Occupy Wall Street

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm reserving judgement as to whether it's another "red scare" or not, time will tell. But, I don't think we are done with socialism, it's just been rebranded and resold to this generation of disenfranchised youth.
 

Really, I just wanted to know what you meant.
I think most of the 1% would remain constant under most of the reforms that people propose. They'd just be a little less staggeringly rich.
 
How can you sympathize with the super rich? No one is saying(Well...Anyone worth listening to) drag them out in the streets and butcher billionaires.

People are LOSING their jobs they have no money and the people "responsible" are making more money then ever. You really agree that the super rich can manipulate the system however they see fit, just because CAPITALISM?

The youth are angry and that never ends well for the old regimes.

The point is when I make a financial mistake I pay for it (Buying stupid *** etc). But when someone who makes 300,000,000$ a year makes a mistake and dooms literally millions he gets a bonus. How does that make any god damn sense?

And IF they get fired (For almost destroying the economy) they receive more money? And you are surprised people are upset. That is class warfare my friend.

Besides If a CEO needs some money he can just take your pension!
 
I don't think anyone's proposing killing people, except maybe a couple of insane ones. Those always exist, and they certainly don't represent OWS in general. Certainly nobody has anything against farmers. I'm assuming you're just waxing emotional, because the idea of OWS protesters wanting to kill American farmers is ridiculous.
Anyway, Stalin didn't actually murder farmers. He just forced the collectivization of agriculture, which was a misguided idea.
Yes, some of them are clueless. Some of them are idiots. Some of them, though, have useful ideas.
 
Totally agree with the above, but not sure if you're taking issue with oldmangamer's post or are buying into the OWS and marxist rhetoric...

Don't confuse sympathy with empathy. All taxpayers should empathize with the "$uper rich". I was raised to believe that you are in control of your own future, you make your own opportunity, you keep what you earn. I imagine that a number of Americans feel the same way. Anyone who takes advantage of the opportunities afforded to them by American society is striving to be (super) rich. Mark Zuckerberg is a dude who deserves the crazy loot he's making; say what you will, but please don't tell me you wouldn't enjoy that level of financial freedom. Zuckerberg+ingenuity+talent+afforded opportunity+American capitalism=crazy loot.

I'll take capitalism over any other -ism, any day, all day, every day.

Please don't blame capitalism. It is a baseless accusation; an easy target for anger and angst. Capitalism is not the problem. The exchange between you (mingo), dogman, and gamer 6 or 7 posts from the bottom of page 2 was spot on, IMO; gamer was right.

Only if the youth resort to using violence. Is that the intent of OWS? To violently overthrow the government? Or, maybe the marxism that pervades the OWS movement is the Bizarro World equivalent of the racists elements of the Tea Party.

What's really interesting about the linked article was that it provided the real reasons for the issues being protested by OWS but wrongfully directs the blame; much like the OWS protest is misdirected at capitalism, the super rich, and Wall Street. The article hits the nail on the head with assessments like; "being a dubious use of tax law", "Federal law encourages employers to offer pensions by giving companies a tax deduction", " IRS rules say pension plans must not discriminate in favor of highly compensated employees.", "Under existing rules, there’s little we can do anyway. If Congress doesn’t like it, it can change the rules." While exploiting the system is deplorable; capitalism, the super rich, and Wall Street do not write the codes, laws, and policies.
 
But Chunky you forget that money = Freedom of speech. Since corporations are people.
So the real problem here is only people who have money to spend on lobbying get their voices heard.
 
Because of unlimited anonymous campaign donations...... which are completely legal.

So does your letter or a 50 million $ donation have more sway?

Or even withholding money from candidates would make them sweat.
 
You both have a point.

The issue is that without 'donations' congress could not function. Raise taxes? heck no! you might ruin my 35 million dollar pay check as a CEO of ____ Incorporated. However, I can contribute 20 million to you if you lower my taxes and take small business subsidies and subsidize my corp.
 
Money does not directly equate to freedom of speech; that's erroneous and just plain silly.

But, I do agree that money equates to legal, unlimited, and anonymous donations from corporations to elected officials. But given the fact these donations are legally sanctioned only continues to point the finger back at elected officials and the laws, rules, codes, and policies; not the corporations, capitalism, the super rich, or wall street.

I'm all for changing the laws, rules, codes, and policies but not at the cost of destroying American society, the republic, capitalism, or the Constitution.

 


Its crazy right, but its not erroneous. From the wikipedia entry on Buckley v. Valeo

Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a federal law which set limits on campaign contributions, but ruled that spending money to influence elections is a form of constitutionally protected free speech, and struck down portions of the law. The court also ruled candidates can give unlimited amounts of money to their own campaigns.

Candidates can also make unlimited donations to their own campaigns, another leg up that the wealthy have.



