just that: insurance. Provided by a private insurance company and funded and paid for entirely by premiums collected. And completely optional, not mandatory. Just like every other form of insurance. The taxpayers should never be on the hook for it.
Insurance is a great idea. Unemployment insurance is a great idea. Welfare disguised as insurance and administered by the government? That has to go.
And finally the people "thrown out the door" "through no fault of their own" concept is irrational. A job is not a right. It is a temporary relationship that exists between 2 parties to provide and pay for a service. Once one of the parties no longer needs or wants the relationship, it should be over at no penalty to either party. Nobody has a right to a job. Ever.
just like car insurance...completely optional, not manda...oh wait...nevermind
No, what's ridiculous is unemployment benefits going on for 99 weeks.
No mention of how unemployment under Bush was at 5% for 6 years, no mention of how the unemployment rate started to rise after the Democrats took over the House and were spending money we didn't have? No mention of Bush calling for an overhaul of the Housing Finance Industry?
do you ignore reality?
number 1, the president does not have as strong of a direct impact on employment numbers as either side wants their supporters to believe. what creates jobs? demand for products. not a politician, and not a company. so the government has some control over the climate that exists, but it's not a direct control. Bush took office at a time where the economy was benefiting from great growth, in large part due to the internet and e-commerce. Which, by the way, the internet exists in it's form because of DARPA. The commercial airline industry exists because of the department of defense. Virtually all private healthcare companies exist because of the NIH. should I keep going? anyways, back to Bush's unemployment numbers. He took office and had that going for him. He also enjoyed a real estate boom, which if you want to believe republicans, the bubble is all the fault of democrats right? So what Bush policies can you point to that kept unemployment at 5%? Since the internet was not his policy, and the real estate bubble is all the democrats' fault, what do you have left?
In contrast, at the end of Bush's presidency of 8 years, our economy is bleeding jobs. So unless he did nothing over 8 years, his policies have some play into us losing jobs, do they not? Let's say that the folks who blame Democrats for the real estate bubble are right. Well, where were the Republicans when they controls Congress and the Oval Office for 6 years? The national debt? Where were the republicans in Congress and the Oval Office when we were paying for 2 wars, and not including them in the Budget? Where was the fiscal responsibility? How about with Medicare Part D?
Please, point me to a Bush policy that aided in 5% unemployment.
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.
