.
.
.
According to the folks at “Occupy [fill in city near you],” it is 1% of the American people that are evil and ruining the country – that amounts to 3,124,000 evil people running around causing havoc. Today in New York, the “Occupy” folks are going right to the folks they view as the “source of the problem” – the “problem” being the accumulation of wealth. The millionaires and billionaires were targeted for what event organizers called a “willingness to hoard wealth at the expense of the 99%.” Making their way up 5th Ave., the protesters — relatively modest in number — chanted “we are the 99%” and “banks got bailed out, we got sold out.”
Let’s examine the heinous acts of these 3,124,000 evil people: 1) imagining ways of creating products and delivering products in entirely new ways, 2) expanding the economy by adding jobs and employing vast numbers of people, 3) intelligently investing their earnings in ways that stabilize our economy, and 4) having the temirity to EARN more money than people not creatively expanding the economy. How horrible! No wonder these protests are picking up tens of supporters leading to the fall of the these evil forces.
Much like Greece, a collapsing economic system the is being crushed under the weight of people demanding more money for less or now work, the “Occupy” forces want a “simple” system to “reallocate” wealth in a way that is not tied to silly concepts such as creativity, hard work and market share. Obama (one of the evil ones by the way), is drooling over these events because they distract the people from the real problem – horrible governance from the top leading to economic stagnation.
You are such an “Achiever”! How special you are. or desire to think that you are. “Occupy” does not hate the one percent. (o.k.some do, some really hate them) the true intellectual driving spirit of Occupy though is aimed at despising the corrruption within the system that continues to create disparity between the 1% and the 99%. We should not further insult the precious rich and the wealth that they have achieved (mostly through investment, collaborated money laundering) but we must not hold punches towards Wall St. Investment Firms, Corporate Lobbying machines, the Private Federal reserve, and precious “patriots” that think that they achieved wealth because of their own damn talents alone.
Hm. I wonder if that is too subtle and nuanced for some of the assemblage here. I already tried to make the same point yesterday.
Here, I’ll try again.
The vast majority of us protesters don’t consider you top 1% to be evil, or the enemy, or “ruining the country.”
We just want to change the system to make it more fair for the other 99% of us.
There. Now, I’m pretty sure, if you can’t understand that, it’s on purpose.
Vern, I’m glad you can speak for the “vast majority of us protestors” since, by the looks of the videos out there, not even the vast majority of the protestors know why they’re occupying anything at all. I know that many have no respect for opposing views (you should see some of the signs they have – the press villified the Tea Party for far less vitriol and far fewer signs), many don’t care about public or private property as evidenced by the litter and unsanitary conditions they have created and the growing estimated costs to clean up after the riffraff (show me that disrespect from a Tea Party event), many are from privileged families (you know, those not-really evil 99%ers) whose parents are paying well north of $100,000 for their education, many don’t care about anything other than having sex and getting drunk or high, and a few like to defecate on police cars. Now that’s a cause.
But I’m all for them continuing, because us 53%ers, you know the ones who actually pay taxes, and even quite a few of the 46%ers know that they don’t represent their values and I think that will speak volumes come next year.
At least our poor, lonely Dear Leader gets Fast and Furious, Solyndra, and his disastrous economic policies off the front page for a bit.
“We just want to change the system to make it more fair for the other 99% of us. COMPLETELY WRONG – the top 1% make about 25% of the nation’s income and pay about 30% of the nations taxes – interestingly the next 52% make 50% of the income and pay 70% of the taxes – leaving the final 47% receiving 25% of the income and paying ZERO taxes.
You are right there is a disparity – 47% of America is not pulling its weight.
My reply to this somehow ended up on the wrong post (probably my spazzy touchpad, you guys ever get that on your laptops?)
I said (accidentally on Amber’s post) : “There you go again. 47% of Americans not paying taxes. Sure, Geoff, sure.”
and then Geoff said: “From that terrbily conservative source “Yahoo:”
About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009…”
and then I said: “OH! FEDERAL INCOME TAXES! Why didn’t you SAY so???
