|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Occupy Wall Street, London and Evereywhere Else | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Around the Houses - 101 Essential Things for Your House
Also see Occupy goes home quote: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2979 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
I'm not sure the OWS guys support for instance, eradicating Federal spending on education But his argument on why is sound, and should be, if it's not already, a focus for the OWS people. He is against the No Child Left Behind policy that was federally funded. As he said in April 2011:
quote: Furthermore, he has social policies that are generally abhorent to the liberals and independents such as 'Life begins at conception' which not only would seek to outlaw abortion but also if taken literally, would outlaw the pill.
That's a fair point. But he has also stated that it's not the job of the federal government to legalize or ban abortion. Instead, it is up to the individual states to prohibit abortion. So I don't see how his personal views on abortion could become an issue.
Yea: AZ McCain, John [R] That was in Oct of 2008. But the article in linked to Straggler was him talking in MARCH of 2008 - NY Times - Mc Cain against the Bailout Here's what he said then:
quote: His vote of the bailout, when he did finally vote for it, also came with a clause:
quote: As you can see, what I highlighted was never done. Had he known, as many law makers have now stated, the way the bill would play out, he along with many others, would not have voted for it. So it's not fair to point out that he voted yes, when he specifically laid out the condition for it. He, along with the American public, was lied to. Same thing that happened with the invasion of Iraq. In an effort for bipartisanship he voted Yea, but it was conditional.
1. Campaign reform.
It's hard to get a politician to support this.
2. Strictly enforced regulations of the financial sector to help prevent the public being held as financial hostages in the future. That's precisely what Mc Cain wanted to do - see quote.
3. Reinstatement of high taxes for the particularly wealthy.
Mc Cain cut taxes during the Regan Admin.
quote: 4. In case of crisis, bailout the people, not the banks. If banks must be bailed out, they become the property of the people.
That is presicely what Mc Cain wanted - see quote. The OWS people should have supported Mc Cain in hindsight. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Onifre, I'm sure you have great reasons to support Ron Paul, but your analysis seems a bit off when you attempt to predict how others should vote.
That's a fair point. But he has also stated that it's not the job of the federal government to legalize or ban abortion. Instead, it is up to the individual states to prohibit abortion. So I don't see how his personal views on abortion could become an issue. Given that a fair number of states would immediately ban abortion if Roe v. Wade were overturned, and that only the federal courts stand in the way of this, I think your argument is a bit simplistic. Ron Paul wants to remove jurisdiction over the issue completely from the federal courts. RP feels the same way about separation of state and church issues and he felt the same way about the civil rights act of 1964 even while states were actively practicing discrimination. Look at the way Texas and Virginia fool around with history textbooks and imagine that same kind of Monkey business going on with kid's science text books. That's life as Ron Paul would have it. So yes, Ron Paul's opinion on abortion ought to matter.
He is against the No Child Left Behind policy that was federally funded. Does No Child Left Behind seem to you to be a major OWS issue? Wouldn't OWS members be a bit more concerned about what would happen to school loans and other college funding programs under RP? Removing the EPA so we can burn more coal? A right to work policy in which the only important action is union busting? OWS ought to like that, eh? How might OWS guys feel about health care? Seriously, Onifire. You cannot think of a single legitimate reason why an OWS participant might think Ron Paul is a bad choice?
Had he known, as many law makers have now stated, the way the bill would play out, he along with many others, would not have voted for it. Sure Onifre. And what party is it that has opposed every attempt to add any new regulations to the banking industry? Would McCain have been a stronger advocate for regulating the banking industry than the people we did elect? McCain was about the last person on earth to even acknowledge that there was any kind of economic crisis. His Iraq plan was to stay the course indefinitely. Who knows what kind of president McCain would have made?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
McCain's position on the bailouts is highly foresightful and as quoted does indeed chime with the OWS movement. But even taking that into account anyone advocating a progressive tax system, public investment in education health and infrastructure, a reduction in corporate influence and a liberal stance on various social issues is going to struggle to find a reason to ever vote Republican aren't they?
