Wall Street Protests

[ZenGum]

That is why I liked that NYT op-ed so much. The plutocrats are doing anything they can to deflect attention away from the real criticism of plutocracy itself.

Here is my first draft of an OWS manifesto.

We're not demanding the end of capitalism. We're not demanding that everyone gets an iphone. We don't want to take the iphones or even the Ferraris away from those who have them.

We want political power brought back to a more democratic level, from the massive bias in favour of the rich we have now. We want the tax loopholes and other financial advantages closed off, and we want politicians who are not too spineless to do this. We want reckless casino capitalism regulated so that international financiers can no longer gamble with the fate of the whole economy, keeping the winnings and dumping the losses on the tax payer.



Thoughts?

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

... We want political power brought back to a more democratic level, from the massive bias in favour of the rich we have now. We want the tax loopholes and other financial advantages closed off, and we want politicians who are not too spineless to do this. We want reckless casino capitalism regulated so that international financiers can no longer gamble with the fate of the whole economy, keeping the winnings and dumping the losses on the tax payer.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I'd sign up for that.

Better that than an OWS movement modeled on the OSF* movement.



*Occupy Sherwood Forest

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Flint

Is the point of all this that "rich" = bad person?

My understanding of it is that there is a huge, dangerous debt/deficit problem in the US, and the poor and middle class cannot fix it. It's up to the "rich" and corporations to step up.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

My understanding of it is that there is a huge, dangerous debt/deficit problem in the US, and the poor and middle class cannot fix it.

Clinton had no problems fixing it. He fixed the tax structure by having everyone pay fair amount of taxes. What resulted was job increases and reduced deficits. Funny how many want to solve this problem with no taxes.

Michelle Bachman is a perfect example of one so many approved of. She was asked how much of every dollar should go to taxes. She said none. In a next question, she then said defense spending should be increased. Why do so many believe this nonsense? So many even foolishly insist lower taxes mean more jobs. Well, tax cuts last decade resulted in how many more jobs this decade? At what point does the word 'liar' apply?

What worked previously? It will work again. But as Obama so accurately noted, it will take at least a decade to fix a mess created by politicians and their money gamers between 2000 and 2008.

How many $billions did we have to spend only to get bin Laden because someone all but protected bin Laden? Never forget why we have so many debts. "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Not when he was creating them a political agenda. Now we must increase taxes to pay for those deficits. No way around reality - no matter how often Bachman, et al ignore that reality.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by tw

Michelle Bachman is a perfect example of one so many approved of.

Whoa. Most of your post makes sense, but this part - "So many"
I'm still trying to figure out who elected her and why ANYONE is paying attention to her. She's batshit insane and should be rendered to the irrelevant pile.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by classicman

Whoa. Most of your post makes sense, but this part - "So many"
I'm still trying to figure out who elected her and why ANYONE is paying attention to her. She's batshit insane and should be rendered to the irrelevant pile.

You have to admit that she is popular, did get elected, and she resonates with tea party voters. I guess "so many" refers to those people.