In your youthful zeal and enthusiasm, you actually wrote: “the final 47% receiving 25% of the income and paying ZERO taxes. … 47% of America is not pulling its weight.””
“47% of America is not pulling its weight”….. Hmmmm
True!….. by any numbers which I have seen.
double indemnity – do you honestly believe that it “corruption within the system that continues to create disparity between the 1% and the 99%?” So intellect, hard work and creativity has nothing to do with it? I agree that corrupt subsidies should be eliminated – do you have any other suggestions about how this “corruption” is eliminated?
I haven’t much from this group about actual solutions apart from purely communistic or socialistic redistribution of income “just because.”
In 1948 CSR communists nationalized all private busies hoping that they will have golden dandles on the door. In 1950 they went bankrupt and evaluated Kcs (CSR crone currency) and everyone lost every savings same as in USA the ownership of the gold was felony. (Thanks to FDR)
The left liberal terror began!
Liberalism is like syphilis!
I agree, let’s not nationalize any businesses. Maybe health insurance, that’s all.
On the other hand, Iceland privatized many of its banks in the early 2000s and the greedy bastards couldn’t resist over-leaveraging them (sound familiar?) and the government had to step in and take control.
So while government control isn’t the ultimate answer, regulations that control greedy behavior ARE necessary. Bankers thought that the creation of the FDIC would sabotage their businesses, but it transformed banking by ending bank runs.
Especially not health insurance!!!!!
Believe me Vern, I do understand the humanitarian aspect of it. It was very convenient for me in CSSR to go to doctor for free get 14 days prescription to rest from work and get 100% pay for it.
Think!!!!
Insurance whether private or governmental is a pool of money into which everyone wants to dip.
That is why an Insurance Co. gets build $100 for simple $0.01 aspirin tablet.
Once you create single governmental Giga. pool of money controlled by the gov. bureaucrats it will go bankrupt instantly because the Big Farma will essentially control the pool.
The only fragmented private sector can control it.
If you want make health care affordable make sure that government allows competition like drugs from other country which cost fraction of the USA protected Big Farma by Governmental FDA monopoly.
There are many other aspects why not to nationalize the health.
Creativity, hard work, and market share?
Is that what’s at work when corporate bailouts, corporate subsidies and corporate tax breaks occur?
Not to mention, the gamblers on Wall Street. That’s what this is about. All it takes is a quick Google search on how risky investments and speculative tools had a huge hand in our economic meltdown. And these decisions were not that intelligent. Next time you’re in a bookstore, pick up Michael Lewis’ “Liar’s Poker” book (same author as “Moneyball”) and just read the introduction. It doesn’t take much to understand how America got to this point.
You forgot the Barney Frank and Co. Democrat policies that mandated banks and other lenders provide home loans to anyone with a pulse, regardless of the creditworthiness – all in the name of “fairness.”
Can you point out to us where I or Amber said that policies toward corporations is strictly a Republican or Democrat issue?
Why am I not surprised that Newbie has swallowed the pablum that Fox News and the rightwing spokes-holes like to spoon-feed the idiots who NEED a simplistic answer to a complex problem.
It is absolute CRAP that Barnie Frank and Fannie and Freddie were the cause of the economic meltdown, it’s also CRAP that the economy tanked all because poor people bought houses they couldn’t afford, the real causes are many, but have far more to do with greed, radical deregulation, incompetence and malfeasance.
Read and learn;
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/01/fcic-what-caused-the-financial-crisis/
Rather than referring someone to a blog, you might want to refer people to the actual report by the FCIC.You also might want to read it yourself – in its entirety.
The FCIC was composed of 10 individuals – 6 chosen by Reid and Pelosi and 4 chosen by McConnell and Boehner. The Commission Report is blatantly political, The report was confirmed by 6 of the members. Guess which 6? All 4 conservatives dissented from the majority, and wrote 2 seperate dissents to the report; those reports were also blatantly political, with the exception that they blame Bush as much as Clinton for their roles in the fiasco.
