I then saw a few news articles that were about that very quote personified: Fox News The Hill Huffington Post
Hmmm. First, let's get this out of the way. Social Security is NOT supposed to be a retirement plan. It was originally intended to be a basic insurance plan against the risks of, well, living... you know: old age, becoming handicapped, unemployment, a household losing the primary breadwinner, etc. It was not supposed to be this system where once you reach a certain age then BOOM! You're done! You can start licking those chops because here comes some of that juicy government money. Either way, that's another debate. It exists (ugh, another horribly run, inefficient government program), and as of right now, that's all there is to it.
Back to those articles. As always, let's keep this simple. Obama wants to extend the payroll tax holiday. For 2011, payroll taxes were reduced. That reduction is set to expire on 1/1/12. What does that mean? Well, in keeping with simplicity: everyone's taxes would go up slightly after the turn of the year. Okay, got it. Good.
Why is this such a big deal? Well, obviously, if the holiday were to be extended it would mean there would be a relative shortage in payroll tax revenue if no further action is taken. There are three ways of handling this issue:
1. The government can take a loan. There is no reason to over-complicate this. It's bad, and debt is the last thing we need.
2. The republican plan. Cut out spending from somewhere else in the budget. Preferably, take a look at some other wasteful, unnecessary government program and slash its budget. It doesn't take a genius to know that LME fully supports this plan.
3. Obama's plan. Can you predict it???? Yes! Make the filthy, stinking, evil rich pay for it!
From the Fox article: "As the deadline approaches, bipartisan political support is building for at least continuing the tax cut -- heading off a politically bruising tax hike. But Obama wants the cost of the payroll tax cut to be made up by an increase in taxes on taxpayers who earn more than $1 million, a trade-off that Republicans reject."
Simply put: Obama's plan makes me sick. Not to get redundant here, but again, see the post "Progressive Taxes: The Ultimate Conflict of Interest." Without repeating that entire article, its premise is that the "poorer" population (in this case the ones receiving the tax break) is a lot larger than the "richer" population (the ones getting the tax hike). If you promise a much larger portion of the population a significant tax benefit while promising the smaller portion a tax hike, don't you think that will get you some votes? Duh... see that post. It's sickening because it is a complete perversion of democracy. Elected officials basically buying voters with sweet tax policies is absolutely disgusting. Okay, that's out of my system.
I don't like it for another reason. Here it is: I can fund my own damn retirement, thank you very much. I don't need my rich uncle's money. I don't need any wealthy person to pay more so I have to pay less. Does anyone find it stunningly embarrassing that every time we need something to be paid for in this country (and yes, it is clouded in the perverted democratic mantra "shared sacrifice") there is no sharing of the sacrifice at all. Democrats point the legislation cannon at the rich and say "pay up, buster!" Theft by legislation is no different than theft with a gun. When does it stop?
Social security as a retirement plan is a terrible idea anyway. It kills financial discipline. Why would anyone run their daily, monthly, and yearly finances with retirement in mind? Why would they save anything? They know the government will be there when they get older so why would they try? I just had to get that out, but again, that's another argument.
Yes, I can run my own retirement. I live within my means, and yes, I do take retirement in mind with every purchase I make. I don't need social security. No one does, and I damn sure don't need the rich to pay for it. People behave in riskier ways now because they know Social Security is there. If that's the case, fine... just make everyone pay for it at an equal tax rate.
So are politicians NOT supposed to promise things? We have problems in this country. Poverty is an example. Should politicians NOT campaign on ways to solve them? I think you're way off base.
ReplyDeleteWill - Thank you for your comment. It's good to have an opposing opinion here.
ReplyDeleteWith what you said, politicians should not be using campaign promises to get elected. Yes, they should solve problems, but I believe the government should NOT do it by discriminating. It should always maintain equality. If it needs to raise taxes, it take from all citizens at an equal rate. If it gives a tax break, it should do it at an equal rate. With poverty, why should some people get subsidized housing, free food, heating oil, etc. while others have to work for it? Why should the government discriminate like that? I believe if a poor family gets $6,000 worth of subsidized housing and $2,000 worth of food each year, every citizen should be entitled to that. This is a government that allegedly prides itself on equality, discriminates constantly. Is it so the politicians can garner votes? Well, I tend to think so, and I tend to believe the government should stop engaging in discriminatory policies.
Thank you for the post. I hope to hear a rebuttal, but if not, good luck in all that you do.
LME: you seem like a reasonable guy with whom I have some philosophical differences specific to OWS. What say we have an open, rational debate here on your site?
ReplyDeleteSeth
(we've bantered on CNN)
Seth - Thank you for the post, and absolutely!!!
ReplyDeleteI just want to get some facts straight.
1. LME is actually more one person. We are a conservative blog (I know, I know, we hide it so well) with a few contributors, designers, and support staff. Blog posts and comments are done by numerous people, but individual comments and posts always have only one poster in the comment.
2. We exist for this exact purpose: engaging in debate. Chat rooms and one line back and forth arguments are inefficient. People barking back and forth with short quips doesn't do it either. If people have the avenue and the space to write their thoughts without limit they can better outline their position, and readers can better understand it to formulate theirs. This is what we want for everyone.
3. We exist to challenge positions. Obviously, ours come from our point of view. When we see something we disagree with, we use our blog to challenge it. Every commentor has that same right.
4. We will always be respectful. We know we are just one point of view and it's not the gold standard. We respect opposing views no matter much we disagree.
5. Proof! Yes, we love it. We will do our best to make our points with backing, and when it doesn't exist, typically you will see something like "now we can't scientifically back this, but...." It's not mandatory, but it helps.
6. More of something we just hope for... if you like us (even if you disagree) tell a friend.
That all being said (I hope you know these were sincere and not snide), absolutely, Seth... welcome!
With respect to your comment, you're right; we probably do fundamentally disagree on OWS. Again, we will always be respectful. If you look through our blog the contributor with the tag Whatsamattausa is probably more in your boat than he is in ours. He frequently contributes, and though we have opposing views, we are extremely civil and both agree that civility is really missed in the political debate world.
Sorry to load you up with a comment, but, in short, we definitely look forward to your posts!
And on a quick side note... Cnn is definitely dropping the ball. It keeps deleting our comments. It must not like what we have to say.
ReplyDeleteHello hello -- thanks for the open dialogue. I'll parrot back your ground rules. I'd also ask that we try to look past the obvious talking points - most of them are only that.
ReplyDeleteI'm a mid-30's progressive-leaning independent. I voted Obama, mostly because I didn't like the other guy, and I welcomed a new direction, but I'm also smart enough to know that presidents aren't magicians and can't fix countries on their own. I believe that global warming is probably real and I vote accordingly, because I'd hate for us (more, our kids) to be on the losing end of that gamble. I'm a small business owner, homeowner, more-or-less regular guy. I do support the OWS movement.
Let's agree that capitalism and democracy are as close to personal freedom as we're likely to find. A free market economy produces goods and services that improve our lives better than any government program could (military & space excepted). But let's also agree that the market can't always regulate itself. Actually, historically, it's almost always the other way around -- in pursuit of profit, companies will by their nature test the limits. As our economy is more-or-less founded on those kinds of practices, it's up to us - the people - to make sure that our rights aren't compromised in the process. We elect our officials accordingly.
As it turns out, government seems to be more interested in corporations these days. To cast the net wider, it seems more eager to shield those who don't necessarily need the protection, especially right now, especially during record quarters. Government and business are almost a self-contained ecosystem -- of course money buys influence in politics, let's not be naive about that.
For all their ambiguity and mixed messages, only the willfully-ignorant wouldn't acknowledge that this uneasy marriage is at the center of OWS' list of complaints. To discredit the movement as pointless is a convenient untruth. This discontent with a system that props up the wealthy at the expense of the majority without return is, I believe, a patriotic affair and well within our rights as citizens -- our country was founded on equal opportunity, after all. It makes no sense that GE should pay no taxes while low-income communities are still polluted by their own factories. If you're looking for social imbalance, start there. At some point, we as a nation must agree that our public welfare matters more than a cannibalistic economy, but let's not confuse socialism with civic responsibility and national pride as we do.
Of course there are going to be hippies and burnouts and idiots -- the problem with any populist movement is that it's going to bring out the fringe (as it did in the Tea Party (come on, it happened)). We reasonable supporters cringe, but hey -- it's their right to be mad about Tuesday if that's their thing. But as with society at large, the fringe stay fringe. In a group that votes through consensus, they don't hold much currency. Democracy is messy, goes the cliche.
I take issue with OWS critics who seem either entirely insensitive to or ignorant of the real issues behind the movement. You can't discredit a 34k-strong march in NY as not having any value -- any protest of this size, regardless of cause, should at least be given a fair listen. Protests in all major US cities can't just be a sudden mobilization of the previously-immobilized -- if they've been on the couch this long, they're probably sitting this one out, too.
ReplyDeleteI also take issue with those who accuse OWS-ers of class warfare. If anything, it's class defense. Protests are reactionary by definition -- nobody storms the castle on a good day. Tea Partiers can agree with that.
OWS does not want to confiscate wealth. Find me a link to someone saying so and I'll find you a dozen to the contrary. The sentiment is much less dramatic: while the majority of Americans don't envy personal wealth or success, let's call a political time out for a minute and at least acknowledge that there has to be a cap somewhere. A logical extension of the free market model would theoretically allow for a single person to own all the wealth, and we'd have to be ok with it.
Pure free-market capitalism can only function well on the following assumptions:
- that every citizen is afforded equal opportunity to succeed
- that business can regulate and stabilize themselves, and do so ethically, and not at the expense of the taxpayer
Unfortunately, until those are true, there does need to be some measure of government oversight. It's not a perfect solution, but it's the only thing between us and a machine that literally feeds on our cash.
Nobody's out to demonize the rich (okay, some are), and nobody's going to take your CD player (actual blog comment). OWS wants corporate influence out of Washington -- as it should be, always -- and they tire of the middle class always taking the punch when bets go wrong.
