Wall Street Protests

[henry quirk]

"Of course it is going to fail by your standards if you put such rigid restrictions on what is considered a successful movement."

Unless I'm mistaken, the standards I applied...


-The uber-rich becoming less so.

-The 'governors' doing something, anything, to dis-empower the uber-rich.


...are the standards set by the 'occupants'.

That is: the standards aren't mine, but theirs.

If I'm wrong, then someone (anyone) tell me what the all the fuss and muss is really all about.

#

"...a bunch of anarchists..."

Hey! Watch it, *friend!









*
I'm not your friend, buddy! I'm not your buddy, pal! I'm not your pal, guy! I'm not your guy, friend! I'm not your friend, pal! I'm not your pal, buddy! And on and on and on...

[tw]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

-The uber-rich becoming less so.

-The 'governors' doing something, anything, to dis-empower the uber-rich.

We know repeatedly in history that when the uber-rich get richer, then jobs are destroyed. The rich do not create the jobs - except in soundbytes.

[henry quirk]

"We know repeatedly in history that when the uber-rich get richer, then jobs are destroyed. The rich do not create the jobs - except in soundbytes."

I don't care.

My only points in any of this 'occupancy' nonsense (this thread) are...

(1) the 'occupants' are motivated by envy (no matter how each dresses his or her envy up), and...

(2) it (the 'occupancy') ain't working 'cause the rich are still rich and the governors ain't doing jack to alter that fact.

All this pro/con, for/against 'occupancy': pffftt! That's your train to ride, not mine.

[tw]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

(1) the 'occupants' are motivated by envy (no matter how each dresses his or her envy up), and...

(2) it (the 'occupancy') ain't working 'cause the rich are still rich and the governors ain't doing jack to alter that fact.

The bonus army also did not succeed because too many ignored a real problem that the 'Army' made so obvious.

I see you also ignoring the real problem. When the rich get richer, then jobs are destroyed. How to destroy jobs? Enrich the rich. Reality is that simple.

Provided were numbers. Whereas an under 35 year old averaged $45,000 in 1992 and $47,000 in 1999. The same under 35 year old group earned only $32,000 in 1998 - after wacko extremists fixed the economy by enriching the richest at the expense of all others. Those facts are why Occupy Wall Street exist.

Whereas their message is distorted, not understood or vague, the facts behind that movement are obvious. Wacko extremists, who have enriched those who buy them, have also harmed America in numbers that most people do not yet appreciate.

There is no envy. But there is denial among those are told to deny. Extremists intentionally harmed this economy to enrich their elitist friends. While reducing the American standards of living. Unfortunately, many Americans with the least education were calling that good. Would even blame Occupy Wall Street for their own plight. History is full of attacks on such demonstrations because some are told how to think by their extremist propaganda machines rather then learn the problem.

#1 – when the rich get richer, then jobs are destroyed. #2 – it gets even worse when the rich buy politicians and tell the least educated among us this is good.

“Occupy xxx” can be criticize for a diluted and vague message. And for being in conflict with the wrong ‘enemy’. But reasons behind it were bluntly defined even here over ten years ago when extremists were creating these problems. Unfortunately too many people did not see back then what was obvious. What was even known from lessons provided by history.

Provided are numbers based in 1992 dollars. Damning numbers that say why Occupy Wall Street should have been obvious long ago even when the same scumbags invented the California energy crisis, MCI Worldcom, and LTCM. All were created to enrich the richest at the expense of all other Americans.

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by tw

The rich do not create the jobs - except in soundbytes.

"Wealthy producers" is an oxymoron equivalent to "military intelligence." The emperor wears no clothes, and many, including the OWS contingent are beginning to see this. Tax breaks for the rich have the result of making the rich richer. That's pretty much all.

Large amounts of “business income” go to concerns like large corporate law practices, accounting firms, and wealthy people who invest in financial and real estate partnerships. These are not what most Americans think of when they hear the term “small business.” It also reflects the reality of income inequality at levels not seen in this country for decades. These are hardly reasons to extend the high-income tax cuts...

CBO [Congressional Budget Office]has explained that firms will not hire workers or make new investments unless they have — or expect to have — enough customers to justify the increased capacity. Whether a firm’s taxes modestly rise or fall matters much less in this regard than the level of demand for the firm’s products or services.

The voice of reason at last. A business can be sitting on a million gold American Eagles, but if its potential customers lack the money to buy its product, throwing more money at the business owner is NOT going to solve the problem.

If I may be excused for using an anecdotal example - one need only look at the Bates Motel where I work. Congress can give the owner a million dollars, but as long as the population in this area lack the income to pay for a room here, nothing changes. There will be no new positions for housekeeping or desk clerks. I turn away 3, 4, 5, potential customers every day because they can't afford the rates, and we are one of the least expensive motels in town.

What is it with Conservatives, anyway? They scream bloody murder at the thought of "throwing money" at some problem, but when it comes to the wealthy, there is never enough money to be thrown their way. The rich scream for more and their sycophants in congress rush to obey.