Occupy Wall Street

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.

I didn't say I support the practices of Foxconn or other similar companies, and I do not. I do, however, own more electronics than I probably should, so I guess I'm already supporting them in another sense of the word, and you probably are too.
Foxconn is a capitalist company with bad labor practices.


Evidence? Any evidence at all?
Are you saying that every single company based in China is government-run?
Some Chinese companies receive subsidies/tax breaks/favorable action from the Chinese government, as in the recent solar panel suit, but that's a long way from being "fronts".
 
The Chinese condone slave labour camps for their workers, have artificially controlled their currency, control all access to the internet for their people, and the media (paperbased, internet and television) is all state run and managed.

The Chinese government have covered up massacres like Tianamin Square (and others like the missile launch that went wrong and toasted an entire town) and rewritten history so as far as the young are concerned these things never existed.

How about china Telecom's involvement in spying?

Henan province slave labout camps?

Read on ...

http://chinaview.wordpress.com/
 
Yes, China does all sorts of bad things, including spying, censorship and financial meddling. I'm not denying that. What you said, though, is that all Chinese companies are run by the government, and that's not true.
 
Yes, you've said, but that's meant all sorts of things over the years. Are you referring to the exact variety of capitalism that we have now (varying degrees of government interference in commerce, our current unbalanced tax brackets), or to the famous capitalist heydays of the 1920s and -50s, or what?
 
There is no exact capitalism it seems. Only a spectrum exists. Either you have a completely free-for-all system,( which BTW, won't work,) OR you may have a completely regulated system,( which ALSO doesn't work!) What needs to be done is a balanced tax system with regulation to protect consumer and economy. No more stupid regs, only smart ones. Can I gove any examples? Sure. The Airline Industry.

We have 2 major airlines now. We could go back to the old days and break them up, but that will piss off a lot of people. Not going to work.( Ol' Jimmy Carter got rid of that with his buddy Regan.) What needs to do is mandate a schedule for runway activity, not a free for all landing. Equal terminal share. More than one airline at a terminal. If you go bankrupt...you go bankrupt. No more gov't help. Oh, and no baggage fees. The baggage fee one was my idea. 😛
 



They even mentioned the salient point, in that article you just linked... They say in that HuffPo article that OWS is like the Left's version of the Tea Party. Except of course that where Tea Party events were always civil, OWS events have turned ugly and they are using pre-planned methods to promote conflict with the Police (Because, uh, Cops are ruining society so why not make them against your cause, eh?). And except of course, that the Tea Party is correctly aiming at causality issues like decreasing size of gov't, lessening taxes, asking the gov't to spend within it's means... and OWS is butting it's head not on the causes, but on symptoms - attacking "the rich" while at the same time coddling with multi-millionaires like Russell Simmons Susan Surandon and Kayne West, and having video interviews taken of some of their most vocal supporters who turn out to be $200,000 private school rich kids, and trust fund crybabies from super rich families themselves.


Oh wait... but I forgot. Every single Tea Party supporter is automatically branded a racist, no matter their skin color, their beliefs, or even any proof/evidence. But daily at OWS they chant and wave signs of nasty antisemitism, yet none of that group gets branded racist, and the major networks turn a blind eye and don't report such.

"Occupy Wall Street has been called the liberal counterpoint to conservative-libertarian tea party"...
"They've got reasons to be upset, they've got reasons to protest, but they're protesting against the wrong people,"... "They need to go to Washington, to Congress and the White House. They're the ones coming up with all the rules."
 
But again I fail to see how:

1) Lowering taxes will reduce the deficit
2) Giving corporations more power will reduce political interference.
3) Making it easier for Corporations to make money will result in a better living standard for all.
4) Reducing restrictions will make corporations more efficient.
5) Wheres the accountability?

People are pissed at Washington (The linky I provided will attest to that, sorry for the Huffpo). No matter how much people protest at the gates of the white house someone somewhere is donating millions of dollars to protect their interests. So the tea party et al want a complete rewrite of how business operates in the US? How would that work? And what do I get out of it? How would the average American be protected from predatory practices?

I never said Tea party people are racist I don't even believe that. I'm not supporting every single thing OWS supports. The same way Im sure none of you blindly follow Glenn Beck....... So don't group me with them or anyone.