I'm not sure why people are surprised to know that many OWS-ers are disillusioned Obama supporters. I'd venture to guess that a lot of people at at the protests are there specifically for that reason. For all his charisma and promises, and for all his momentum and support, even he couldn't stick to his plan. It's not for lack of want, certainly -- he just couldn't beat the gridlock. You asked why people don't protest the White House -- there's your answer. If simple legislation can't be passed with a then-majority democratic congress and a then-liberal president, what can they to do about any of this now?
If nothing else, OWS has at least forwarded the national debate on the state of the union, I suppose. The fact that otherwise-busy Americans are shouting the Constitution on a corner is surely a sign of a vibrant democracy, be it OWS or the Tea Partiers.
Anonymous – Thank you so much for these well thought, insightful posts. I’m going to assume they are both from the same author, who I also assume is listed above. We definitely appreciate the civility, and it’s great to know we are starting to get more people to come together this way.
ReplyDeleteWith all that, let me start by saying a few things. I didn’t mean to establish “ground rules” per se. We aren’t that strict, and the only time we will delete someone’s free thought (comment) is if they include nasty, hateful, or harmful language. I hope you didn’t think we were that bossy :-) Also, as you probably already know, I’m going to disagree (very respectfully, but I do disagree) with many, but not all of your positions. Trust me and the blog; if anything I/we say in rebuttal comes off as nasty, please let us know. It’s definitely not our intent at all. But, as I go on, you have your opinions and I (and LME as a group has) have mine, and that’s perfectly fine. We appreciate you coming to this forum to engage with us. That’s what this is all about.
Ok, I will try to go through your post and engage thoroughly and thoughtfully. It is really well written, and that’s great. CNN comments are not well written, and that drives me nuts! Typically, what we do is highlight each individual thought/point the best we can and address those as we go down your post. I hope that’s ok; I/we feel it’s the best way to address what we are addressing.
First, okay, I will concede right off the bat that McCain wasn’t a good (let alone, great) candidate, and I can see choosing Obama. I would also agree that presidents can’t fix things over night. My (again, just one writer here, but speaking for the blog too) only problem is when candidates promise they can… e.g. the promise to have the unemployment rate cut to below 8.0% by the end of 2010. You’ve probably seen this in our other blog posts, but we as a blog dislike any candidate of any party that uses false, unachievable and otherwise ridiculous promises to woo voters simply to lock in votes (see Progressive Taxes: The Ultimate Conflict of Interest). I feel Obama has done that extensively. I can understand your position on global warming, especially your regard for future generations, but I’m not in the boat that it’s a man-made phenomenon… yet. I’m huge on proof, and when I see it, I will wholeheartedly believe it and live by it. To me, there are too many solid points for both sides, and my pendulum currently rests in the middle. I guess that’s a whole other debate topic. I used to be a small business owner and my background and education is in finance and economics. I do support everyone’s right to live by the Constitution and peaceably protest, petition and assemble, but I do not support the OWS movement for a couple reasons.
(continued): Yes, I will agree that capitalism and democracy are the most efficient ways to allocate resources for the masses while providing the freedoms for people to pursue happiness. I will admit some (probably not as much as you) regulation is needed, and I tend to disagree that the markets can’t regulate themselves. I tend to want to see regulations minimized, and I believe the free market just needs referees but not strong regulations. To me, regulations actually cause the need for more regulations. If you regulate say, banking fees, then banks will adjust their behavior to skirt them, and then a regulation on the new behavior is needed. Then a regulation on that new behavior is needed, and behind all that a huge government bureaucracy is needed to make sure all these behaviors are in compliance. I’d default to let the free market and its greatest regulator (the consumers) regulate the market itself. There is not a lot of science behind that argument, but that’s just the gist of it. I tend to believe that humans’ best asset/strength, and most importantly as creatures of incentive and value, is the pursuit of profits (many people see this as monetary, but profits in general, including monetary and non-monetary are what I’m referring to). I believe our desires to always have more, to learn more, to achieve more is what is at the our core, and that is what drives every decision we make. I don’t look at this as bad at all, and I feel that people unnecessarily and unfairly demonize this pursuit.
ReplyDeleteGoing forward, I guess this is where some more disagreement will start to come in :-)
(continued): I disagree that the government is more interested in corporations. I would always challenge for proof on that. I think the government is more interested in keeping itself in power and elected officials act in accordance with that. Profits aren’t really “record” right now. I don’t think you can look at the nominal number of $XXX billion to say they are. A look at profit margins is needed, and I don’t find those to be in any record territory (people complain about Exxon for example, but their 8.9% profit margin is actually very small compared to Apple (25%) and Google (28%)) either. Even if they were records, that’s none of my business. If I don’t like a company’s goods or services, and if I don’t feel they are being ethical, it’s my right (and the extrapolated rights of all Americans) to patronize or not patronize that company. All things like tax breaks, employee salaries, etc. aside, profits (most importantly, revenues) are the result of the demand for a product or service, and that is paid for by the choices of consumers. We the people regulate the markets in that way, and “record” profits are, to me, a result of two things: 1. A company selling us things we want, and 2. Us buying the things a company sells. The statement here: “Government and business are almost a self-contained ecosystem -- of course money buys influence in politics, let's not be naive about that” I see this statement all the time, but (as much as I detest politicians) I would really like to see proof. If that’s me being naïve, it’s fine for you to have that opinion. But humans tend to take one small subject and turn it into one large myth. To me, saying money buys influence in politics is just that… until I see otherwise. I will believe it and be vehemently against your statement too when I actually see tangible proof it is true. IF that was the case, (you will probably see this come up here frequently) why isn’t OWS protesting outside the Capitol and the White House? The government has created the rules of this game. From what I see, the corporations are merely playing by them. If they are doing things that aren’t illegal, I can’t be mad at them. If I dislike the situation, but yes, it is legal, I can only be mad at the government. But I do revert back to: I’d like to see proof of this. Honestly, I feel it’s a large myth (kind of like that one where people say “hey, did you know your blood is really blue when it’s in your body?” Someone said it, it’s false, yet it is widely believed somehow), and I will believe it when I see it.
ReplyDelete(continued): I am definitely one of those that discredits the OWS movement. I don’t believe we have a system that props up the wealthy. How does it? To me, I admire the wealthy. And I’m glad my tax burden every year is only about $10,000 - $14,000. A millionaire pays nearly 20x what I do in tax, but receives the same government services, military, fire, police, etc. For me, I just say “thank you.” I’m not sure how the government props him up when he has to pay way more than me. One of the reasons I discredit the OWS movement is because I can’t see the meat and potatoes behind these kinds of arguments. I think they are gitchy, scapegoating chants. If we pause and ask for proof, I would like to see some. Until then, I can’t jump on board. Merely saying this is the way this is doesn’t make it so, either. As much as OWS claims the government protects the wealthy, I just plain don’t see it. In fact, I would say the opposite is true. I believe the government protects the poor discriminately, and uses this to get elected (again, see Progressive Taxes: The Ultimate Conflict of Interest). It gives away enough in free things (subsidized housing, WIC, food stamps, low to no tax burden, etc) to ensure the poor are quite sheltered and don’t have to contribute to the costs of government services, yet the poor takes from the government instead. I do COMPLETELY agree that GE and other companies should not be able to pay no taxes. My disdain, however, is NOT at GE for this. Again, they are merely playing the game the government created. I’m against welfare of all kinds (social and corporate) because I do not believe the government should discriminate in anything, ever. As you might have seen in the Krauthammer article post, I want to government to be anti-discrimination with everything. Flat, non-discriminate taxes are the way to go. Why should the government say to GE “hey, you did this and that and this and that, so you pay ZERO tax…” and hmmm Johnson & Johnson, “you must pay 35% (yes, I know this is the marginal rate, I will act like it’s flat and nominal right now)?” Making these companies pay the same rates, to me, eliminates government discrimination and would also eliminate lobbyists for the most part, in addition to eliminating this huge conflict of interest it creates (what would they be lobbying for?). But again, my disdain is at the government, not GE. I am HUGE on equality in a ways, plain and simple.
ReplyDelete(continued): I’m not a direct supporter of the Tea Party, but again, saying “come on, it happened” to me, isn’t enough to make me believe. Comparing OWS to the TP… what did the TP do? There weren’t arrests, destruction of public property, nothing. To me, these aren’t even close, and the TP exercised their first amendment rights in the way they were supposed to be exercised.
ReplyDeleteI think OWS has been given its fair listen. Honestly, I think it has been given too much coverage. To me, again, there is no meat and potatoes behind this movement. I constantly look at signs, read their websites and blogs, and I can’t find any proof to back their claims. Trust me, I would happily follow them and support them if they gave me some. I really just don’t see it. Hating the rich, saying banks rob people, being mad at banks for taking bailout money in a too-big-to-fail program (when they really should be mad at the government program itself) is a house of cards. In reference to scapegoating, I’ve seen OWS protest outside the personal residences of wealthy bankers and such. Why? What if every single thing that wealthy banker did was not only ethical and legal, but completely honest and with the best moral standards, too? (There isn’t much proof saying this isn’t the case). What is their problem with the wealthy banker? He used his industrious nature to achieve, and for that, he is a bad guy? Why would anyone ever want to achieve if they’re cast as evil? I really think the vast majority of OWS people are doing what they’re doing because it’s fun and cool. When I see the real meat and potatoes, I will support them. Let’s make something clear, though. I completely support the first amendment no matter how much I disagree with the speech that is happening. I do believe people do NOT have the legal right to protest; they have the right to protest legally. I strongly disagree with many of OWS’ methods.
I don’t believe they are defending classes. I think their vision of how things are is very distorted. I’m happy with my middle class life. They don’t defend me at all. In fact, my only problem with my middle class life is when I see my pay stubs and see my tax dollars taken out knowing they are going to people who have the luxury of sitting at home, doing nothing, while waking up at 10am every day, all from my tax dollars. I would think all taxpayers should feel this way. Why is no one protesting this? Just watch one episode of COPS and you will see the people I’m talking about :-P (okay, that was being a little snide, I apologize).
