Where do you stand on OCCUPY WALLSTREET?

[barfo]

With all of Obama's class warfare rhetoric, and now this "movement" starts, you obviously don't see the connection.

Just keep changing the subject, pretty soon everyone will forget your erroneous analysis in post #22.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Just keep changing the subject, pretty soon everyone will forget your erroneous analysis in post #22.

barfo

Forget the facts, barfo. If it doesn't pass the barfo sphincter test, it must be erroneous analysis.

(But it isn't erroneous)

 

[bluefrog]

Open letter to OWS from FedUpUSA

We support you in exercising your First Amendment Right. We are outraged that any peaceful demonstrator would be assaulted or abused by any authorities.

If you are protesting because there are no jobs— We stand with you.

We are for a free economy and recognize that what we have now is NOT a free economy; it is not capitalism – what we have is a fascist state or crony-capitalism. There is nothing free about doing business with Countries that manipulate their currencies to attract cheap labor. We agree that these jobs need to come back to America.

If you are protesting because no one has gone to jail— We stand with you.

Regardless of what is being said from the white house and media, we know that there are many in the financial district and the banks that have committed fraud and outright theft and we too want to see them prosecuted. We support: STOP THE LOOTING & START PROSECUTING.

If you are protesting because everything costs more— We stand with you.

We see prices rise in our food, gas, clothes yet our wages have stayed the same or have decreased. The Federal Reserve has bailed everyone out but us and not only are we going to have to pay for that, those bailouts make the price of everything else go up because it devalues our currency. We support monetary reform.

If you are protesting because you are tired of our bought and paid for government on both sides— We stand with you.

We are also against the banks and big corporations buying our politicians and writing laws that favor their special interests. We understand that our economy is broken BECAUSE of this and that all of our other issues will never be addressed as long as the financial elite control OUR government.

We understand that these issues cross party lines and ideologies and effect each and every one of us. We also understand that these issues will never get fixed as long as we continue to let the media, the elite, and members of the government separate us by our differing ideologies.

Only Together, can we Implement Change

It is time, We Americans, put our ideologies in our back pocket and not let them separate us so that we can work together for this ONE COMMON GOAL: to get the special interest money and elite out of OUR Government and return it to US— the people.

As long as the banks, largest corporations, and wealthy elite control our government, we will never have a representative republic and laws will continue to be passed that only benefit the few 1% at the expense of us 99%!

Demand that NOT ONE MORE LAW gets passed until they pass:

Lobby reform:

It is a Federal Offense punishable by a minimum 5 years in prison to:

Lobby any member of the US Congress outside of the district you live, work, or own a business.

Lobby a member of congress while they are physically outside the district they represent.

Campaign Reform:

It is a Federal Offense punishable by a minimum 5 years in prison to:

For any one person, corporation, enterprise, group, union or the like, to donate more than $2,000 to any one candidate during one campaign period.

For any member of the media to deny equal access to competing candidates.

These two laws will cut the control the Financial elite have on our government by leveling the playing field. You will have just as big as a voice with your representative as the big box retailer that resides in your town. Simply, it will end the Crony-Capitalism that is strangling our economy.

I encourage all my fellow Tea Partiers to join Occupy Wall Street protesters in their non-violent, peaceful protests and together demand that the Government be returned to the people. After all, this is precisely what the Tea Party was intended to be before it was taken over and marginalized by the establishment politicians.

 

[Denny Crane]

It is already against FEC rules for any one person, corporation, enterprise, group, union, or the like to donate more than $2,000 to any one candidate during one campaign period.

If barfo runs for president, would the 2 (maybe) who'd vote for him be sufficient that he should get equal air time with Mitt Romney?

How does Boeing compete with AirBus? AirBus is funded by european nations.

 

[bluefrog]

It is already against FEC rules for any one person, corporation, enterprise, group, union, or the like to donate more than $2,000 to any one candidate during one campaign period.

If barfo runs for president, would the 2 (maybe) who'd vote for him be sufficient that he should get equal air time with Mitt Romney?

How does Boeing compete with AirBus? AirBus is funded by european nations.

I guess the Tea Partiers are as misinformed as the 99%

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

All protestors are idiots and misinformed.

 

[Denny Crane]

According to the FEC WWW site, individuals are limited to $2500 contributions and PACs may contribute $5000. Direct contributions from corporations and unions are prohibited.