The difference between organizing at the capital and at wall street is about the same as me protesting at the place you live versus the place you work.

 
1) You're not missing anything, lowering taxes for any income level will not reduce the deficit. The theory about lowering taxes is that with the economy in the dumps, allowing the people to keep more of their money will (supposedly) stimulate the American consumer economy. Also, by lowering taxes, there is the assumption (uh-oh! ass-u-me!) that elected officials will reduce spending as a result of having less of the people's money to spend. But there's the rub; it isn't about raising or lowering taxes at all, taxes are the tactical maneuvers of the elected officials to get their electorate riled up. The issue of raising and lowering taxes is a ruse to bamboozle the people and confuse the real issue. The real issue is that the Federal government in American HAS A SPENDING PROBLEM and NOT A REVENUE (tax) PROBLEM!
2) Again, not missing anything, giving more power to corporations will not reduce political interference. However, the issue isn't whether corporations have "power" or not, it is how the government has gotten into bed with corporations and failed to limit their influence. The issue isn't companies and corporations, it is our elected officials in collusion with the corporations in perverting the political system and stealing it from the people; well that and the wholesale apathy of recent generations and the entitlement class.
3) The misperception here is the implication that a company's success is somehow tied to everyone who works, not just those employees who work for that company, but anyone who works whether for that company or not; i.e.; distribution of wealth and a sense of entitlement. A company is not responsible for "sharing the wealth" with people who do not work for them. The employees who worked to make a company profitable are not responsible for providing a lifestyle for someone who did not work for that company. A cornerstone of American capitalism and the free market is that both companies and employees are FREE to achieve the highest level of success their labor brings. Another cornerstone of American capitalism is that you, by right of natural law, keep what you earn.
4) I am not for unfettered regulation. Some regulation is necessary, to think otherwise is ignorant. However, reducing restrictions can and do make companies more efficient at performing their core functions, i.e.; manufacturing, providing services, etc. For example, American ammunition manufacturers like Federal, Speer, and Winchester were required to report tax and shipping statements on a monthly basis to the IRS and BATFE, not on a quarterly basis like any other industry in American, but on a monthly basis; please note that this was as a result of the anti-gun mindset that permeated the Clinton Administration. After 9/11/2001 and the ramp up of troops and private security firms into Afghanistan, American ammunition manufacturers were unable to keep up with demand. Why? Because they had to devote manpower and money to keeping up with the BATFE and IRS reporting regulations which took away from the manpower and money that could be spent on performing their core function, which is producing ammunition for the Federal government and civilian market. As a result, the IRS and BATFE had to change their regulations to enable American ammo makers to do what they are in business to do. the lesson learned here is that the political motivations of the anti-gun crowd stifled the production capabilities of an entire industry through regulation. If not ammo, how about the slew of green energy regulation that enabled energy companies to build off shore wind farms, drill for shale natural gas, let alone the government investment in (failed) solar panel companies.
5) Accountability is in the regulations, laws, codes, and within industry associations. Some level of accountability was stolen from the American people with the passing of the 17th Amendment. Accountability is given away by the apathy of recent generations and the entitlement class. And, accountability is in your hands, as the electorate; simply get out and vote!

Say what you will about the Tea Party, they delivered where the OWS will seemingly fail; to nominate and elect people into Congress that promote their ideals. The OWS crowd could learn something from the Tea Party. As far as understanding how rewriting how businesses operate, how that would work, and what that means to you; I would encourage everyone to read, learn, and act on the issues that effect them and stand up for the principles they believe in.
 
Lets see, lowering taxes on the federal level allows more money to be spent at home.
This allows for more consumption, which has to be made shipped and produced and shipped again etc
Then, you have higher state taxes
Higher state taxes?
Yes, with more monies spent, the average sales tax per household goes up, and relieves some of that emergency spending Obama wants to spend.
Now, if that isnt a more sound appeoach than just handing the states money, Im not seeing it, and did I even mention more job creations thru production/shipping/retail?
Which, again, are taxed both at the state and federal level
 

This doesn't seem quite straight to me. You think that these rather large corporations - no Googles, but definitely large - were bogged down to the extent of a production block by *accounting*? That writing three times as much tax paperwork stopped them from producing ammunition? Companies of that size are not so strapped for cash that they can't hire a few more tax guys to handle stuff like that. If you have evidence, of course, I'll change my tune, but it seems to me that a huge ramp-up in demand could cause a supply shortage on its own.