(continued): I do believe OWS wants to confiscate wealth. How else do you explain the numerous “tax the rich” signs they carry? Also, your statement of “A logical extension of the free market model would theoretically allow for a single person to own all the wealth, and we'd have to be ok with it. “ Yes! That’s the point. And we should be ok with it. If everyone tries to achieve this, we will all become wealthy. We all have the opportunity to do so. There are no laws in the US that say one person, or a group of people are not permitted to attempt this. Anyone can rise up from nothing if they choose to do so. It’s not easy, and that’s one of the best checks and balances of the free market. I’m sorry, I cannot support a cap on wealth. My wealth, assets, belongings, net worth are only my business. If we “cap” this, then someone has to have the power to not only determine but regulate that cap, and to me, that is wayyyyy too much power to give to any one person or a group of governing people. Where is the freedom in that? I think that is very very dangerous.
ReplyDeleteYou said this:
Pure free-market capitalism can only function well on the following assumptions:
- that every citizen is afforded equal opportunity to succeed
- that business can regulate and stabilize themselves, and do so ethically, and not at the expense of the taxpayer
The first bullet, Yes! Very true. I would like to see how this is not the case. As stated, there is no law or regulation that says this isn’t the case.
The second bullet, Yes! And they can, and as I have stated before, the constant government regulations only propagates the problem; it doesn’t help fix it. And yes, again, I’m for minimal government regulation. They should be just the refs. They are the ones who write and enforce the rules on the inside of the box. The main problem I have is that the rules are wayyyyyyyyy to extensive, and to me, they are designed not to protect people, but to make sure politicians can get re-elected (Progressive Taxes post again :-) )
I do agree that it has started a debate; I just don’t like the interruptions (mic checks), the obstructions (occupying subway stations so regulars can’t get to work, occupying ports so regulars can’t do their jobs) and violence and property damage. To me, there are proper ways to do everything, and, in all honesty, with your willingness to post here, in the manner you did, you and I and our blog and all those that participate are doing it in one of the “right” ways. This isn’t the only blog, but we feel we are doing our part. The way to enact change is to petition and vote. That’s what I love about democracy.
(continued): Thank you so much for this post. Again, I/we truly appreciate your point of view and your civility. I sincerely hope you respond to this and post on other things. I’m thankful for your opposing views (I’m only one set of eyes and ears, and I am not the gold standard, it’s great to hear things from the other side). I might disagree with most of them, (I hope you don’t mind) but I will never, ever say yours or anyone’s opinions are wrong.
ReplyDeleteIf you respond to this comment, great! If not, we hope to hear back from you throughout the blog, and if not with that, best of luck to you.
I don't mean to be facetious, but aren't last years corporate tax refunds enough to at least raise an eyebrow?
ReplyDelete'f I don’t like a company’s goods or services, and if I don’t feel they are being ethical, it’s my right (and the extrapolated rights of all Americans) to patronize or not patronize that company.
'
Friend, you are describing a utopian world. I absolutely agree with you that consumer democracy is a very powerful thing -- look at BofA dropping their ATM fees only weeks after announcing them. But the businesses you're talking about are the ones where individuals can actually make a real difference in their bottom line -- department stores, maybe, at best. Financial institutions are an entirely different thing. I strongly disagree with Citi's lending practices, yet my mortgage is through them. I recently refinanced through a local bank, and guess who bought the loan? -- Citi.
I can't escape Citi if I tried, and we did. That kind of power is very dangerous for one entity to have.
"All things like tax breaks, employee salaries, etc. aside, profits (most importantly, revenues) are the result of the demand for a product or service, and that is paid for by the choices of consumers. We the people regulate the markets in that way, and “record” profits are, to me, a result of two things: 1. A company selling us things we want, and 2. Us buying the things a company sells. The statement here: “Government and business are almost a self-contained ecosystem -- of course money buys influence in politics, let's not be naive about that” I see this statement all the time, but (as much as I detest politicians) I would really like to see proof. If that’s me being naïve, it’s fine for you to have that opinion."
I don't mean to be insulting by using the word naive, but I don't know what lobbies are for if not to influence the direction of government. Lobbying is of course a Constitutional right, but let's not presume that individuals have more sway than corporations. Do you need statistics there?
"But humans tend to take one small subject and turn it into one large myth. To me, saying money buys influence in politics is just that… until I see otherwise. I will believe it and be vehemently against your statement too when I actually see tangible proof it is true. IF that was the case, (you will probably see this come up here frequently) why isn’t OWS protesting outside the Capitol and the White House? The government has created the rules of this game. From what I see, the corporations are merely playing by them. If they are doing things that aren’t illegal, I can’t be mad at them. If I dislike the situation, but yes, it is legal, I can only be mad at the government. But I do revert back to: I’d like to see proof of this. Honestly, I feel it’s a large myth (kind of like that one where people say “hey, did you know your blood is really blue when it’s in your body?” Someone said it, it’s false, yet it is widely believed somehow), and I will believe it when I see it.
I am definitely one of those that discredits the OWS movement. I don’t believe we have a system that props up the wealthy. How does it? To me, I admire the wealthy. And I’m glad my tax burden every year is only about $10,000 - $14,000. A millionaire pays nearly 20x what I do in tax, but receives the same government services, military, fire, police, etc."
A millionaire pays almost 20x more than you do because a millionaire makes almost 20x more. Income is taxed - not the individual per se. And because they are individuals, they are entitled to the same protection / etc. as the rest of us, but no more. But let's be honest -- yes, they do have better services. You don't see upper-class whites standing in line to enroll their kids in inner-city schools. State districting plays a role, sure, but as I mentioned before, it's the governments job to ensure equal opportunity for all.
ReplyDeleteLet's look at it this way (and please pardon the cliche): if the government, by definition, is an extension of the people, and if only 1% of the population is seeing healthy financial growth, what conclusion do you arrive at -- that the majority of Americans are really that lazy and inept?
I don't admire or envy the wealthy, but I don't care if they are, and I don't think less of people who do. But at least for me, there does come a point where wealth becomes obscene. Our economy is finite! If the majority of our capitol is in the hands of the very few, what does that leave the rest of us with? I am a proud capitalist and believe in risk for gain, and I certainly wouldn't complain if I were wealthy one day, but I also believe that we as a country are only as good as our bottom line.
We are currently celebrating free-market capitalism at it's most extreme. As Americans, we do applaud wealth and success, and we continue to do so as we steer ourselves off a cliff.
There's no sugar coating to it: the 1% cannot own as much as they do. The Great American Contradiction is that we are an environment in which great wealth can be built from zero, but we're also defined by our overall standard of living. We think ourselves better than China because our economy doesn't run on sweat shops, but that's because we expect more from ourselves, and we always should.
Pure capitalism requires sweat shops to compete; our government's role (and by extension -- in theory anyways -- the people) is to work out the alternatives.
"One of the reasons I discredit the OWS movement is because I can’t see the meat and potatoes behind these kinds of arguments. I think they are gitchy, scapegoating chants. If we pause and ask for proof, I would like to see some."
That's why I wanted to engage you. I'm not going to sell myself as the all-American archetype, but I'm a fairly middle-of-the-road guy.
I wouldn't discredit the movement wholesale. You may perhaps be of the mindset that the institutions can do no wrong and that it's only the government to blame, but there are plenty who believe that corporate malpractice has played a big roll in our current financial situation. Personally, it would be hard to find evidence to the contrary. This new news about the semi-secret 7-trillion-dollar bank loan that was sold back to the government at interest only seems to corroborate the narrative.
"As much as OWS claims the government protects the wealthy, I just plain don’t see it."
One link to discus, please do refute:
ReplyDeletehttp://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graphs:
I'll concede that the government is a convenient scapegoat. But it can't be denied that we average citizens just aren't players in the actual driving force behind our economy, which is, of course, hard cash. Which, as it seems, is owned by the very few.
"In fact, I would say the opposite is true. I believe the government protects the poor discriminately, and uses this to get elected (again, see Progressive Taxes: The Ultimate Conflict of Interest). It gives away enough in free things (subsidized housing, WIC, food stamps, low to no tax burden, etc) to ensure the poor are quite sheltered and don’t have to contribute to the costs of government services, yet the poor takes from the government instead. "
Ok, let's dispel a myth here: a lot of conservatives think that we progressives support welfare measures indiscriminately. My wife and I have chosen to live in a mixed-income part of our downtown, because we love the neighborhood, despite it's blight. We live right next to a section-8 complex, with a few more down the street. We don't like them any more than conservatives do. We appreciate that the government isn't letting them slip further down, but we'd rather they not be in our back yard.
There are many who take advantage of the government, but let's not stereotype the poor -- that's too easy.
I also don't like the idea that anyone would exploit the poor for their votes, but there is nothing nefarious about speaking up for those who are disadvantaged -- some genuinely are by no fault of their own.
"I do COMPLETELY agree that GE and other companies should not be able to pay no taxes. My disdain, however, is NOT at GE for this. Again, they are merely playing the game the government created. I’m against welfare of all kinds (social and corporate) because I do not believe the government should discriminate in anything, ever."
And again, you and I would agree if we did live in a utopian-capitalist society, but we don't. Discrimination does exist. Civil rights would have failed it it weren't for government intervention, as with gay rights. I don't agree with total oversight, but I do want a government that can ensure equal rights for all.
"Flat, non-discriminate taxes are the way to go. Why should the government say to GE “hey, you did this and that and this and that, so you pay ZERO tax…” and hmmm Johnson & Johnson, “you must pay 35% (yes, I know this is the marginal rate, I will act like it’s flat and nominal right now)?” Making these companies pay the same rates, to me, eliminates government discrimination and would also eliminate lobbyists for the most part, in addition to eliminating this huge conflict of interest it creates (what would they be lobbying for?).":
I agree that a flat tax is absolutely the way to go.
"But again, my disdain is at the government, not GE. I am HUGE on equality in a ways, plain and simple."
Why just the government? Do you genuinely feel that corporations have no influence on politics?
"’m not a direct supporter of the Tea Party, but again, saying “come on, it happened” to me, isn’t enough to make me believe. Comparing OWS to the TP… what did the TP do? There weren’t arrests, destruction of public property, nothing. To me, these aren’t even close, and the TP exercised their first amendment rights in the way they were supposed to be exercised."