Also, the tea party letter to the fleabaggers is a list of things that aren't what occupy wall street is about.

 

[barfo]

Forget the facts, barfo. If it doesn't pass the barfo sphincter test, it must be erroneous analysis.

(But it isn't erroneous)

But it is, quite obviously, erroneous to say as you did that job approval = likelihood to vote for.
I know you can't ever admit you were wrong no matter what, so I'm admitting it on your behalf: you were wrong. You can thank me later, or never.

barfo

 

[barfo]

According to the FEC WWW site, individuals are limited to $2500 contributions and PACs may contribute $5000. Direct contributions from corporations and unions are prohibited.

Of course that barely matters anymore with unlimited superpac spending. Those limits are about as effective in practice as marijuana prohibition is today.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

But it is, quite obviously, erroneous to say as you did that job approval = likelihood to vote for.
I know you can't ever admit you were wrong no matter what, so I'm admitting it on your behalf: you were wrong. You can thank me later, or never.

barfo

Don't let the facts get in your way of throwing up strawmen.

I gave two measures of how the fleabaggers support the democratic party and Obama (in post #22) and another that 2% are republicans.

I also posted that I think most will stay home instead of voting.

I didn't say they'd vote for Obama. They might donate money to his campaign and the campaigns of democrats, tho.

What don't you get?

 

[Denny Crane]

Of course that barely matters anymore with unlimited superpac spending. Those limits are about as effective in practice as marijuana prohibition is today.

barfo

Another strawman?

Where does it say anything about superpacs in post #33?

 

[Further]

Also, the tea party letter to the fleabaggers is a list of things that aren't what occupy wall street is about.

OWS is disjointed and leaderless so their messages are not always clear, and not everyone has the same goals. Myself, as a supporter of OWS, the list by the teabaggers is exactly what I promote. I think they need to add the abolishment of superpacs, but The teabaggers and I agree in general.

I still have a bunch of student loans, but I don't really give a shit about getting the government to abolish student loans. A few more years and I will have them paid off. I work hard at OHSU and am still furthering my education. This whole issue is a red herring that never should have been sent out. Just as I don't want the banks to receive taxpayer money, neither should the students. At least, not retroactively. If more student grants and lower loans were available, that would be great, but we need to change laws to move forward, not fix history. The banks got their money, fine, but never again. The corporations have had too much influence on politics, fine, but never again. We can still right this ship, let bygones be bygones and fix the problems that currently exist so that a representative government functions as it should, representing the people.

 

[Denny Crane]

OWS is disjointed and leaderless so their messages are not always clear, and not everyone has the same goals. Myself, as a supporter of OWS, the list by the teabaggers is exactly what I promote. I think they need to add the abolishment of superpacs, but The teabaggers and I agree in general.

I still have a bunch of student loans, but I don't really give a shit about getting the government to abolish student loans. A few more years and I will have them paid off. I work hard at OHSU and am still furthering my education. This whole issue is a red herring that never should have been sent out. Just as I don't want the banks to receive taxpayer money, neither should the students. At least, not retroactively. If more student grants and lower loans were available, that would be great, but we need to change laws to more forward, not fix history. The banks got their money, fine, but never again. The corporations have had too much influence on politics, fine, but never again. We can still right this ship, let bygones be bygones and fix the problems that currently exist so that a representative government functions as it should, representing the people.

You and I are not that far apart. But I have a question for you.

How does Boeing compete with AirBus, considering AirBus gets massive govt. subsidies from several european countries?

And another:

If some environmental NGO (non governmental organization) finds a sympathetic federal agency who orders some company's assets to be seized, doesn't the company deserve to defend itself? Or if some policy is going to hurt business now or in the future? Or if a company's shipments are hijacked by pirates?

(It's not so simple to me)

 

[Further]

You and I are not that far apart. But I have a question for you.

How does Boeing compete with AirBus, considering AirBus gets massive govt. subsidies from several european countries?

A representative government does not mean an anti-business government. It simply means one that is not overly influenced by businesses, where politicians are bought and paid for before they are even sworn into their job. If subsidizing Boeing is required to compete and provide jobs, taxes and a healthy economy then I would hope that the politicians would realize that those subsidies had merit. Or, tariffs could be levied against foreign products if those products are produced with subsidies.