I hope that the OWS movement will succeed in actually getting political things done. It's only been around for a month or two.
 
Yea, people seem to keep on making that age old mistake when discussing Libertarian or Tea Party principles: Limited smaller gov't does NOT equal "no gov't/regulations".

Gov't has a legitimate role to play, that is not the issue. The issue is the monstrous size, which is never good because even at the smallest stages gov't is fairly inefficient, and the bureaucracies get worse and red tape becomes every business owner's nightmare.

All TP's want is limited gov't, and to quit shredding our dang Constitution to pieces. That is the truly great American tragedy imo, because our Founding Fathers were WAY smarter than any generations since... and they had amazing foresight. Chunky said it best - this country's government has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
 


They may have been intelligent and far-sighted, but they still existed in a world without enormous, omnipresent corporations (excepting trade empires like the E. India Co., but they didn't play nearly as great a role in people's lives as companies do today). Problems with our government have arisen that they could not have foreseen. Some of these do, indeed, come from an overdose of governing, but that doesn't change the fact that the Constitution is not perfect, and never will be. It can always be improved.
 
Don't forget the tech they had compared to what we have. They never had an idea of a singular tube super-highway. That also plays a role in your daily politics. Should we change the constitution to bend with innovation to preserve our civil liberties?
 
These types of regulations are the dirty little political secrets that never make their way into the mainstream. Being an NRA member, I make it point to keep up on firearms related news; I'm also a member of the ACLU so don't pass judgement. The amount of regulation levied by the Clinton Administration, IRS, BATFE, and the years of liberal media bias did put a severe damper on the industry. I did not mean to imply that these regulations were so egregious that they put companies out of business; although that was the intent of the anti-gun crowd, and Winchester did go out of business in 2006...but I digress...In context, the regulation, combined with reduced demand from the market, was enough for companies to shift resources away from their core business. Changing regulation is the tool of centralized government planning to steer industries and influence the market.

Calling American firearms and ammo manufactures large companies is a matter of definition. The SBA defines a large business as any company over 500 employee; Smith & Wesson has 1400 employees, Ruger has 1100, Federal has 1000. Regardless of the SBA definition, I would not call these large businesses. the company I work has 9000 employees, I consider that a large business just shy of a small corporation. So, hopefully, you can rationalize the additional "tax paperwork" could have a negative impact if these companies had to divert money and resources away from their core function. Unlike the government, profitable companies do not deficit spend, remain credit worthy, and understand that overheads reduce capital budgets which reduces money spent on buying supplies to make their products.

On some levels I hope so too but I highly doubt it. Their core message of corporations being in bed with the government is something all Americans can agree on. But based on the youtube videos, interviews, and news articles they can't agree to share their money, form a cohesive platform, or even maintain consistent levels of acceptable public behavior let alone get a member elected into office.
 
I agree that the Constitution is not perfect, but I also understand and accept that the Constitution was never intended to be perfect; hence the Amendment process.

Do you believe the Constitution to be as relevant today as it was 200+ years ago? Or given the issues facing today's American society and culture it no longer applies? If it is no longer relevant or unable to meet the issues of "these modern times", what Amendments would you support or propose?
 
I don't really have problems with the constitution as it is now, not with the things that it does contain. I'm not a constitutional scholar; there may be things that I would take issue with if I were to go over it more carefully. There are just issues that weren't considered at the time it was written, such as the power of huge corporations, that have since become relevant. Amendments on that issue would be welcome. I'd like an end to commercial political donations, for example. If the heads of corporations want to contribute to political campaigns, they're free to pay themselves large salaries and give as much of those salaries as they want to candidates, after paying a tax rate equal to or greater than that imposed on people with lesser incomes. This approach seems more moral to me: once the money's in the hands of actual individuals, it can be donated. If the corporation donates it as an independent entity, it doesn't take into account the opinions of all its shareholders.