In my personal opinion, not yet enough blame has been placed on the greed of those buying homes (most all of whom have walked or will walk away from their contractual obligations) and those who were chasing rates of return.
Nicely said
Socodave,
“All 4 conservatives dissented from the majority, and wrote 2 seperate dissents to the report; those reports were also blatantly political, with the exception that they blame Bush as much as Clinton for their roles in the fiasco.”
Obviously you DIDN’T even bother to READ the article I cited, as it too blamed Clinton, but that is not surprising, it’s actually typical conservative behavior, if the facts don’t back up your “beliefs” then there is something wrong with the facts.
Sorry, but I think I’ll believe Barry Ritholtz explanation of the 2008 meltdown rather than someone who “believes” it was caused by bad poor people snookering the banks.
You too are just embracing the easiest, most simplistic explanation, because it’s all that you can understand, in other words PABLUM.
For more information on Barry Ritholtz;
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/barry-ritholtz-curriculum-vitae/)
Anonster – any time you disagree with what people say, you turn to this vicious, hateful, ugly troll that spews venom in all directions – accusing them of “not reading” the material or “oversimplifying” things when in actuality you simply cannot fathom that not everyone buys into your myopic, union based world view. I feel sorry for you.
Geoff,
What you call “venom’, I call READING COMPREHENSION. Socodave is claiming that the FCIC report was political and one of the examples he was giving was that the Republican version blamed Bush as well as Clinton, I merely pointed out that the OFFICIAL ( or as Socodave believes, the Democratic) version blamed Clinton as well as Bush, rendering his point meaningless and he would have KNOWN that if he had read Barry Ritholtz’s summary of the FCIC report.
And as for me accusing people of “oversimplifying” the subject matter, I’m sorry if the TRUTH HURTS, but ANY INTELLECTUALLY HONEST (something you’re not too familiar with) examination of the 2008 meltdown shows that it was indeed extremely complicated and a long time in the making.
You and Socodave are free cling to your Fox News induced fantasies, but you don’t have the right to demand that I or anyone else treat them as anything other than simplistic, childish nonsense.
Oh you’re right Anonster. A report that was endorsed by all 6 Democrats and none of the 4 Republicans is the support for your claims. Hello pot, the kettle is over here. And color me shocked that a partisan Democrat report would minimize the impact of Frank and Co. I love the way you toss the word “idiot” around and then publish such an ironic post. But hey, you use big words (like pablum) and big words (like CRAP and NEED), so it must be true.
Newbie,
If you ever ventured out of your right-wing echo chamber and actually took the time to read some opinions of economists and people in the financial industry, you’d find that they don’t have some silly pat answers for the causes of the financial meltdown of 2008.
The article that I originally referred to was by Barry Ritholtz (Bailout Nation), one where his reasons for the meltdown were largely confirmed by the FCIC report.
I am not at all surprised that you didn’t read the article by Mr. Ritholtz, as it is painfully obvious that you didn’t even bother to fully read my comment.
I know how you cherish your ignorance, so just skip this next article;
http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=did_liberals_cause_the_subprime_crisis
“I know how you cherish your ignorance, so just skip this next article”…. Hmmmmm
I am glad I did Onanster,
The state of the economy speaks for itself.
Anonster, don’t rise to the bait. Your comments were fine.
Anonster, unlike you, I actually do read articles posted on here and I don’t take pot shots at the expense of actual dialogue. That’s why I noted that Mr. Ritholtz’s article is based on the FCIC report (it actually says “Source” at the bottom of the article with a link to a January 25, 2011 NY Times article. That article references the FCIC report. So, I then did some research into the FCIC to find out that it was a partisan hack job by the Democrats. So, I guess I do read the articles – and I even do additional work to support my posts, unlike you and your liberal rhetoric and big fancy words aimed at nothing but attacking the poster, rather than addressing the substance of the post. Typical response from the left when it can’t argue the facts (like just about every response on here about Fast and Furious), so I’m not surprised. And since you don’t deserve respect, I will take your offer and skip your other undoubtedly biased and slanted article and stick to the real facts.