ReplyDeleteYou are right that the Tea Party and OWS aren't the same -- they're not. Are arrests your gauge for the right-ness of a movement? Arrests have always been symbolic during protests, but you know that. Tea partiers propagated birther myths, racial slurs, physical and verbal assaults on senators, brought assault rifles to rallies, and equated our democratically-elected president to Hitler, amongst many other grievances I'm not qualified to argue. Surely the same happened with Bush, but I didn't agree with those either.
OWS isn't the exact opposite of the Tea Party, and it's to our own disservice to compare them as such. This isn't a football game. "I think OWS has been given its fair listen. Honestly, I think it has been given too much coverage. To me, again, there is no meat and potatoes behind this movement. I constantly look at signs, read their websites and blogs, and I can’t find any proof to back their claims. Trust me, I would happily follow them and support them if they gave me some. I really just don’t see it. Hating the rich, saying banks rob people, being mad at banks for taking bailout money in a too-big-to-fail program (when they really should be mad at the government program itself) is a house of cards."
Fair enough, but haven't we all listed our grievances to the government? If the American public did vote Republican in to fix the problem, is it any better now? I'm not selling the Democrat field, but let's be honest here -- obviously, Congress isn't the answer we need.
"I’ve seen OWS protest outside the personal residences of wealthy bankers and such. Why? What if every single thing that wealthy banker did was not only ethical and legal, but completely honest and with the best moral standards, too? (There isn’t much proof saying this isn’t the case). What is their problem with the wealthy banker? He used his industrious nature to achieve, and for that, he is a bad guy?"
I really don't think the movement is targeting the Joes who make their livelihood on the stocks; demonizing bankers as a whole is wrong, of course. But the banking industry as a whole -- and it's relationship to the government -- is the topic.
"Why would anyone ever want to achieve if they’re cast as evil?"
Are you sincere, or is this a talking point?
ReplyDeleteWhy would anyone want to make a million if the government taxes them 37% on it? Because it's 37% on a million. Or a billion. We really do have no concept of what that kind of money buys. If I was making that much money, why would I care what others thought of me? If you had the option be a thousand-aire and liked, or a billionaire and disliked, what would be your choice?
"I really think the vast majority of OWS people are doing what they’re doing because it’s fun and cool."
Evidence?
"Let’s make something clear, though. I completely support the first amendment no matter how much I disagree with the speech that is happening. I do believe people do NOT have the legal right to protest; they have the right to protest legally. I strongly disagree with many of OWS’ methods."
Fair enough. What would be your suggestion then?
"I don’t believe they are defending classes. I think their vision of how things are is very distorted. I’m happy with my middle class life. They don’t defend me at all. In fact, my only problem with my middle class life is when I see my pay stubs and see my tax dollars taken out knowing they are going to people who have the luxury of sitting at home, doing nothing, while waking up at 10am every day, all from my tax dollars. I would think all taxpayers should feel this way."
And I'd agree, but what's your argument? Are you directing your frustrations at those who don't want to work? Me too.
I, too, am very happy with my middle-class life. OWS, if effective, would probably negatively impact my bottom line. But I do think that it's important that we at least acknowledge those who have fallen on hard times, even if they are mixed in with the rest.
"Why is no one protesting this? Just watch one episode of COPS and you will see the people I’m talking about :-P (okay, that was being a little snide, I apologize)."
Again, you and I don't disagree!
"I do believe OWS wants to confiscate wealth. How else do you explain the numerous “tax the rich” signs they carry? Also, your statement of “A logical extension of the free market model would theoretically allow for a single person to own all the wealth, and we'd have to be ok with it. “ Yes! That’s the point. And we should be ok with it. If everyone tries to achieve this, we will all become wealthy."
This is where I feel that you are very wrong. We should not be OK with a very small majority controlling our general interests, under no circumstances. I do love capitalism, but only at the control of the majority. I will never be OK with a single person or entity in control of my life, even if they "won" at capitalism.
"I’m sorry, I cannot support a cap on wealth."
To any extreme? No measure of social compromise? No national interest?
"You said this: Pure free-market capitalism can only function well on the following assumptions: - that every citizen is afforded equal opportunity to succeed - that business can regulate and stabilize themselves, and do so ethically, and not at the expense of the taxpayer The first bullet, Yes! Very true. I would like to see how this is not the case. As stated, there is no law or regulation that says this isn’t the case."
ReplyDeleteMy wife is an elementary school teacher; she chooses to teach at inner-city schools. On the ground level, only a fool would acknowledge that the system is fair; her resources are limited, her classroom is bare. I do admit a bias but I do think that she is a good teacher; she loves her kids and wants them to do well. But insofar as formal education is concerned, she simply does not have the same resources as a more privileged community.
Her situation is not unique. This is the standard for education in our country, for the middle class. "The second bullet, Yes! And they can,"
I really do wish that were the case, but that's just not true, at least on the significant cases. Do you really think that big tobacco can take a moral ground? (full disclaimer: I do smoke)
"I do agree that it has started a debate; I just don’t like the interruptions (mic checks), the obstructions (occupying subway stations so regulars can’t get to work, occupying ports so regulars can’t do their jobs) and violence and property damage."
I am sorry that you don't like it, but it is here and it's happening. It's not to your political leanings, but that's not enough to make it your enemy. We as Americans have a duty to defeat those who threaten our core freedoms. To libertarians, that may be government, but to those of us who feel that government can and should represent the people, corporate interests are also to blame. In all likelihood, we are both right.
'To me, there are proper ways to do everything, and, in all honesty, with your willingness to post here, in the manner you did, you and I and our blog and all those that participate are doing it in one of the “right” ways. This isn’t the only blog, but we feel we are doing our part. The way to enact change is to petition and vote. That’s what I love about democracy."
I no way to I disbelieve that you want to to do the Right Thing. I applaud you for doing more than I for starting this blog and encouraging public discourse. Don't forget that OWS are also Americans, even if you don't align with them. We all want a better life for us regular folk -- really. How we get there may be subject to debate, but we are fighting the same cause.
Ugh -- I'm just now noticing that my first block of text didn't post, hence the rough intro. For what it's worth, here it is:
ReplyDeleteThank you also for your reply! I too really appreciate an open dialogue. It's very disheartening to gauge our union by the news blogs. If that's all we had to go by, we as Americans wouldn't be any better than a 4th-grade conversation. Fortunately, as I often suspect, we're much more civil elsewhere.
I'm Seth, by the way. I don't mean to stay anonymous; I just don't use social media.
I think I'll best be able to respond best by quoting you before my response, if you don't mind.
"You’ve probably seen this in our other blog posts, but we as a blog dislike any candidate of any party that uses false, unachievable and otherwise ridiculous promises to woo voters simply to lock in votes (see Progressive Taxes: The Ultimate Conflict of Interest). I feel Obama has done that extensively."
I think it was more his lack of experience than a disbelief in his own words that got him into trouble. I bet that candidate-Obama thought he'd be much further down his checklist by now. But, the same can be said for most candidates, I'm sure. I won't argue with you here.
"I can understand your position on global warming, especially your regard for future generations, but I’m not in the boat that it’s a man-made phenomenon… yet. I’m huge on proof, and when I see it, I will wholeheartedly believe it and live by it."
I don't presume to understand the science, but I do respect scientists. Generally speaking, it's a culture that values fact and corroboration above all else. That's nothing if not the point. Skewing numbers is a sign of failure in a community where collaboration is essential; lose support with your peers and your career may as well be over. When it comes to global warming, I don't listen to politicians -- facts are extra-credit with that crowd.
The question I've always had for skeptics is: what's the harm? Suppose we switch over to electric cars and wind energy. At the very least, we'd reduce our immediate air pollution significantly. The risk of us being wrong would likely be much worse that if we're right. It's no sweat off my back to (no pun) to believe in global warming. But yes, that's a topic in and of itself.
"I disagree that the government is more interested in corporations. I would always challenge for proof on that."
(Seth again)
ReplyDeleteJust curious, what's your take on: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epdwYMyhp7k
"Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley has filed a lawsuit against five of the nation's largest mortgage providers.
Coakley accuses Bank of America, JP-Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells Fargo and GMAC Mortgage of "unfair and deceptive business practices." She is seeking damages for borrowers who were hurt by these banks foreclosure practices, which range from filing fraudulent legal paperwork to the use of so-called "robo-signers" and refusing to follow lending laws."
Seth,
ReplyDeleteI’m not sure what happened with our blog. I checked our servers, and the original post (even with the part you wrote “Ugh” on) came in in the proper order. When it was published, the first part was missing. I apologize for this. Hopefully, it doesn’t happen again.
With that, thanks for the post! I really like our ongoing dialogue regardless of how much we agree or disagree. And staying anonymous is totally cool. It’s your choice :-) And yes, the open dialogue is great and we hope it can continue. Hopefully, you and many people like you like coming to our blog to express their opinions and viewpoints.
So… true, debating Obama’s intentions are kind of a waste of time. I do think he promises a lot, and I do think he knows people that believe in his promises vote for him. I also do think, like you said, his lack of experience is hurting him significantly. Good points, both our sides are tough to prove, and it doesn’t get us very far to debate why we think Obama is doing well or poorly.
We both do agree that the scientists are the ones to look to with regards to global warming. But with that, however, that’s exactly why I don’t necessarily go along with it; too many scandals, unproven scientific facts, notions. Etc. When Al Gore went on to make claims about global warming, numerous prominent scientists objected it as “junk science.” This seems to be continuing. To me, there is still way too much to sort out to get on board. Eh, it’s neither here nor there. True, I like your statement of “what’s the harm?” It’s a good position to have, but from economics (I tend to apply this to everything, sometimes it’s good, sometimes it’s unnecessary), if there is so much adjustment and so much cost, when the benefit isn’t that significant (perhaps if man-made global warming isn’t real) then it would be a waste of time and resources.
On to the econ stuff! :-) This statement “I don't mean to be facetious, but aren't last year’s corporate tax refunds enough to at least raise an eyebrow?” - What are you referring to? Nothing against you personally, but one of the problems me and the blog have is that OWS tends to make a lot of claims (I’m seeing a lot of comments here about “aren’t you tired of corporations buying politicians” and “the banks are robbing people,” etc.) and chants without facts giving facts. It doesn’t necessarily mean these things don’t happen, but they are making claims without giving the proof. I truly don’t think OWS knows what it’s talking about most of the time. I’m not implying that you’re doing this (trust me, I appreciate the open dialogue and have nothing against your argument) but I need to know what you’re referring to. As someone who studied taxes ad nauseum in college, I would truly like to see examples of your statement and similar statement s of the like. Please don’t take it as me being nasty (there is no personal negativity here at all), but I have to see proof of this.