I hear this argument all the time and I guess you could sum it up as elected officials shouldn't be corrupt right? A corporation is just taking advantage of a "Law" or a "Loophole" created by a democratically elected official right? You do know that most high office officials either are business owners or have a vested interest in a business. Please see Dick Cheney and Halliburton (Did he really make the best decisions by giving his ex-company that he owns stock in exclusive rights after the Iraq invasion? Also responsible for excluding fracking from clean air and water act) Bush Sr. and Jr. were both made wealthy from oil, maybe influenced policy? I'm sure you can find these conflicts in other members (Even current). Im just lazy 😴 .

So how did these wealthy people get into office and create laws that cater to large business? Because they had money and the guy with the good ideas didn't.
 
You are taking the decision of Buckley vs Valeo out of context. If you accept the fact that elections in America are funded by private interests, as opposed to being funded by the government and all the issues that go with government run elections, then it is necessary to enable and ensure proper political discourse. Offering Buckley vs Valeo as some "proof" that only the rich can afford to run for office or afford public office is to ignore the fundamentals of free, open, and public elections where any citizen, regardless of status or income, can run for public office. Without the protection of the 1st and 5th amendment, independent and 3rd parties would be unable to secure the means and financing necessary to engage in the election system and run for public office.

No. It should be presumed that all elected officials will abuse the power given to them. To think otherwise is naive. This is in the spirit of the limits placed on government and separation of powers.
If you believe in the American republic, American style capitalism, and the rule of law, then yes! Companies are taking advantage of loopholes and the law.

I am not a huge fan of "Big Government" Bush or Cheney, so...

Absolutely you can. Immelt and Obama come to my mind.

Again, this is misplaced anger and ire that continues to place the blame on money and capitalism. The issue is the politico-corporatism that has perverted the election process and maintains an undue influence over elected officials. Working to correct the system, a return to American style capitalism, and following the framework of the Constitution is the solution. The OWS could learn something from the Tea Party and the success they had in the November 2010 mid-term elections.

The real irony about wealthy people, corporate personhood, and campaign contributions is the lack of out cry by progressives on the amount of money Unions (AFL-CIO, SEIU, etc) spend on ensuring their choice for office gets elected; as those Unions enjoy the same protection given by Buckley vs Valeo as the "evil corporations" and "super rich".
 

Well, America is not currently a fully capitalist state. What degree of capitalism do you believe we should have? A total laissez-faire, almost anarchic free market? Wouldn't you agree that some regulation is necessary?
 
The opposite in fact.

Free markets have given corporations powers they previously couldn't dream of.

They setup slave labour camps in countries that have no morals (Foxconn in China) and exploit the low production and labour costs to the full extent.

They shift production tech away from where the ideas and prototyping / development are borne into gulags where people are so driven by the whip they throw themselves off buildings.

What you don't see on their lovely multicultrural picture on the front page of the wbsite is the guy standing in front of them with a sign saying "Smile or we throw you off the top on the building next time".

Awesome ... just awesome.

:)

 



Im not convinced Oldman.....

They not only got an 18 billion $ contract because they were the best but also because they were the only company allowed to bid...... So of course they got it.

Do you really think that Cheney was completely done with Halliburton? They only gave him millions of dollars, and over night he was a reformed man with all ties cut?
 
Bu what about being the only company to bid.... Thats public knowledge.

Its actually on their wiki page under controversy :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton#Controversies

The contract that Cheney literally gave them was for 7 billion my bad. Right before the election Halliburton gave Cheney a 37 million $ severance package. And he still received money in the hundreds of thousands + stock options over his tenure as VP.


 
You mean like the power to freely and openly manufacture products without the government telling them what they can and can not produce? You mean like the power to sell the products they make to anyone and everyone who wishes to buy them without the government putting limits on what's sold or who can buy what? You mean like the power to offer their shareholders and investors a return on their investment?

After all, we know how well the market operates and the standard of living that is created when the government controls everything.

It's funny that your ire is directed at companies and the free market but you then cite China, a communist state, as the poster child for failed capitalism. FAIL! Don't blame companies and capitalism for countries and governments that fail to ensure their citizens even the most modest of workers rights and safety standards.

Now, I am no fan of the politico-corporatism that has become the standard, I agree that corporations have too much pull within governments and a change is necessary; but any anger aimed at capitalism and incorporation is misplaced and misdirected.
 
Foxconn manufactures in China, but it's in no way communist. It's a highly capitalist company that sells to capitalist nations like the US. China is not the point. It is interesting, though, that companies can get by with less regulation in a country like China than they can in the US.
 
So you believe corporations and capitalism in general should exploit slave labour economies to the fullest (therefore disinfranshising the lower classes of economies of capitalist societies in the process) or is their some principles you feel need to be put in place?

this is starting to sound like occupy wall street ...

 


So called "Chinese" companies are simply fronts for the Chinese Government ...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.