*** IRONY ALERT ***
Newbie,
Do you NOT EVEN BOTHER TO READ YOUR OWN POSTS????
“… I don’t take pot shots at the expense of actual dialogue.”
Really? Let me refresh your memory;
” I love the way you toss the word “idiot” around and then publish such an ironic post. But hey, you use big words (like pablum) and big words (like CRAP and NEED), so it must be true.”
“That’s why I noted that Mr. Ritholtz’s article is based on the FCIC report”
WHERE exactly did you “note” that fact?
“and I even do additional work to support my posts,”
Really, I didn’t notice ANY facts or links to this crap;
“You forgot the Barney Frank and Co. Democrat policies that mandated banks and other lenders provide home loans to anyone with a pulse, regardless of the creditworthiness – all in the name of “fairness.”
Just stating YOUR OPINION ISN’T A SUBSTITUTE FOR FACTS.
You seem to have a very distorted view of your capabilities and your “product” because any objective analysis of your “arguments” shows you HAVEN’T backed them up at all.
” I will take your offer and skip your other undoubtedly biased and slanted article and stick to the real facts.”
Surprise, surprise, you chose NOT to read the article. Don’t worry, I didn’t post it for you, as I knew you’d never read it. You wouldn’t be so tetchy and have such simplistic opinions if you took the time and effort it takes to be well informed.
Anonster – do you think screaming in caps and using a lot of space fills in your logic gaps, corrects your factual inaccuracies and makes your simplistic arguments more sophisticated?
This is called “rhetorical” because no, your crap is still crap.
Geoff,
“Anonster – do you think screaming in caps and using a lot of space fills in your logic gaps, corrects your factual inaccuracies and makes your simplistic arguments more sophisticated?”
No Geoff, I use caps for emphasis and because I know (from much experience) that you right-wingers only skim my comments at best, so I use caps in the hope of getting at least a little of my meaning across.
As far as “logic gaps” and “factual inaccuracies” go, point them out and refute them.
You and Newbie love accusing me of not backing up my facts yet I NEVER see ANY factual rebuttals, only personal attacks, but that’s all you’ve got, ain’t it?
Anonster this gets tiring as your frozen caps key combined with the fact that you change the subject everytime your are caught if a lie just makes this a seemingly fruitless effort. You lie and mislead and are factually inaccurate most of the time – we specifically point out these errors and you ignore, change the subject or just lie. Case in point:
“Surprise, surprise, you chose NOT to read the article. Don’t worry, I didn’t post it for you, as I knew you’d never read it. You wouldn’t be so tetchy and have such simplistic opinions if you took the time and effort it takes to be well informed.”
In response to
“Anonster, unlike you, I actually do read articles posted on here and I don’t take pot shots at the expense of actual dialogue. That’s why I noted that Mr. Ritholtz’s article is based on the FCIC report (it actually says “Source” at the bottom of the article with a link to a January 25, 2011 NY Times article. That article references the FCIC report. So, I then did some research into the FCIC to find out that it was a partisan hack job by the Democrats. So, I guess I do read the articles – and I even do additional work to support my posts.”
Not sure what you are reading – but you clearly just say what you want regardless of the facts or of the truth.
Geoff,
BEFORE you call someone a LIAR, YOU (now that I know caps irritate you so, I can’t help but use them MORE often, LOL) might want to READ the ORIGINAL ARTICLE that I was referring to.
It was TITLED;
“FCIC: What Caused the Financial Crisis”, so WHY did Newbie, if he did read the article, need to “Source” the article to find out that it was based on the FCIC report, as the article was ALL about how the FCIC report confirmed his (Barry Ritholtz’s) reasoning for the meltdown?
Truth be told, NEITHER you or Newbie bothered to read the article I referenced, but both of you relied on Socodave’s comments for your “facts”.
Geoff,
Actually this;
“Surprise, surprise, you chose NOT to read the article. Don’t worry, I didn’t post it for you, as I knew you’d never read it. You wouldn’t be so tetchy and have such simplistic opinions if you took the time and effort it takes to be well informed.”
