Club Dynasty

wall street protests...is this the start of the revolution?

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,555
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
47,044
6,058
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net

FOOTSNIFFER

New member
Jan 23, 2004
1,506
0
0
Perhaps the difference is that the Tea Party actually had a message.... where as these kids don't seem to have any idea other than some ill informed left wing spin.

OTB
You mean like "...get your government hands off my medicare". What logically coherent message are you referring to exactly??

A recent rasmussen survey revealed that only 17% of americans believed the country is headed in the right direction...I would suggest that is the message of both the tea party mob and the 99 percenters. They don't know what precisely is wrong, they just know that their lot in life is getting more difficult, and a lot less secure.

The US is a sham democracy...more a money-ocracy or plutocracy than a genuine government directed by and for the interests of the common man. Even Jim Cramer of mad money jokingly refers to his own government as "...government of the corporation, by the corporation, and for the corporation" on his nightly T.V. show. And he should know as he is part of the rarefied elite, as are most of his buddies.
 

Don

Active member
Aug 23, 2001
6,288
10
38
Toronto
IMHO wealth disparity has reached an unsustainable level in the US. We really closer to violent protest then meets the eye IMHO. Are the Wall Street protests the start?
How old are you? Is the wall street protest something like you've never seen before in the US?
 

groggy

Banned
Mar 21, 2011
15,262
0
0
How old are you? Is the wall street protest something like you've never seen before in the US?
Not since Huey Long.
You aren't that old are you, Don?

Footsniffer, I agree with you. Democracy in the US is a choice between two sets of millionaires who act for lobbyists first. The two parties are essentially the same these days. More war, more debt.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,555
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Or you can take it from George Will:

Can Occupy Wall Street give progressives a lift?

The Tea Party’s splendid successes, which have altered the nation’s political vocabulary and agenda, have inspired a counter-movement — Occupy Wall Street (OWS). Conservatives should rejoice and wish for it long life, abundant publicity and sufficient organization to endorse congressional candidates deemed worthy. All Democrats eager for OWS’s imprimatur, step forward.

In scale, OWS’s demonstrations-cum-encampments are to Tea Party events as Pittsburg, Kan., is to Pittsburgh, Pa. So far, probably fewer people have participated in all of them combined than attended just one Tea Party rally, that of Sept. 12, 2009, on the Mall. In comportment, OWS is to the Tea Party as Lady Gaga is to Lord Chesterfield: Blocking the Brooklyn Bridge was not persuasion modeled on Tea Party tactics.

Still, OWS’s defenders correctly say it represents progressivism’s spirit and intellect. Because it embraces spontaneity and deplores elitism, it eschews deliberation and leadership. Hence its agenda, beyond eliminating one of the seven deadly sins (avarice), is opaque. Its meta-theory is, however, clear: Washington is grotesquely corrupt and insufficiently powerful.

Unfortunately for OWS, big government’s scandal du jour, the Obama administration’s Solyndra episode of crony capitalism, does not validate progressivism’s indignation; it refutes progressivism’s aspiration, which is for more minute government supervision of society. Solyndra got to the government trough with the help of a former bundler of Obama campaign contributions who was an Energy Department bureaucrat helping to dispense taxpayers’ money to politically favored companies. His wife’s law firm represented Solyndra. But, then, government of the sort progressives demand — supposed “experts,” wiser than the market, allocating wealth and opportunity by supposedly disinterested decisions — is not just susceptible to corruption, it is corruption. It is political favoritism with a clean (even green) conscience.

Demands posted in OWS’s name include a “guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment”; a $20-an-hour minimum wage (above the $16 entry wage the United Auto Workers just negotiated with GM); ending “the fossil fuel economy”; “open borders” so “anyone can travel anywhere to work and live”; $1 trillion for infrastructure; $1 trillion for “ecological restoration” (e.g., re-establishing “the natural flow of river systems”); “free college education.”

And forgiveness of “all debt on the entire planet period.” Progressivism’s battle cry is: “Mulligan!” It demands the ultimate entitlement — emancipation from the ruinous results of all prior claims of entitlement.

Imitation is the sincerest form of progressivism because nostalgia motivates progressives, not conservatives. Tea Party Envy is leavened by Woodstock Envy — note the drum circles at the Manhattan site — which is a facet of Sixties Envy. Hence, conservatives should be rejoicing.

From 1965 through 1968, the left found its voice and style in consciousness-raising demonstrations and disruptions. In November 1968, the nation, its consciousness raised, elected Richard Nixon president and gave 56.9 percent of the popular vote to Nixon or George Wallace. Republicans won four of the next five presidential elections.