Right now, there are too many politicians in the pockets of big business, passing laws and creating loopholes that are not designed to create a competitive marketplace, but instead designed to make the profit margins exceedingly large.

And another:

If some environmental NGO (non governmental organization) finds a sympathetic federal agency who orders some company's assets to be seized, doesn't the company deserve to defend itself? Or if some policy is going to hurt business now or in the future? Or if a company's shipments are hijacked by pirates?

(It's not so simple to me)

There are other ways to allow business to thrive and protect itself other that allowing them the ability to write our laws. As I said above, I am not anti-business. We just need to swing the pendulum back towards the people. There could be courts created for business to redress their complaints, and certainly laws would still protect business from hijacking and pirates.

Too often, people get weighed down by the black and white of issues, and forget that greys do exist. Although I do support the general idea of OWS, I believe that many of the individuals involved in the protests, and those who are anti-protests, see the world as black and white. Real change that is sustainable can be neither black nor white, it must lie in the grey.

 

[Denny Crane]

What drove me to become a Libertarian is the realization that the only solution to companies lobbying the government (and owning it) is to not have a government so powerful that it's even worth trying to buy it.

The whole anti-capitalist philosophy is something I don't get at all. They rail against "capitalism" yet we don't have Capitalism. We have corporations designed by govt. (see Securities Act of 1933), goaded by govt. to do non-capitalistic things, and it's turned into crony capitalism. Actual capitalism hasn't been tried. But when we didn't have the Securities Act (e.g. before 1933), we had guys like Edison and Ford making many great companies. Ford in particular typifies Capitalism in that he realized he maximized his profits by building a car that his employees could afford to buy and own. Though Edison absolutely lobbied government to get electrical lines run and even the electric chair put to use for executions.

 

[Further]

I admire many libertarian ideas, but I also believe that there is room for government to be involved in more than the total minimum. Science for example. I work in a Cell and Developmental Biology Lab up at OHSU and we are working off of NIH grants. This money is greatly needed to create the fundamental breakthroughs that companies can then come and use to design drugs. Right now, I am working on unlocking the actual mechanism that cleaves IL1beta (which triggers inflammation). Companies would not do this research since it is several steps away from being something that can create money. However, if we are successful, an entire new class of drugs may be used on inflammation, and there will certainly be many companies that will thrive off our discovery. Government is needed in this instance. For every 1 dollar government spends on research, 4 dollars is generated by business. Without the goverments assistance, companies would have far fewer breakthroughs to work off of, and many more people would be suffering from diseases that could have been avoided.

Science, schools, environmental protection, transportation, communication technologies, and many many other things can greatly benefit the entire nation if assisted by the government, even though they are not minimum requirement of government.

 

[barfo]

Don't let the facts get in your way of throwing up strawmen.

I gave two measures of how the fleabaggers support the democratic party and Obama (in post #22) and another that 2% are republicans.

Yeah, so what? I didn't respond to those claims, or post anything that opposed them. So you said something. Big deal.

I also posted that I think most will stay home instead of voting.

Wow, you have an opinion. Color me impressed.

I didn't say they'd vote for Obama. They might donate money to his campaign and the campaigns of democrats, tho.

What don't you get?

What I don't get is why you think I don't get any of that, when it was something else completely (namely, your use of statistics) that I objected to.

barfo

 

[barfo]

Another strawman?

Where does it say anything about superpacs in post #33?

I was responding to (part of) your post, not post #33.

Obviously, since I quoted the part of your post that I was responding to.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

I admire many libertarian ideas, but I also believe that there is room for government to be involved in more than the total minimum. Science for example. I work in a Cell and Developmental Biology Lab up at OHSU and we are working off of NIH grants. This money is greatly needed to create the fundamental breakthroughs that companies can then come and use to design drugs. Right now, I am working on unlocking the actual mechanism that cleaves IL1beta (which triggers inflammation). Companies would not do this research since it is several steps away from being something that can create money. However, if we are successful, an entire new class of drugs may be used on inflammation, and there will certainly be many companies that will thrive off our discovery. Government is needed in this instance. For every 1 dollar government spends on research, 4 dollars is generated by business. Without the goverments assistance, companies would have far fewer breakthroughs to work off of, and many more people would be suffering from diseases that could have been avoided.