My comment seems a little more abrupt without the knarl post that it's responding to, complaining about people "shredding" the constitution.



...why? Please explain.
 
Yea, I just don't buy that point of view that our Constitution doesn't apply just as much today as it ever did. I think that how we've gotten away from it and shredded it slowly over the years, is responsible for most of the grief this country is suffering. I noticed how many of what I would deem the "liberal" minded posters applauded the recently posted link to Estonia and how it has done a 180 by moving as far from socialism as possible, and removing obstacles to business. But when we argue the same limited government principles in other posts, they always disagree... go figure.

I really encourage anyone that is truly interested in just how many rights Americans have let slip away, to do a search on Youtube and check out Andrew Napolitano's Constitution for Dummies series, and other various vids like Natural Rights and the Patriot Act. Any American watching these should have a little vomit in their throat afterwards, and might be approaching tears 🙁
 
I believe allowing corps. and unions to contribute was considered a compromise between the two parties, is that just swell, they decide who gives them money....
Now, since the press is exremely left leaning, and the repubs attacks on the high costs of union benefits, its become an inflated issue, just like making union members in the public sector was ballooned when the repubs, starting in Wisconsin and New Jersey, demanded the union members pay what the private sector does for their benefits, which is a bold move against a money source, and is pure politics, as is much of the corporation complaints are, but both have valid points, but theres no one fix cures all
 
Presuming you are an American, you OWE IT TO YOURSELF to read (the actual writings and NOT wikipedia entries!) the Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, Frederick Bastiat's "The Law", Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations", Thomas Paine's "Common Sense", and Ayn Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness". Not for nothing, but the Constitution is the document that governs our Republic; if you read any one thing listed above, at least read that. If you finish reading those, and if for nothing but kicks and giggles, read the Constitutions of other countries like Germany, Netherlands, the original USSR, and/or France; then read Karl Marx's "Communist Manifesto", Robert Owen, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, and Alexis de Tocqueville. Hopefully, what you will take away is not how irrelevant the Constitution is in light of "these modern times" but how it is more relevant today with the principles, freedoms, and rights guaranteed as a matter of natural law. At the very least, if you do read all of the recommendations above, you will be better suited to debate even the most astute political scientist on the pros and cons of each position.

In light of the seemingly only cohesive reason behind OWS, the issue with companies making political donations is greatly misunderstood. Research corporate personhood and the reasons why companies are considered by legal definition the same as individual citizens. First, understand that a change to the legal definition of corporate personhood would require changing the 14th Amendment. Also, understand that without corporate personhood, a company could not be sued for wrongdoing or infractions of the law as there would be no legal entity, only a collection of individuals who work for the corporation; then try to figure out who is to be held responsible! More importantly, the same laws that allow for corporate personhood are also the same laws that allow unions and civic/private organizations to donate and make political contributions. You can not undo corporate personhood unless you are prepared to no longer allow unions, civic organizations, and private organizations to make political donations in support of a given candidate or elected official. As a matter of principle, if you agree with unions and civic/private organizations making political donations then you must also support corporations making political donations. But that's the rub, the issue OWS has with corporate donations is not truly about the undue corporate influence in politics as much as it is about condemning corporate personhood, promoting Marxism, and dismantling American capitalism.
 
My rationale applies to unions and other organizations too. I believe that if the members of the union want to support a particular candidate, then they can all agree to donate a certain amount of money, and nobody can stop them from doing that. They're just a bunch of private citizens donating money at the same time. When a union or company does it as a whole, though, they're using the money of any dissenters they may have, and doing it without their consent.
I've read the Constitution, the Declaration, Common Sense, and excerpts from "The Wealth", as well as a few of the Federalist papers. I'm in US history class now, so I'm becoming more thoroughly informed as this discussion progresses 😀

oldman:
What should we base our taxes on, then? Do you think the super-rich should be taxed at the same rate as the super-poor?
 
In California awhile back, the unions voted down a measure within their ranks, with a special vote, at the union hdqtrs thru out the state, which was the only place you could vote on the subject, that denied the right of the union person themselves to ascertain where their portion of money would be donated, and that left the union leaders with the same ability theyve had all along, which was to send the money where they wished
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom