Wall Street Protests

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

There probably always will be those such as the Gates, Jobs, Zuckerman's, and other unique entrepreneurs.
Cliche: "Country boy makes good"

Ah yes. Two kids with wealthy parents who sent them to exclusive private schools and then on to Harvard. And one middle class guy who went to public school and dropped out of college. I'll give you Jobs as an example of a self made man who came from the middle class.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by glatt

Ah yes. Two kids with wealthy parents who sent them to exclusive private schools and then on to Harvard. And one middle class guy who went to public school and dropped out of college. I'll give you Jobs as an example of a self made man who came from the middle class.

Don't laugh, I could have cited Mitt Romney who said:

"I went off on my own," Romney said at the debate. "... What I have I earned. I worked hard, the American way."

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

I'm not concerned so much with how much more rich the rich are than the rest of us, as I am with whether there is the genuine opportunity for upward mobility in our society, or whether one must already be above a certain income level before one can expect to become significantly richer.

Who's responsibility is it that these opportunities occur?

[classicman]

looking inside the top 1% is an enlightening exercise.
The disparity within that subset is HUGE.

[piercehawkeye45]

You missed the next part:

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

it doesn't take the sensitivity of income loss into account either, your argument that people in the middle and lower class are hurt more from a 10% drop in income than someone in the upper class is from a 20% drop

[classicman]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

You missed the next part:

See tw's user title.

[tw]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

You missed the next part:

I didn't miss any part. My post exactly replies to that. Which part did you not understand?

[piercehawkeye45]

Keep forgetting that.

[classicman]

[Clodfobble]

It is the government's job to ensure that the economic system we work under remains vibrant. To that end, they should and do have the power to do things like break up monopolies, prosecute cases of fraud or exploitation, shut down the stock market for periods of time when hysteria rather than rationality is ruling the trading floor, and otherwise perform checks on the system to keep it within a general middle ground.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

It is the government's job to ensure that the economic system we work under remains vibrant. To that end, they should and do have the power to do things like break up monopolies, prosecute cases of fraud or exploitation, shut down the stock market for periods of time when hysteria rather than rationality is ruling the trading floor, and otherwise perform checks on the system to keep it within a general middle ground.

Generally I would agree on principle. None of those powers are given to the Federal Government in the Constitution. But that does not extend to bailouts and spending of taxpayer dollars on failed programs.

...as I am with whether there is the genuine opportunity for upward mobility in our society...

And how does the first paragraph assign responsibility to ensure this opportunity. The Federal government does not have the power to do this.

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

And how does the first paragraph assign responsibility to ensure this opportunity.

The 1996 Federal Communication Act gave all an opportunity to become profitable internet providers. Large numbers of companies were founded because 1) the incumbent providers refused to provide broadband internet access, and 2) the American people were being denied technology that should have been available 15 years earlier.

Because of that Federal law, DSL (a 1981 technology) finally was implemented after 1996. Internet on cable and fiber optics quickly followed.

Then Michael Powell, et al took over the FCC. Subverted the 1996 Federal Communication Act to destroy all but the two 'chosen' providers in any region. As a result, innovative companies (ie Covad, Dieca Communications, NorthPoint Communications, Rhythms NetConnections, PSInet) were bankrupted. America has dropped from an internet world leader to somewhere below 20. Jobs, increased productivity, free market competition, and commercial opportunities all lost when a political agenda was intentionally implemented to protect the 'chosen' two.

Comcast then intentionally tried to subvert network neutrality by attacking Skype, Google, BitTorrent, and others. All because free market competition was subverted by a political agenda during the Michael Powell reign.

1996 Federal law made opportunity possible by destroying protected monopolies that refused to innovate. Refused for 15 years to install current technologies. Threatening companies such as Bell Atlantic and Time Warner by forcing them to innovate; due to laws that made possible and encouraged free market competition. Laws that stopped them from subverting packet switching to protect their obsolete technology circuit switched hardware.

Today, the 'chosen' companies no longer need to innovate. Laws restored so that free market competition can no longer survive. The duopoly is again doing only what is in their own interest - at the expense of customers and the nation. Protected by laws to enrich them at the expense of innovators and consumers.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

And how does the first paragraph assign responsibility to ensure this opportunity. The Federal government does not have the power to do this.

It's true that the power is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. But many laws have been added since then, as the founders did intend, including the powers listed above to break up monopolies, etc. Whether those laws should ever be repealed is also something the authors intended for us to always have the power to consider. Personally, I think the laws are still relevant and important to our society, and if anything the Federal government should be working harder to apply them more thoroughly.

[Stormieweather]

How about preventing insider trading by our lawmakers? How about preventing lawmakers from actively voting on laws from which they personally will benefit? How about remove corporate financing of campaigns? It's quite simple really.

How about making the political process more about ALL of the people these representatives are supposed to represent, and not just the ones that can do them a favor? Eliminate the deck-stacking in favor of the top echelons and start paying attention to what will benefit the MOST members of one's constituency...

I'm not in favor of handouts. But I think our political system is heavily skewed and the lower/middle classes are getting screwed as a result.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Stormiewather

How about preventing insider trading by our lawmakers?
How about preventing lawmakers from actively voting on laws from which they personally will benefit?

STOCK Act passes in House

The House of Representatives on Thursday approved a bill that would prevent members of Congress from financial market trading based on nonpublic information they have obtained in the course of their congressional work.

The bill, which was approved 417 to 2, is similar to a bill approved last week by the Senate, but does not include a provision regulating those in the financial information business.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor stripped a provision requiring those that collect financial information and sell it to Wall Street to register the same way lobbyists do. The House legislation does include a provision that would extend the new regulations to include the executive branch as well.

The bill may now head to a special committee of lawmakers tasked with reconciling the differences between the House and Senate bill. Alternately, the Senate could take up the House-passed version of the bill and make changes before sending the bill to Mr. Obama for his signature.

CBS