Science, schools, environmental protection, transportation, communication technologies, and many many other things can greatly benefit the entire nation if assisted by the government, even though they are not minimum requirement of government.

Is OHSU a federal government school?

I'm fine with big state governments, and the feds taxing the states (not the people) and redistributing the wealth so the poor states aren't really poor compared to the rest of the states.

 

[BrianFromWA]

so if State X was well-run, and turned a profit with things like lottos and beer tax and building sports stadia, etc...the gov't could levy a tax to pay for whatever the $#%Q California's trying to pull nowadays?

 

[Denny Crane]

so if State X was well-run, and turned a profit with things like lottos and beer tax and building sports stadia, etc...the gov't could levy a tax to pay for whatever the $#%Q California's trying to pull nowadays?

The Feds were supposed to tax the states, not the people, from the start.

Article I, Section 2, Clause 3:
Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers...[1]

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:
The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises...but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States...

Article I, Section 9, Clause 4:
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

 

[Denny Crane]

And it isn't about profits, it's about being able to spend a reasonable amount of money on education, police, paving roads, etc.

California might be well run and hugely profitable, but it makes some of its profit from being able to ship product over roads to customers in rural arkansas.

 

[barfo]

Is OHSU a federal government school?

I'm fine with big state governments, and the feds taxing the states (not the people) and redistributing the wealth so the poor states aren't really poor compared to the rest of the states.

Where do those relatively rich states get the money to pay taxes to the feds? Do you suppose they might get it from the people?

So basically, you are not ok with the federal government taxing you more so that some po' folk in Alabama can eat, but you are ok with California taxing you more so that the federal government can take the money from california and give it to Alabama who will then give it to those very same poor people?

Yes, I can see how having 3 governments involved instead of one fits perfectly with your goal of reducing government.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Where do those relatively rich states get the money to pay taxes to the feds? Do you suppose they might get it from the people?

So basically, you are not ok with the federal government taxing you more so that some po' folk in Alabama can eat, but you are ok with California taxing you more so that the federal government can take the money from california and give it to Alabama who will then give it to those very same poor people?

Yes, I can see how having 3 governments involved instead of one fits perfectly with your goal of reducing government.

barfo

I am not OK with the federal government taxing anyone directly. I thought I was clear about that.

Alabama is far better suited to get money to the poor in Alabama than the federal government is. You think that's why the government was designed the way it was?

Until your kind fuckeditup.

 

[Further]

Is OHSU a federal government school?

No, OHSU is a privately owned hospital and medical school. It also has a lot of research. The NIH (National Institutes of Health) provides grants to scientists all over the nation, to private and public institutions alike. The grants are merit based, not institution based. OHSU was recently in the news because Brian Druker from OHSU came up with the worlds first CURE to cancer. Granted, it was to a very specific and not very common type of cancer, but never-the-less, it was a huge breakthrough. Phil Knight donated $100,000,000 to create the OHSU Knight Cancer Institute and appointed Brian Druker to head it up.

I'm fine with big state governments, and the feds taxing the states (not the people) and redistributing the wealth so the poor states aren't really poor compared to the rest of the states.

There does need to be some overriding projects, that cross state line, or benefit the greater good. Like the science I mentioned earlier. There are scientists in every state, but if the same money was divvied up by state, there would be some science that deserved to be funded based on merit but because it was in a state crowded by science institutions, the money would run out, While some science that did not deserve to be funded would get funding because it was in a state with fewer scientific institutions. This same issue can cross to many other areas aside from science.

Also, many businesses would leave states with higher taxes (they do this already, but the issue would be magnified) to go to states with lower taxes, or to states with a weaker economy so they would draw funds from wealthier states. I agree that the federal government needs to be shrunken, but there are still many areas where having a federal government is much more conducive to smooth operations and can actually save money or better allocate funds.

 

[barfo]

I am not OK with the federal government taxing anyone directly. I thought I was clear about that.

Alabama is far better suited to get money to the poor in Alabama than the federal government is. You think that's why the government was designed the way it was?

Until your kind fuckeditup.

And by extension, in 1963 Alabama was far better suited to deal with their "Negro problem" than the federal government.

What makes Alabama "far better suited"? Does the USPS not deliver mail in Alabama? Do Bo and Luke need to deliver it via that road with the washed-out bridges? Does Alabama have a more efficient bureaucracy than the federal government? If so, what's your evidence for that?

barfo

 

[MARIS61]

I am not OK with the federal government taxing anyone directly. I thought I was clear about that.

Alabama is far better suited to get money to the poor in Alabama than the federal government is.

Hardly.

Alabama government has a sordidly racist history that stretches all the way back to it's inception. I doubt they could be trusted at all.

90% of the wasted time and effort by our representatives evolves from the non-parity of regional governments due to regional disparities of education, tolerance, and special interests. Ever watch Cspan? Bicker, bicker, bicker...

State government should focus on protection of their citizens' civil rights and state infrastructure, and leave the complex issues to the Feds.

 

[Denny Crane]

No, OHSU is a privately owned hospital and medical school. It also has a lot of research. The NIH (National Institutes of Health) provides grants to scientists all over the nation, to private and public institutions alike. The grants are merit based, not institution based. OHSU was recently in the news because Brian Druker from OHSU came up with the worlds first CURE to cancer. Granted, it was to a very specific and not very common type of cancer, but never-the-less, it was a huge breakthrough. Phil Knight donated $100,000,000 to create the OHSU Knight Cancer Institute and appointed Brian Druker to head it up.



There does need to be some overriding projects, that cross state line, or benefit the greater good. Like the science I mentioned earlier. There are scientists in every state, but if the same money was divvied up by state, there would be some science that deserved to be funded based on merit but because it was in a state crowded by science institutions, the money would run out, While some science that did not deserve to be funded would get funding because it was in a state with fewer scientific institutions. This same issue can cross to many other areas aside from science.

Also, many businesses would leave states with higher taxes (they do this already, but the issue would be magnified) to go to states with lower taxes, or to states with a weaker economy so they would draw funds from wealthier states. I agree that the federal government needs to be shrunken, but there are still many areas where having a federal government is much more conducive to smooth operations and can actually save money or better allocate funds.

You see the inconsistency in this line of thought? $100,000,000 from Phil Knight, who isn't the government. The Hewlitts and Packards have donated $billions to Stanford, which is also a great institution of medical science and research. How many years did Jerry Lewis do his Muscular Distrophy telethons to raise money for that cause?

Jonas Salk cured polio in a state university on Mellon family grants.

I think the worthy causes get funded, regardless.

Californians get back $.81 of every dollar they pay in federal taxes, while D.C. gets back $6.17 of every dollar they pay in taxes. The redistribution among states is already there, it's just a matter of who takes the money from the people in the first place.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html

 

[Denny Crane]

Hardly.

Alabama government has a sordidly racist history that stretches all the way back to it's inception. I doubt they could be trusted at all.

90% of the wasted time and effort by our representatives evolves from the non-parity of regional governments due to regional disparities of education, tolerance, and special interests. Ever watch Cspan? Bicker, bicker, bicker...

State government should focus on protection of their citizens' civil rights and state infrastructure, and leave the complex issues to the Feds.

Spoken like a true anarchist.

 

[Denny Crane]

And by extension, in 1963 Alabama was far better suited to deal with their "Negro problem" than the federal government.

What makes Alabama "far better suited"? Does the USPS not deliver mail in Alabama? Do Bo and Luke need to deliver it via that road with the washed-out bridges? Does Alabama have a more efficient bureaucracy than the federal government? If so, what's your evidence for that?

barfo

Why must every state have a republican form of government? The federal government does have a role to play to assure that the 14th amendment, and the rest of the constitution, is upheld. The people who hold office swear to uphold it.

So if Alabama isn't allowing black children to attend public schools, it's fine to send in the national guard to move the racist governor out of the doorway to the school. This was done by Ike in Little Rock, and by JFK in Alabama. It wouldn't have been necessary if the government had done its job all along.

There is a huge difference between enforcing the laws and assuring peoples' rights and building huge national bureaucracies that cost half of every dollar that should end up in the hands those programs are intended to help.

Alabama has a government completely elected by its citizens. It's capital is within the state. The people have far more ability to travel to their state capital to petition their grievances. In all respects, Alabama's government is simply closer to the people.

Since this thread is about Occupy Wall Street, consider they're protesting the way things work as currently set up. It's upside down, or inside out - government is FAR AWAY from the people and the people have little influence over it. They get to pick 2 senators, a representative, and vote for president - 3 out of 536 of the federal government.