WASN’T in “response” to Barry Ritholtz article, but was in fact a response to Newbie’s admission that he “skipped” a secondary article I linked to, that explained where your right-wing canard that Barney Frank/CRA were responsible for the economic meltdown of 2008, came from.
Why you right-wingers NEVER READ anything BEFORE you comment is beyond me, perhaps you can’t help yourselves, OVERBLOWN EGOS seem to be standard issue among you righties, but you’d THINK that A LAWYER WOULD KNOW BETTER.
Heaven forbid I actually check the report behind the facts in the article to see if there is any bias (hint, there is a complete liberal bias in the FCIC report). Of course, I could just ignore the source and spout talking points like Anonster, but I like to be more prepared than the lefties on here.
And it’s hilarious that you now try to hold the fact that I didn’t read your second undoubtedly biased article even though you asked me not to read it. I love the liberal mindset.
Newbie,
The article was about FCIC’s conclusions and how they matched up to Mr. Ritholtz’s conclusions as to the causes of the 2008 meltdown.
My article gave two concurring viewpoints on the subject backing up my contention that the financial crisis was far more complex than the one you are postulating.
Although I know it doesn’t really matter how many experts or economists I might cite as your mind has been made up for you by Fox News and the facts be damned, here’s a few more concurring opinions;
Cox, Greenspan, Snow Agree: Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae Did Not Cause The Financial Crisis
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2008/10/23/31194/mica-waxman/
http://moneywatch.bnet.com/economic-news/blog/maximum-utility/fannie-freddie-and-the-cra-did-not-cause-the-financial-crisis/1513/
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html#ixzz1bHP40Q58
You and Geoff have criticized me for spouting talking points, yet I have yet to see you provide ANY “facts” to back up your claims and sorry, “cuz I say so” doesn’t count.
Is English your first language?;
“And it’s hilarious that you now try to hold the fact that I didn’t read your second undoubtedly biased article even though you asked me not to read it. I love the liberal mindset.”
WTF?
Newbie,
I’m glad the editing gods are on your side as your first comment was unintelligible.
The original;
“And it’s hilarious that you now try to hold the fact that your second undoubtedly biased article even though you asked me not to read it. I love the liberal mindset.”
Obviously, you don’t do sarcasm.
You’re right Anonster, this had nothing to do with the economic downturn:
http://news.investors.com/Article/589858/201110310805/Housing-Crisis-Obama-Clinton-Subprime.htm?src=IBDDAE
No one like the bail outs of any kind…There is a reason companies fail and they should fail if need be. The government handed out the money starting with Bush and then Obama became christmas for banks!
Government needs to get out of the private market, because the government don’t earn the money and therefore the government does not care who gets it, just as long as the lobbyist says THANK YOU!
I have said clearly that I am no more in favor of corporate welfare than I am individual welfare. Is it you contention that corporate welfare is the sole creator of wealth?
And yet, despite corporate welfare being one of the concerns of the “Occupy” movement, you can’t get on board with at least THAT part and give your posts and comments a bit more nuance?
Because like I said, “It’s a party not a cause”. They should not be at wall street, they should be at the white house. The government gave our tax money to banks that should have failed without our approval. The government was the reason the banks lost control. the government pushed and pushed for the banks to give every tom, dick and harry a loan, which of course they did willingly, knowing that if the shit hit the fan the government would bail them out. Greedy Old bas***** won with this one, and we as the x generation lost!
So many Wan**** jumped on the government pushed bubble!
Disingenuous. And not even ingeniously disingenuous.
Really? How so? Is 3,124,000 not 1% of our population? Is not the point of the protest that the 1% is destroying America? Please eloborate.
I’m happy to elaborate. The point of the protest is that the top 1% of our population by income and/or wealth (the term variously applies to either) — which contains some very admirable people as well as some other very unpatriotic people — has accumulated such a large proportion of our national resources that it threatens democratic governance. This is because many of these people (and those of the 99% who support them) have no loyalty to the nation’s populace as a whole, but to multinational corporations or to their own parochial interests.