With the utopian world I described… two things. First, yes! That’s the way it should be. That’s the way free markets work. Should we always aspire to be the best, the most perfect, the purest, etc? Yes! Secondly, it’s my belief that it’s the straying from true, free-market economics that got us to where we are in the first place. Government programs, intervention, discriminating tax policy, Keynesian policies, etc, etc, etc are what pulled us away from simple free-market principles and ultimately caused this huge mess we’re in. With regards to your mortgage, when I purchased my house, I did research and consulted with my lender (not the bank, but the mortgage company) about the potential buyers of my mortgage. When I was satisfied with the whole picture, I purchased the mortgage. Again, (as with my problem with OWS: I think they are mad at the wrong people, I cannot be mad at someone behaving legally), since what banks and lenders are doing is 100% legal I can’t be mad at them. I don’t understand why OWS is mad at corporations and banks when it seems like they are more upset at the rules in place.
(continued): Lobbying is a Constitutional right (unfortunately). Somehow it gets tied into freedom of speech. My main issue is, well, two of them, but I think you’ll realize I’m getting redundant. 1. I need proof of this power. We can talk about it all we want. OWS can put it on as many signs as it wants but I need proof. 2. Again, it seems like OWS should be more upset at the lawmakers. “Wall Street” (I have to put it in quotations” is merely playing by the rules. Lobbying is not illegal, so I cannot see why people are protesting “Wall Street.”
ReplyDeleteWith regard to taxes, I’m perfectly okay with a millionaire paying 20x more than me. What I’m not okay with is him paying a different rate. I look at it on a time basis. If he pays a say net 20% of his income, that means he spends 12 minutes of every hour working for the government. If I pay a net 15%, that means I spend 9 minutes of every hour working for the government. To me, this is not fair. The rate should be flat. If you are about to enter the working world, you should have a briefing, almost a warning: “welcome to the working world. Regardless of what you make, we are going to take 10% of all your income.” In the end, it’s fair, non-discriminatory, and the rich still pay a LOT more. I respectfully disagree that the rich get better services. Education aside (again, fault the government for not equalizing the quality of its schools,… side note, I, as the husband of a very liberal teacher, I want the end the NATIONAL dept. of ed, as does she) the rich receive the same services government as the poor. The rich are protected by the same military, the same FDA, the same energy dept, etc. I will actually take it a step further. The poor get better services. The wealthy don’t have access to free lawyers. They have to pay out of pocket for one. The wealthy don’t have many of the other free services the government provides for the poor.
You stated this: “Let's look at it this way (and please pardon the cliche): if the government, … as good as our bottom line.” Not, the rest is not lazy; they just made different decisions to get where they were. Let me try to establish something. Maybe this will better explain my position:
We all have the opportunity to get there. Wealth and our economy are not limited. The pie is always expandable. If it was finite, it would never have expanded from colonial times, industrial revolution, etc. But, in America, we all have the opportunity to get to the top. In fact, that opportunity is the best thing going for us. It causes us to strive, to educate, to produce, etc. All these things benefit society. I have no problem with obscene wealth. First, that’s subjective, and I’m not in the position of power, nor, well, anything to determine the wealth or value for someone else. Secondly, it’s that ability to always have more that should make us try to get there ourselves.
My fundamental position again: we can all get there. I would happily join OWS if our government created a discriminatory society that prevents people from having the opportunity to be wealthy. The fact is we all do. We can all make the choices to get there. I don’t like how we have a society where the poor can become the rich, where someone can come from nothing, work extremely hard, get to the top and then be vilified when they do. Since the opportunity exists for all, and we aren’t locked into our situations, I cannot support that portion of OWS’ objections. The 1% can own as much as they do. It is their right. If we hand the power of wealth determination over to the government we will be living in a very dangerous time. This is also why I’m vehemently against progressive tax rates.
(continued): I absolutely respectfully disagree that capitalism requires sweat shops to compete. I’m not sure what that means, and to compete with what? Capitalism does fine without the government destroying incentives by taking down the rich and giving to the poor. Government interference causes both ends of the spectrum see their incentive to strive and produce eliminated, and overall, the pie shrinks or doesn’t grow as much as the population does. If the government gets out of the way and just takes the same % from everyone, it would remove a HUGE roadblock towards success.
ReplyDeleteYou said: “I wouldn't discredit the movement wholesale. You may perhaps be of the mindset that the institutions can do no wrong and that it's only the government to blame, but there are plenty who believe that corporate malpractice has played a big role in our current financial situation” Yes! If there are bad people doing bad things (very simple) then they should absolutely be tried and punished (Bernie Madoff, Worldcom, Enron, etc). I wholeheartedly agree. But this mantra of “the corporations are evil,” again: I need some meat and potatoes, and I tend to think OWS is marching against things that they think exist but really don’t. I’ve tried to engage numerous OWS folks in the attempt to seek proof and answers to this. I’ve received none. I hope by engaging with you I can get some. I’m not a one track mind. My mind is always open, but, I cannot simply support claims of “it is what it is, believe us without us making a solid case, or else.” Also, you said this:”This new news about the semi-secret 7-trillion-dollar bank loan that was sold back to the government at interest only seems to corroborate the narrative. “ Again, I’ve inquired about this and have seen no proof. As with my previous statements about a myth that starts and snowballs, I’ve heard OWS talk about this but can’t give me the facts. Do they really think this is the case? I think you know the statement of “entirely discrediting the OWS movement” can be somewhat overturned if I had proof. That’s the fundamental backbone of our blog. We are tired of the media, OWS, and anyone of the like that can make claims, sway minds, and not back what they say. We don’t need Ph.D candidates defending their positions through a dissertation, but we are really, honestly tired of the nonsensical “well, maybe it is like this” or “yah, he probably got funding from there” we see from the media and other information dispensers of the like.
With regards to the mother jones link, it didn’t work, but I know what it is. I’ve seen it before. My response: yes! Income inequality is a good thing. It’s a necessary evil. It should be the incentive to make us all want to do more. Take me (this isn’t an attempt to brag, but it’s just the truth). I started at absolutely nothing. I joined the military. I got < 4hours of sleep for 4 years. I worked my butt off. When I got out, I worked 66 hours a week for 5 years to save up enough money to go to school. I went to a state school and completed a dual B.S. in exactly 2 years (overloading and going year-round), graduating MCL. I’ve entered the corporate world and I know there are a lot like me, so with a large supply of economists, my pay isn’t huge (though it’s middle road, which is fine for me). I know if I continue to do the things I’ve done which are work hard, not slack, continue pushing, etc, I will maybe climb towards that 1%. The fact that it’s there causes me to strive more. I don’t see a problem with income inequality. When I get to the top 1% or 5% or whatever it is, I will have earned it. I wanted it. I got it. Why should that be taken from me?
(continued): The other part about it is as I have said: anyone can do it. I’m nothing special. I wasn’t born with a silver spoon in my mouth. So why should I do everything I do, stay squeaky clean with regards to the law, get educated, and stay motivated, just for someone to determine that my efforts must be taken from me? What does that do for incentive? At the end of the day, we all make choices. It’s on us. If the top 1% own nearly everything, and I had the choice to get there too, but I didn’t, that’s not their fault; it’s mine. I think the government and society should default to a mode of letting everyone try to strive and the place they end up is based on what they put in. I don’t want to live in a world where people’s lives are regulated with regards to wealth and house size and incomes and their toys, etc.
ReplyDeleteTo me, as was written in the article Progressive Taxes: The Ultimate Conflict of Interest, I completely and firmly believe the politicians use favorable tax policy to woo poorer voters. It’s highlighted in that article. The population pyramid is very fat at the bottom. Do you think that large base would elect a politician that would say “hey, I’m going to make you pay more in taxes” or would they elect the guy that says “yah, we need to raise money, but you large, poorer group, you won’t pay for it if you vote for me.” That’s why I wrote that article. That’s one of the main reasons I can’t stand progressive tax rates. It’s really no different than a politician saying “vote for me: I will give you $3,000.” What’s the difference between a $3,000 check now, and $3,000 in cash when you file your tax returns? A flat rate tax system, to me, would eliminate this. I think it’s pretty tough to say that politicians don’t use this as a way to get elected. Look at Obama’s current plan to help the poor with the payroll tax holiday extension by taxing the rich. “Hey, you poorer people… you want your payroll taxes cut more… they will be. Vote for me and my boys and you will… oh yah, how it’s paid for… well, don’t worry. We will just make the rich do it.” This, to me, is where democracy falls apart. I also think you tend to mix up discrimination in the way I’m talking about it. Yes, the government should ensure equal rights for all. It should NOT discriminate in any way. We have fought for equal rights for citizens… so what is equal about the government making two citizens pay different amount of tax rates for the government?
I’m definitely glad to hear you think a flat tax is the way to go. Honestly, it’s the #1 thing I care about, by far. If that was incorporated into America’s political and fiscal landscapes, by gone it, I think the LME would just… shut up and be less of a loudmouth! :-P
With the TP quickly, 1… I have seen no reports about physical assaults on senators. 2. If they brought assault rifles, did they do this while following the law? 3. Racial slurs (well, anti-Semitism) is very prominent in OWS. The TP is not racially exclusive. I’m against all these bad things regardless of who said or did them. But, at the end of the day, the crime statistics between the two groups is telling, and OWS is significantly ahead of the TP in this aspect.
You said: “I really don't think the movement is targeting the Joes who make their livelihood on the stocks; demonizing bankers as a whole is wrong, of course. But the banking industry as a whole -- and it's relationship to the government -- is the topic. “ Yes. They have target bankers, investors, etc. at their personal residences, and this to me is terrible. If they have a problem with the alleged banking/government ties, they should stick to those on the aggregate. They should not be targeting individuals.