Page 2 of 2
Perhaps things will go better for progressives this time. Barack Obama feels their pain — understands their “frustration.” America’s median income has declined even faster since the recovery began three Junes ago than it did during the recession, students are graduating into a jobless “recovery,” African Americans and Hispanics have unemployment rates of 16 percent and 11.3 percent, respectively, but Obama is on the case: He wants corporate jets to be taxed more. OWS must still, however, raise the consciousness of backsliding congressional Democrats who have decided that, unlike the president, they do not believe that “the rich” begin at household incomes of $250,000.

Tahrir Square Envy also motivates America’s Progressive Autumn, the left’s emulation of the Arab Spring. Of course, some lagoons of advanced thinking, such as Montgomery County — it is a government workers’ dormitory contiguous to Washington — were progressive before OWS’s drum(circle)beat became progressivism’s pulse. The Montgomery County town of Takoma Park is a “nuclear-free zone,” meaning it has no truck with nuclear weapons.

Responding to peace activists, some Montgomery County Council members sponsored a resolution to instruct Congress to slash defense spending. The idea died as Virginia was inviting the county’s second-largest private-sector employer, Lockheed Martin, to move across the Potomac. To OWS, this proves the power of the plutocracy. To the Tea Party, it proves the virtue of federalism.

As Mark Twain said, difference of opinion is what makes a horse race. It is also what makes elections necessary and entertaining. So: OWS vs. the Tea Party. Republicans generally support the latter. Do Democrats generally support the former? Let’s find out. Let’s vote.
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
47,044
6,058
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
The US is a sham democracy...more a money-ocracy or plutocracy than a genuine government directed by and for the interests of the common man. Even Jim Cramer of mad money jokingly refers to his own government as "...government of the corporation, by the corporation, and for the corporation" on his nightly T.V. show. And he should know as he is part of the rarefied elite, as are most of his buddies.
I've been saying the same for years.
All bottie and his cadre of cackling corporate bootlickers do is continually obfuscate away from this verity with fuzzy number BS they learnt in business school....:rolleyes:
 

groggy

Banned
Mar 21, 2011
15,262
0
0
Here's today's stat for you:

Percentage of all US economic growth in past decade that went to the top 1% of income earners: 65
 

Rockslinger

Banned
Apr 24, 2005
32,776
0
0
Percentage of all US economic growth in past decade that went to the top 1% of income earners: 65
Yes, because they created the wealth. The majority of poor people do not create wealth. The few poor people who do create wealth then become part of the 1% and are no longer part of the 99%.

Real life example. My boss and his brother went from Parkdale to the Bridle Path by the time they were in their early 40's.
 

groggy

Banned
Mar 21, 2011
15,262
0
0
When you factor in the near bank failures and then massive government handout, you don't find that stat at all shocking, Rockslinger?
And how exactly did those rich folk create that wealth? Massive leveraging, a massive failure and free government money.
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
47,044
6,058
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
And how exactly did those rich folk create that wealth? Massive leveraging, a massive failure and free government money.
By sending several million great US jobs to their commie pals in RED China!....:Eek:
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,555
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
When you factor in the near bank failures and then massive government handout, you don't find that stat at all shocking, Rockslinger?
And how exactly did those rich folk create that wealth? Massive leveraging, a massive failure and free government money.
You're a moron if you believe that... which I'm sure you do....

Bill Gates is one of those guys - would you make those statements about him?

OTB
 

rld

New member
Oct 12, 2010
10,664
2
0
Yes, because they created the wealth. The majority of poor people do not create wealth. The few poor people who do create wealth then become part of the 1% and are no longer part of the 99%.

Real life example. My boss and his brother went from Parkdale to the Bridle Path by the time they were in their early 40's.
Poor people are the means by which most rich people create wealth.

In the US social mobility is getting harder and harder, and the divide between rich and poor greater and greater.

The Canadian system currently is functioning much better.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,555
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Poor people are the means by which most rich people create wealth.

In the US social mobility is getting harder and harder, and the divide between rich and poor greater and greater.

The Canadian system currently is functioning much better.
Income mobility in the US is actually quite high, don't know how it compares to Canada. There is more a divide in the US because American's are richer than Canadians.

OTB
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
47,044
6,058
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
Income mobility in the US is actually quite high...
Indeed it is!!!
The Top 1% does very well! While the remaining 99% continue their slide into negative territory!....:rolleyes:
 

wigglee

Well-known member
Oct 13, 2010
10,198
2,085
113
Income mobility in the US is actually quite high, don't know how it compares to Canada. There is more a divide in the US because American's are richer than Canadians.

OTB
due to political corruption and corporate lobbyists, the top 1% is richer in the U.S., but the other 99% is richer in Canada.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,555
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
due to political corruption and corporate lobbyists, the top 1% is richer in the U.S., but the other 99% is richer in Canada.
Are you sure?

OTB
 
Toronto Escorts