Because the excess of money that they have both gets siphoned (or pumped) out of the country and gets used to pervert the political process, we seek to counter this by moving to balance their paying for political influence by organizing to oppose it. It’s this imbalance between the few and the many, and between Capital and Labor, that threatens the country.
Thanks for asking for the explanation.
First, can you please provide any substaniation for your claim that ‘many of thise people [the 1%] have no loyalty to the nation’s populace as a whole?’ Second, please provide any substantiation for your contention that “the excess of money that they have both gets siphoned (or pumped) out of the country?” The primary stated purpose of the “occupy” group is to reallocate earned income away from the 1% and to those not wanting to work – how does that help to correct “the imbalance between Capital and Labor?” Please provide substantiation that there is an imbalance between Capital and Labor (and even more basically explain how that is in any way connected to the “occupy” movement.
Your response is a classic example of providing factually unsupported arguments that you believe are “givens” and using them as a fradulent base to frame an argument. It is also an example of the facts (which I believe are wrong) are used to prove a point not related to the argument and then you act as if by proving A point, you have made THE point even though your answer was not responsive to the question. Unfortunately, there are plenty of angry folks frothing at the mouth to attack “the man” that they don’t care about little things like truth and logic.
“The primary stated purpose of the “occupy” group is to reallocate earned income away from the 1% and to those not wanting to work…”
Please f-ng substantiate ANYBODY not wanting to f-ng WORK – let alone that being a “primary stated purpose.” WHAT A LOAD!
So far, Geoff has claimed that protestors are being paid to protest, that – far from wanting more jobs – they do NOT want to work, and that that is also their primary stated purpose. Geoff has a lotta damn “SUBSTANTIATING” to do.
“Second, please provide any substantiation for your contention that “the excess of money that they have both gets siphoned (or pumped) out of the country?”
How about these FACTS, Geoff;
From IPS;
No tax-dodging strategy over recent years has filled U.S. corporate coffers more rapidly than the offshoring of corporate activity to tax havens in low- or no-tax jurisdictions. Eighteen of the 25 firms highlighted in this study operate subsidiaries in offshore tax haven jurisdictions. The firms, all combined, had 556 tax haven subsidiaries last year.
Tax havens are costing the federal treasury, by one estimate, $100 billion a year. These havens are speeding the transfer of wealth out of local communities and the global south into the bank accounts of the planet’s wealthiest and most powerful. Tax havens, or more accurately “secrecy jurisdictions,” can also facilitate criminal activity, from drug money laundering to the financing of terrorist networks.
How do tax havens work? One common corporate accounting technique, “transfer pricing,” helps corporations shift profits offshore. Technology and drug companies regularly open shell companies — in tax havens — that hold their intellectual property rights. They then charge their U.S.-based operations inflated amounts for the use of these rights. These inflated costs get deducted off U.S. taxes. The overseas tax haven profits go un- or lightly taxed. Adding insult to injury, a coalition of corporate tax dodgers is now asking Congress to reward their tax avoidance with a deeply discounted five percent tax rate if they bring these funds back home where many of them started.
For the full article;
http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/executive_excess_2011_the_massive_ceo_rewards_for_tax_dodging/
Anonster – I agree with you – let’s fix wholes in the tax code that allow this kind of behavior – let’s end federal subsidies for corporations. Those are things we do agree on. That has little or nothing to do with the vast majority of the 1%.
Well, there, Geoff, you have a LARGE area of agreement with the Occupy crowd. It might be more interesting if you pointed that out in your actual stories, and then said “But on the other hand…”
I would say that message is far from clearly delivered in any of the stuff that I have read about them.
On reflection one of the problems here is that broad language, action and people’s understanding of the two are usually not connected. I agree with ending corporate welfare and closing loop holes in the tax code. Unfortunately both parties balk at both of those ideas because those ideas attack their large donor base. What generally comes out of the discussion is a higher tax bracket which does NOTHING to end corporate subsidies or close loopholes – it simply murders the folks already paying more than their fair share because of high income and no loopholes.