(continued): To my "I really think the vast majority of OWS people are doing what they’re doing because it’s fun and cool" you said: “Evidence?” You sound like us :-P Demanding proof, how dare you lol. All kidding aside with this, you’re absolutely right: I can’t prove this subjective statement. But, I have stated in here, my position is that they are making claims they cannot (or yet, haven’t done so) prove, so I can’t seem to find why they are doing what they’re doing.
ReplyDeleteMy suggestions… again, I’m not a supporter of the Tea Party, but why not protest like they did? OWS absolutely has the right to protest legally. The First Amendment does not grant the right to occupy. It does not grant the right to unlawfully limit or detain people from using the ports or the subway system. It does not give people the right to damage anything. Lawfully protesting is my big thing. In DC, near where I live, OWS was constructing a wooden structure in a public park. That’s illegal, and in my opinion, quite selfish. It’s not their park to do that in. Where are my rights to use that public park? I’m not an expert in protesting, but legally doing so is the key. They can create petitions (granted by the First Amendment), and the citizens of Wisconsin are currently doing that. They can peaceably assemble, and follow the law.
My problem/frustrations is that why isn’t OWS objecting to those who do not want to work? Why are they not protesting the millions and millions of tax dollars we pump in to government programs that encourage people to behave in ways that cause them to continue to be on the government dole? Imagine the money the government could save.
Just as you think I’m very wrong (which is totally fine) in my opinion, your opinion here is something I strongly disagree with: “This is where I feel that you are very wrong. We should not be OK with a very small majority controlling our general interests, under no circumstances. I do love capitalism, but only at the control of the majority. I will never be OK with a single person or entity in control of my life, even if they "won" at capitalism.“ First, again, as with everything I said, we can all get there. Secondly, how do they control OUR general interests? I need proof of this, I really do. I think it’s a fundamental belief of OWS that I feel strongly they are incorrect in. The majority does control our capitalist system. We all get one vote to elect our representatives. My call is on you, OWS and others who believe this isn’t the case to prove to me that the rich do have that kind of control. Again, I’ve asked for it numerous times, but no one can give me one example, one piece of legislation, anything to show that the fundamental underlying protest of OWS is true and provable.
My wife is a teacher, and like your wife, has made specific choices as to the direction she takes her life, just like the wealthy, the poor, everyone. With every choice we make, we have the resulting consequences that come with it, good or bad. With regards to tobacco, again, I’m a free-market person. If the demand exists, if someone chooses to create the supply, by all means, let them. If they benefit from that, good for them. Incentive drives everything. Tobacco as a big business exists like every other big business: they exist because people want the things they make.
(continued): I think that about sums it up. Thank you for the compliment about the blog. To me, it’s not really a noble thing (it actually started as a compromise to my wife to stop bitching at her about politics :-P) I constantly squawked at her and she didn’t like it. It has expanded to a small staff and that’s neat. I really want to see people engage in it and use is as a way to do exactly what you’re doing: taking a position and expressing yourself as much or as little as you want about it. We/I clearly take positions here. I see things and I want to challenge them. I want to see proof behind things. I want clarity in that regards. I tend to believe nothing I see or hear until I see or hear something I can believe, if that makes sense.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the response to your other comment is below as well. Unfortunately, our blog allows only for a certain number of characters. Hopefully, we will be able to expand beyond the realm of this pre-formed blog system and begin using a regular website for our blogging. Until then, this is what we have :-)
From your comment, about the MA attorney general… yes! Now THAT’S the way to do it. I am against all illegal things (I know that’s a blanket statement), but for all intents and purposes, this is the way it should be. Everyone has the right to make an accusation, and every accused has the right to defend themselves. To me, this is what should be going on. This is where I always clamor for proof at the OWS people. If illegal activity took place, that’s what the courts exist for. OWS tends to allege that many of these potentially illegal behaviors happen. I always tend to say “ok, if they did, don’t you think the government would go after them as they are in the case of the MA AG?” Again, Enron, Worldcom and those of the like are just examples. There might be more, but I tend to think corporations and banks aren’t as illegal as OWS thinks. These banks in the AG’s lawsuit will defend themselves and evidence will come out. If they are convicted, damn them to hell! If not, they had their fair day in court and that’s that. But, relating to OWS, I will want to see a lot more of these before I crucify corporations and banks. I like that you brought this forth. This is the way it should be done. Thank you.
Saw you on Fox. Thank you for this blog! Love this article. I really love the article about obamas speech. Keep it up
ReplyDelete"With that, thanks for the post! I really like our ongoing dialogue regardless of how much we agree or disagree. And staying anonymous is totally cool."
ReplyDeleteLikewise! I do apologize for the late reply -- it's always crazy at work before the holidays. "So… true, debating Obama’s intentions are kind of a waste of time. I do think he promises a lot, and I do think he knows people that believe in his promises vote for him. I also do think, like you said, his lack of experience is hurting him significantly. Good points, both our sides are tough to prove, and it doesn’t get us very far to debate why we think Obama is doing well or poorly."
Suppose Ron Paul's gonna make the primary? "We both do agree that the scientists are the ones to look to with regards to global warming. But with that, however, that’s exactly why I don’t necessarily go along with it; too many scandals, unproven scientific facts, notions. Etc."
I do beg to differ here. It's probably naive to think that any industry is scandal-free, but an overwhelming majority of scientists who are qualified to speak on global warming agree believe that it's real, and most of those believe that human meddling plays a big role in that. I mean no offense, but it seems like those who disagree with global warming tend to jump on any shred of doubt or conflicting report.
Just curious, how is it that you have almost complete trust in corporations -- some of which have a fairly extensive and public record of market manipulation and unethical practices -- yet so little faith in the science community? Do they strike you as more corrupt? Those who pursue science aren't really in it for the money. It is true that money can be made, but unlike going into business, it isn't the motivating factor.
It bothers me that people attack the green industry as being nefarious, as though it's some big global conspiracy. As with you (save for Climategate, which -- let's be honest -- was pretty light as far as snafu's go), I'd ask: what's the evidence? Even if it were true, it obviously isn't that effective, and in no way matches the influence of oil or coal. Think Solyndra was a public scam? What about Exxon paying no taxes while posting a $10b profit in '09? Which do you think hit the economy more?
Even if the green industry was out to push their wares, so what? People seem to think that it's run by hippies and therefore shouldn't be held to the same standards as other industries. Of course they want to profit, and of course there will be those whose motives aren't as pure as others. Welcome to the club, I say. Compared to other energy industries, I'd say their record is pretty spotless.
"True, I like your statement of “what’s the harm?” It’s a good position to have, but from economics (I tend to apply this to everything, sometimes it’s good, sometimes it’s unnecessary), if there is so much adjustment and so much cost, when the benefit isn’t that significant (perhaps if man-made global warming isn’t real) then it would be a waste of time and resources."
I do respect your position there absolutely. From where I see it, green energy does want to compete with other energy markets, and while the name is cute, of course there are special interests behind it that want to profit. So goes capitalism! Conservatives are quick to demonize green energy for the same practices that any corporation follows -- it's just that they expect them to abide by progressive standards, an discredit them if they don't.
"On to the econ stuff! :-) This statement “I don't mean to be facetious, but aren't last year’s corporate tax refunds enough to at least raise an eyebrow?” - What are you referring to? Nothing against you personally, but one of the problems me and the blog have is that OWS tends to make a lot of claims (I’m seeing a lot of comments here about “aren’t you tired of corporations buying politicians” and “the banks are robbing people,” etc.) and chants without facts giving facts"
ReplyDeleteSuch as this: http://www.good.is/post/how-american-corporations-pay-no-taxes-in-2010/ With the utopian world I described… two things. First, yes! That’s the way it should be. That’s the way free markets work. Should we always aspire to be the best, the most perfect, the purest, etc?
It is certainly admirable to strive for a utopian society, but because we are -- like it or not -- a community, and because we are entitled to our basic freedoms, no two people are likely to ever agree on what a utopia actually is. The ability to do or say absolutely anything? 1. Of course, we need common laws to protect those freedoms from infringement by others. No civilization has ever survived long without some variant (or perversion) of the Golden Rule. 2. I actually don't mind giving over a portion of my income to build better infrastructure, maintain our lands, protect our commonwealth and pursue the arts and sciences. I have better things to worry about than if I can get from A to B without a federally-funded interstate system. I like that crimes can be solved across state lines. Etc.
Is it not the problem in congress now that the ideologues can't find common ground? It isn't working for them, and it doesn't out here in the real world, either.
"Secondly, it’s my belief that it’s the straying from true, free-market economics that got us to where we are in the first place. Government programs, intervention, discriminating tax policy, Keynesian policies, etc, etc, etc are what pulled us away from simple free-market principles and ultimately caused this huge mess we’re in."
Friend, which administration are you talking about here? I'm not being partisan, I just really don't know which timeline you're looking at.
" With regards to your mortgage, when I purchased my house, I did research and consulted with my lender (not the bank, but the mortgage company) about the potential buyers of my mortgage. When I was satisfied with the whole picture, I purchased the mortgage. Again, (as with my problem with OWS: I think they are mad at the wrong people, I cannot be mad at someone behaving legally), since what banks and lenders are doing is 100% legal I can’t be mad at them. "
I applaud you (I actually do) for researching your mortgage that deep. i do consider myself a fairly pragmatic guy; I requested the paperwork three days before we had to sign it. Even so, I never saw anything that said that my loan could be sold up the stream without my knowledge (I'm sure it's buried in there somewhere though). My loan officer never mentioned it (isn't that their job?).
We play on one field, they play on another. I don't really have a say in who my bank sells my mortgage to. I can't say I haven't researched all the options, but I'm already on two strikes without even trying.
"I don’t understand why OWS is mad at corporations and banks when it seems like they are more upset at the rules in place."
Do you discredit the movement as a whole, then, or their direction?
"Lobbying is a Constitutional right (unfortunately). Somehow it gets tied into freedom of speech. My main issue is, well, two of them, but I think you’ll realize I’m getting redundant. 1. I need proof of this power. We can talk about it all we want. OWS can put it on as many signs as it wants but I need proof. 2. Again, it seems like OWS should be more upset at the lawmakers. “Wall Street” (I have to put it in quotations” is merely playing by the rules. Lobbying is not illegal, so I cannot see why people are protesting “Wall Street.”
ReplyDeleteYou can peruse this: http://www.opensecrets.org/influence/
But alright, let's assume that Wall Street is playing by the rules, and that the housing bubble really was the fault of you and I. I have to ask: is the average American more adept at the housing market than a lender? In a free-market system, wouldn't a realtor's responsibility be to advise their clients on potential risks? I bought my first house with extremely lax parameters; I can research the facts, but professions exist for a reason. For the same reason I don't need or want to know how electricity makes it to my home, I don't want to understand the guts of the home mortgage industry in order to buy a house. "With regard to taxes, I’m perfectly okay with a millionaire paying 20x more than me. What I’m not okay with is him paying a different rate. I look at it on a time basis. If he pays a say net 20% of his income, that means he spends 12 minutes of every hour working for the government. If I pay a net 15%, that means I spend 9 minutes of every hour working for the government. To me, this is not fair. The rate should be flat. If you are about to enter the working world, you should have a briefing, almost a warning: “welcome to the working world. Regardless of what you make, we are going to take 10% of all your income.”
We agree here -- all incomes should be taxed equally. And certainly, capital gains tax and corporate loopholes should be included.
"In the end, it’s fair, non-discriminatory, and the rich still pay a LOT more. I respectfully disagree that the rich get better services."
I don't know what city you live in, but in mine, a mere street sometimes separates the well-off and the ultra-poor. I promise you that those two communities have very different emergency response systems. I've lived on both sides.
When my wife comes back from teaching seminars out in the suburbs, she always tells me about how much better their classrooms are. It is true that the Fed funds both districts equally, but they shouldn't stop there -- as far as I'm concerned, it's their job to ensure that all children start off on equal footing.
"(side note, I, as the husband of a very liberal teacher, I want the end the NATIONAL dept. of ed, as does she) the rich receive the same services government as the poor. The rich are protected by the same military, the same FDA, the same energy dept, etc. I will actually take it a step further. The poor get better services. The wealthy don’t have access to free lawyers. They have to pay out of pocket for one. The wealthy don’t have many of the other free services the government provides for the poor."
I'm assuming you're a Libertarian -- which I actually think is a fine philosophy. One thing I'm not sure I understand though -- what would make education (or anything) better-managed if it were up to the state, not the Fed? I get that local government is more in touch with their constituency, but corruption happens at all levels. And what if Ohio (etc) simply decided it simply didn't want an education system? What if Mississippi decided that segregation was okay?
The wealthy absolutely have access to free lawyers -- everyone does. Miranda rights apply to them as they do anyone.
"We all have the opportunity to get there. Wealth and our economy are not limited. The pie is always expandable. If it was finite, it would never have expanded from colonial times, industrial revolution, etc. But, in America, we all have the opportunity to get to the top. In fact, that opportunity is the best thing going for us. It causes us to strive, to educate, to produce, etc. All these things benefit society. I have no problem with obscene wealth. First, that’s subjective, and I’m not in the position of power, nor, well, anything to determine the wealth or value for someone else. Secondly, it’s that ability to always have more that should make us try to get there ourselves."
ReplyDeleteThat is a good narrative, and if you believe that all Americans are born with equal opportunity, no amount of facts would ever convince you otherwise. We do tend to idealize those who make it from nothing, but that's why -- those are exceptions, are they not?
The economy is finite in that at any given time there is a limited pool of financial resources to go around. New money can be introduced to balance inflation, but we can't just pretend that we collectively found another 10 trillion dollars behind a trash can. So yes, while it does grow, we're talking about generations, not a lifetime (save for the industrial revolution, but that doesn't happen every day). We couldn't all be billionaires, for example -- not without first discovering oil-covered gold in a diamond field under Montana.
"My fundamental position again: we can all get there. I would happily join OWS if our government created a discriminatory society that prevents people from having the opportunity to be wealthy. The fact is we all do. We can all make the choices to get there. I don’t like how we have a society where the poor can become the rich, where someone can come from nothing, work extremely hard, get to the top and then be vilified when they do."
This doesn't really happen on a normal day. A majority of Americans -- even progressives -- are just fine with the American Dream, and we do admire those who succeed, not vilify them. OWS isn't out to confiscate wealth or demonize the rich -- they just want to ensure that wealth doesn't become so obscene as to limit opportunities for everyone else. Not to beat a dead horse, but again, just simple math, if 1% owns a majority of the wealth in a limited economy, there isn't much left for the general population.
"Since the opportunity exists for all, and we aren’t locked into our situations, I cannot support that portion of OWS’ objections. The 1% can own as much as they do. It is their right. If we hand the power of wealth determination over to the government we will be living in a very dangerous time. This is also why I’m vehemently against progressive tax rates."
I do respect your idealism, but speaking objectively, the 1% can't own as much as they do without it having an impact on the rest of the country. It may be their right, but it is to the detriment of the whole. Myself, I do enjoy our national parks and our freeway system, and I'm proud that we built the Hoover dam and Transcontinental railroad, and the internet, and most importantly, we went to the Moon. Maybe corporations would have done it better, but they didn't. Companies play it safe, by and large, but government -- when done well -- can lead us as a civilization, and even as a species. Do you know what sold me on Obama? That he talked about science in his campaign. I am deeply disappointed that he has thus far failed to champion the Sciences.
"We all have the opportunity to get there. Wealth and our economy are not limited. The pie is always expandable. If it was finite, it would never have expanded from colonial times, industrial revolution, etc. But, in America, we all have the opportunity to get to the top. In fact, that opportunity is the best thing going for us. It causes us to strive, to educate, to produce, etc. All these things benefit society. I have no problem with obscene wealth. First, that’s subjective, and I’m not in the position of power, nor, well, anything to determine the wealth or value for someone else. Secondly, it’s that ability to always have more that should make us try to get there ourselves."
ReplyDeleteThat is a good narrative, and if you believe that all Americans are born with equal opportunity, no amount of facts would ever convince you otherwise. We do tend to idealize those who make it from nothing, but that's why -- those are exceptions, are they not?
The economy is finite in that at any given time there is a limited pool of financial resources to go around. New money can be introduced to balance inflation, but we can't just pretend that we collectively found another 10 trillion dollars behind a trash can. So yes, while it does grow, we're talking about generations, not a lifetime (save for the industrial revolution, but that doesn't happen every day). We couldn't all be billionaires, for example -- not without first discovering oil-covered gold in a diamond field under Montana.
"My fundamental position again: we can all get there. I would happily join OWS if our government created a discriminatory society that prevents people from having the opportunity to be wealthy. The fact is we all do. We can all make the choices to get there. I don’t like how we have a society where the poor can become the rich, where someone can come from nothing, work extremely hard, get to the top and then be vilified when they do."
This doesn't really happen on a normal day. A majority of Americans -- even progressives -- are just fine with the American Dream, and we do admire those who succeed, not vilify them. OWS isn't out to confiscate wealth or demonize the rich -- they just want to ensure that wealth doesn't become so obscene as to limit opportunities for everyone else. Not to beat a dead horse, but again, just simple math, if 1% owns a majority of the wealth in a limited economy, there isn't much left for the general population.
"Since the opportunity exists for all, and we aren’t locked into our situations, I cannot support that portion of OWS’ objections. The 1% can own as much as they do. It is their right. If we hand the power of wealth determination over to the government we will be living in a very dangerous time. This is also why I’m vehemently against progressive tax rates."
I do respect your idealism, but speaking objectively, the 1% can't own as much as they do without it having an impact on the rest of the country. It may be their right, but it is to the detriment of the whole. Myself, I do enjoy our national parks and our freeway system, and I'm proud that we built the Hoover dam and Transcontinental railroad, and the internet, and most importantly, we went to the Moon. Maybe corporations would have done it better, but they didn't. Companies play it safe, by and large, but government -- when done well -- can lead us as a civilization, and even as a species. Do you know what sold me on Obama? That he talked about science in his campaign. I am deeply disappointed that he has thus far failed to champion the Sciences.
"I absolutely respectfully disagree that capitalism requires sweat shops to compete. I’m not sure what that means, and to compete with what?"
ReplyDeleteLet's you and I walk down any aisle at Wal Mart and find out how many products are manufactured in China. Or, let's call our mobile provider's tech support and see who picks up. I'll actually take you up on that challenge, if you're willing.
Other countries can offer more competitive rates because their working standards are lower than ours. We will never be able to compete with $1/hr wages, with or without regulation.
"Capitalism does fine without the government destroying incentives by taking down the rich and giving to the poor. Government interference causes both ends of the spectrum see their incentive to strive and produce eliminated, and overall, the pie shrinks or doesn’t grow as much as the population does. If the government gets out of the way and just takes the same % from everyone, it would remove a HUGE roadblock towards success."
This would work as well as capitalist socialism, depending on the public gauge. It's not an absolute fix; it's just as broken as the alternative, in the long run.
'But this mantra of “the corporations are evil,” again: I need some meat and potatoes, and I tend to think OWS is marching against things that they think exist but really don’t. I’ve tried to engage numerous OWS folks in the attempt to seek proof and answers to this. I’ve received none. I hope by engaging with you I can get some."
You've willingly raised your standards of proof to biased levels, methinks. I ask, what do you make of Happy Meal toys made in China? Fair market ethics?
"My mind is always open, but, I cannot simply support claims of “it is what it is, believe us without us making a solid case, or else.” Also, you said this:”This new news about the semi-secret 7-trillion-dollar bank loan that was sold back to the government at interest only seems to corroborate the narrative. “ Again, I’ve inquired about this and have seen no proof.
Please refute if unsubstantial: http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/01/congress-was-unaware-of-7-77-trillion-in-secret-fed-loans-ahead-of-tarp-vote/
"We are tired of the media, OWS, and anyone of the like that can make claims, sway minds, and not back what they say. We don’t need Ph.D candidates defending their positions through a dissertation, but we are really, honestly tired of the nonsensical “well, maybe it is like this” or “yah, he probably got funding from there” we see from the media and other information dispensers of the like.
So if not OWS or the Tea Party, what then? "With regards to the mother jones link, it didn’t work, but I know what it is. I’ve seen it before. My response: yes! Income inequality is a good thing. It’s a necessary evil."
My intent wasn't to point out that income inequality exists -- of course it does -- and in reasonable measure, it's healthy. I'll hunt for another link to that chart, but it was to point out that income equality is extreme, not solely existent.
"It should be the incentive to make us all want to do more. Take me (this isn’t an attempt to brag, but it’s just the truth). I started at absolutely nothing. I joined the military. I got < 4hours of sleep for 4 years. I worked my butt off. When I got out, I worked 66 hours a week for 5 years to save up enough money to go to school. I went to a state school and completed a dual B.S. in exactly 2 years (overloading and going year-round), graduating MCL. I’ve entered the corporate world and I know there are a lot like me, so with a large supply of economists, my pay isn’t huge (though it’s middle road, which is fine for me). I know if I continue to do the things I’ve done which are work hard, not slack, continue pushing, etc, I will maybe climb towards that 1%. The fact that it’s there causes me to strive more. I don’t see a problem with income inequality. When I get to the top 1% or 5% or whatever it is, I will have earned it. I wanted it. I got it. Why should that be taken from me?"
ReplyDeleteAll fair and good. I won't deny you any of that.
"It’s on us. If the top 1% own nearly everything, and I had the choice to get there too, but I didn’t, that’s not their fault; it’s mine. I think the government and society should default to a mode of letting everyone try to strive and the place they end up is based on what they put in. I don’t want to live in a world where people’s lives are regulated with regards to wealth and house size and incomes and their toys, etc."
Nor do I, but I do believe that there needs to be some measure of compromise. I don't like the idea of government taking what's mine either. There will be those who fail at the game -- some through no fault of their own -- but short of evicting them from their own country, I'm not sure what else you'd propose we do -- let them die or just merely survive? Every man for himself sounds great on paper, but our country has (almost) always supported our commonwealth. We are an exceptional nation because we are both capitalists and socialists, successfully. "To me, as was written in the article Progressive Taxes: The Ultimate Conflict of Interest, I completely and firmly believe the politicians use favorable tax policy to woo poorer voters. It’s highlighted in that article. The population pyramid is very fat at the bottom. Do you think that large base would elect a politician that would say “hey, I’m going to make you pay more in taxes” or would they elect the guy that says “yah, we need to raise money, but you large, poorer group, you won’t pay for it if you vote for me.”
What politician doesn't promise lower taxes? That's the Republican mantra, via Norquist. But I also won't disagree with you. Of course the poor are going to vote for a candidate who promises them a better standard of living. The poor are among us -- let's not pretend. And they do each have a vote.
"That’s why I wrote that article. That’s one of the main reasons I can’t stand progressive tax rates. It’s really no different than a politician saying “vote for me: I will give you $3,000.” What’s the difference between a $3,000 check now, and $3,000 in cash when you file your tax returns? A flat rate tax system, to me, would eliminate this.
Agreed. A progressive and a libertarian in agreement!? I'm happy about that. You, sir, and I, are countrymen. How can we make this happen?
"I think it’s pretty tough to say that politicians don’t use this as a way to get elected. Look at Obama’s current plan to help the poor with the payroll tax holiday extension by taxing the rich. “Hey, you poorer people… you want your payroll taxes cut more… they will be. Vote for me and my boys and you will… oh yah, how it’s paid for… well, don’t worry. We will just make the rich do it.”
ReplyDeleteMaybe that bothers you, but that doesn't change the reality. If you were poor, who would you vote for? Given that 50% of our population isn't even qualified to pay taxes, it's easy to see why Obama was elected. Again, not being partisan, just making an observation.
"With the TP quickly, 1… I have seen no reports about physical assaults on senators"
Liberal site, but do you disagree? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/20/tea-party-protests-nier-f_n_507116.html
. 2. If they brought assault rifles, did they do this while following the law?
Yes, but what would you say if you saw an OWS-er walking around with an assault rife?
3. Racial slurs (well, anti-Semitism) is very prominent in OWS.
I wouldn't say very prominent, but yes it's there. Somewhat-goes wit the territory when it comes to banks and banker-stereotypes. I don't like it either.
" The TP is not racially exclusive. I’m against all these bad things regardless of who said or did them. But, at the end of the day, the crime statistics between the two groups is telling, and OWS is significantly ahead of the TP in this aspect."
And as a persistent movement, it's gone on much longer than TP. If the TP had decided that encampment was the way to go, I guarantee that you'd see more crime. But I do concede that OWS is a much more youthful movement, and with that does come more activism. "You said: “I really don't think the movement is targeting the Joes who make their livelihood on the stocks; demonizing bankers as a whole is wrong, of course. But the banking industry as a whole -- and it's relationship to the government -- is the topic. “ Yes. They have target bankers, investors, etc. at their personal residences, and this to me is terrible. If they have a problem with the alleged banking/government ties, they should stick to those on the aggregate. They should not be targeting individuals."
Let's not be simpletons -- Wall Street is a symbol. It is unfortunate that the day-to-day Wall Street traffic has been put out by the protest -- and I do mean that -- but if you were to mount a protest against your cause-du-jour, wound't you stage it at the epicenter? You might not agree with them, but I don't necessarily agree that the TP had to show up on Capitol Hill to make their point either, but they did, and much as I disagreed with them, that was their right.
On that note: let no one ever again complain about how much OWS has cost us in tax dollars. Pure and simple: they have grievances and a right to protest. It's inconvenient, but it is a movement. I would hate to know that my tax dollars went to Tax Party clean-up -- which was probably less substantial than OWS -- but I would concede. The price of liberty, as they say -
"To my "I really think the vast majority of OWS people are doing what they’re doing because it’s fun and cool" you said: “Evidence?” You sound like us :-P Demanding proof, how dare you lol. All kidding aside with this, you’re absolutely right: I can’t prove this subjective statement. But, I have stated in here, my position is that they are making claims they cannot (or yet, haven’t done so) prove, so I can’t seem to find why they are doing what they’re doing."
ReplyDeleteOn the flip side, while I am not directly involved with the movement, I have spoken with many who are, and most are regular people with jobs who also happen to sympathize more with the public than the institutions. "My suggestions… again, I’m not a supporter of the Tea Party, but why not protest like they did? OWS absolutely has the right to protest legally. The First Amendment does not grant the right to occupy. It does not grant the right to unlawfully limit or detain people from using the ports or the subway system. It does not give people the right to damage anything. Lawfully protesting is my big thing. In DC, near where I live, OWS was constructing a wooden structure in a public park. That’s illegal, and in my opinion, quite selfish. It’s not their park to do that in. Where are my rights to use that public park? I’m not an expert in protesting, but legally doing so is the key. They can create petitions (granted by the First Amendment), and the citizens of Wisconsin are currently doing that. They can peaceably assemble, and follow the law.
I actually followed that story and saw the police tearing it down.
I will agree that they have stretched their rights, but i don't know…if all protests were legal and proper, they would by definition lose their impact. In no way am I implicating violence, but the LA Riots wouldn't have happened without Reginald Denny. Point being, extremism does make a point. "My problem/frustrations is that why isn’t OWS objecting to those who do not want to work? Why are they not protesting the tax dollars we pump into government programs that encourage people to behave in ways that cause them to continue to be on the government dole? Imagine the money the government could save. "
Probably because that is the least of their concerns. Those who are out of work are the least effective in our economy, obviously.
I can't speak for all OWS-ers. I don't like the lechers, and I suspect that most of them don't either. There will always be losers, but these days, most of us are, relatively-speaking. "Just as you think I’m very wrong (which is totally fine) in my opinion, your opinion here is something I strongly disagree with: “This is where I feel that you are very wrong. We should not be OK with a very small majority controlling our general interests, under no circumstances. I do love capitalism, but only at the control of the majority. I will never be OK with a single person or entity in control of my life, even if they "won" at capitalism.“ First, again, as with everything I said, we can all get there."
No, we can't all get there. That's the definition of capitalism -- that those with more ambition or a good idea will do better than those who do not. And that's how it should be. But at the same time, why not give a little back? America wouldn't be great it not for the backbone of the people. In our heart-of-hearts, we don't admire corporations -- we admire free spirit.
"Secondly, how do they control OUR general interests? I need proof of this, I really do. I think it’s a fundamental belief of OWS that I feel strongly they are incorrect in. The majority does control our capitalist system. We all get one vote to elect our representatives. My call is on you, OWS and others who believe this isn’t the case to prove to me that the rich do have that kind of control."
ReplyDeleteThe very fact that product placement exists in films should be enough evidence that companies speak louder than individuals. Suppose you hated alcohol -- do you think you'd influence Anheuser-Bush? Does your opinion matter less than theirs? "From your comment, about the MA attorney general… yes! Now THAT’S the way to do it. I am against all illegal things (I know that’s a blanket statement), but for all intents and purposes, this is the way it should be. Everyone has the right to make an accusation, and every accused has the right to defend themselves. To me, this is what should be going on. This is where I always clamor for proof at the OWS people."
You and I agree there. From where I see it, though, do yo think this would have happened without OWS? The timing is too convenient for it not to be.
"If illegal activity took place, that’s what the courts exist for. OWS tends to allege that many of these potentially illegal behaviors happen. I always tend to say “ok, if they did, don’t you think the government would go after them as they are in the case of the MA AG?”
I don't believe that you mistrust government on most things other than prosecution. In your view, is that their responsibility -- only to prosecute?
"Again, Enron, Worldcom and those of the like are just examples. There might be more, but I tend to think corporations and banks aren’t as illegal as OWS thinks"
…but why is the green industry under so much scrutiny?
///
I do sincerely thank you for the dialogue! On some points I really don't understand where you're coming from, but I also don't believe that I'm in the right about anything that doesn't have to do with my own person. I do respect Libertarianism and wish that Paul was a serious contender. If Candidate Obama wanted to hike, Paul wants to punt. Both can work, but also, both lack popular support.
Seth again -- I do apologize for the format. I'd written my responses in TextEdit, which didn't mash your statements up with my replies. But in pasting it here, so it did. But you know which words were yours, though --
ReplyDelete