I agree with ending corporate welfare and closing loop holes in the tax code. Unfortunately both parties balk at both of those ideas because those ideas attack their large donor base.”
Hence, my Occupy the Democratic Party. On behalf of the 99%.
Still, your weeping and moaning and gnashing of teeth for the very put-upon folks at the top of the pyramid is somewhat … shall we say overwrought, when nobody’s even asking them to pay what they paid under Clinton (when they did just fine) let alone under Kennedy or Eisenhower (when they did even better.)
Geoff heard a protester use the word “reallocate”. Then he saw them on TV in a park instead of at work. That means they don’t want to work.
What more proof do you need? LOL
one person is ruining America. make him a one term president
Actually he is not ruining America, congress is!
The stupid people voted him in and then the congress took it as a green light to go ahead and ruin America.
So, really it’s the peoples fault…They voted in the president and they voted in congress!
Don’t pass the buck with a republic!
Really? Did stupid people all vote George W. Bush into office? Or were all those smart people?
I don’t understand the 4 points made. I’m glad that HP started out in someone’s garage but if it wasn’t for the internet which was a government project
what would I be doing with my computer ? FED EX delivers goods on roads built by government money, when was the last time FED EX built a bridge to get something delivered faster? Cell phone signals jet across the land on satellites yet corporations would not have entered the space race during the 60’s on their own without government funding.
Corporations do not wake up in the morning and say “Today I will help my nation by creating jobs.” They are in the business of making money, so when they expanded the economy during the 90’s it was the unintended consequence of their pursuit of money. Corporations are able to make money now without hiring people.
How is moving money back and forth and taking a bit off the top each time a transaction is made intelligent? The economy was stabilized when the government stepped in with a bailout for the banks but the road has been rocky ever since.
The 1% is “making” more money than the 99% and that is far different from saying they are “earning” it in my opinion. I just don’t see any examples of the 1% “creatively” expanding anything. The new Apple I Phone is the same as the old one from what I read. What is” creative” about taking someones business and giving it to someone else , example UPS and the Post Office. Stealing is not creative.
There is something the 1 percent learned or was taught. They do not need permission to succeed in life.
The government cattle are asking for permission and the corporate sheep are asking for permission.
Stop asking and start doing. Be the human with inalienable rights and stop being a farm animal.
It is time time to weed out hate, and occupy the spirit. Scapegoating people and institutions will only promote social fission. Reflecting inwardly to root out our inner weeds promotes cultural fusion.
“It is time time to weed out hate”……… Hmmmmm
And how do you gone do that?
I guess that the hate is an opposition to left-liberal-bolshevism?….. Huh?
The idea is to relate the weeding of gardens with the desire to root out one’s inner weeds. It is based on six years of research about the cultural, ecological, and spiritual roots of gardening. After this analysis, I discovered that the German pedagogues who invented the kindergardening concept (kindergarten), were on the right track when they realized that gardening exercized children’s spirits as well as their minds and bodies. Chapter 23 of my German langauge book “Der Himmelsgarten” depicts a Martin Luther King, Jr like dream: I have a Dream that the President would assemble children from all over the world and “weed out hate” for themselves, their countries, and the planet. President Obama would then call upon every child in the world to root out one symbolic weed of hate, roots and all. From the context of the #Occupy movement, demonstrators, mayors, and bankers, would get together throughout the country for weed pulling ceremonies to at least reveal the root of the problem…GREED.
These instincts, like greed, are embedded in all of us…So far, I have gotten Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, IA Gov. Terry Brandstad, and IL Governor Pat Quinn to issue executive Weed Out Hate Day Proclamations tied to August 28, 2011. These were done as anti-bullying measures for schoolchildren. In a manner of speaking, the financial industry has been bullying the rest of us so we need to address this. At the MLK Jr Memorial dedication, I handed out 50 signs “Occupy the Dream: Weed Out Hate” The idea was appealing…I could have handed out 500. You can check weedouthate.org and @weedouthate on facebook for more information.