Because historically and currently the predominant Republican philosophy is that of ideological pro-corporate free-marketeering and the belief that government acts as a barrier to, rather than a facilitator of, an environment in which wealth is generated for all in society. Republicans essentially believe in an unrestrained entrepreneurial elite and some form of trickle down economics. I don’t see how that, no matter what any Republican candidate says on any specific issue, is ever going to resonate with the things the Occupy movement are advocating.
Oni writes: Ron Paul I looked this guy up and in terms of the above he seems pretty typically Republican. He even opposed the civil rights act on the basis of it interfering with the free-market in labor.
Wiki writes: Paul was critical of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, arguing that it sanctioned federal interference in the labor market and did not improve race relations. Then there are the various more crackpot stances he takes on isolationism and religion etc.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
That's a fair point. But he has also stated that it's not the job of the federal government to legalize or ban abortion. Instead, it is up to the individual states to prohibit abortion. Then he's a hypocrite. If life begins at conception, as he claims to believe, then abortion is murder and it fucking well should be up to the federal government to criminalize. But he's not a hypocrite. He knows it is unlikely he'll get abortion banned federally. But he can achieve the next best thing: Allowing states to ban it. Which many will. And women will die. I think the average OWS might have something to say about policies that kill women. Even well intentioned ones that have good sounding political theory behind them.
That was in Oct of 2008. But the article in linked to Straggler was him talking in MARCH of 2008 - NY Times - Mc Cain against the Bailout So he talked against it, but later voted for it. Is this really the person OWS should be giving their vote to?
His vote of the bailout, when he did finally vote for it, also came with a clause The only clauses that actually count are the ones in the bill. He voted for a bill that did not have the clauses in it (AFAIK), so no matter how much political spin he tried to weave to make it look like he wasn't a sell out, he still voted for the clauseless bailout.
As you can see, what I highlighted was never done. Probably because it wasn't voted for. The bailout was though. And McCain voted for it. You said he didn't support it, but he did the most fundamental thing to support it that a politician can. He voted for it.
Had he known, as many law makers have now stated, the way the bill would play out, he along with many others, would not have voted for it. So he's financially short sighted? So he didn't anticipate people would effectively embezzle that money? Is that the vice we should accept in our OWS representative? Actually, I think he's smarter than that. I think he knew the money would go towards more than bailing the banks out, but that it would also go into the back pockets of execs. To avoid looking like a shill, he said some things against it, said his vote had clauses attached. But that's just talk.
So it's not fair to point out that he voted yes, when he specifically laid out the condition for it. His yes vote was actually unconditional. If it was conditional, and his conditions were not met, he would have voted no or abstained. He voted yes. This means he was happy enough with the conditions as they stood.
Same thing that happened with the invasion of Iraq. In an effort for bipartisanship he voted Yea, but it was conditional. I'm not sure it was bipartisanship if he voted yes for a policy that was put through by his party's leader, the then President.
2. Strictly enforced regulations of the financial sector to help prevent the public being held as financial hostages in the future. That's precisely what Mc Cain wanted to do - see quote. It's what he said he wanted to do, but it is not what he actually did - see vote.*
3. Reinstatement of high taxes for the particularly wealthy. Mc Cain cut taxes during the Regan Admin. I have on idea on what planet cutting taxes can be seen as being the reinstatement of high taxes for the particularly wealthy.
The OWS people should have supported Mc Cain in hindsight. Why? Because he said some stuff that was in line with their politics? Obama said a crap load of stuff that was in line with their politics too! By your own argument OWS should have voted for Obama. Screw his voting record, he said some things that they agreed with: transparency, anti-corruption, accountability, end of war in Iraq etc. So they should have voted for him! * really I said that because vote and quote rhyme. It seemed like a good rhetorical flourish. Maybe McCain sponsored a bill that would mean there was strictly enforced financial regulations. I've not heard of it, but I'm not an expert on American politics so I might have missed this. McCain's real reason for supporting the bill, incidentally, was the same reason just about everybody else gave: Inaction is worse than action. He knew that it was likely to fill the tanks of the helicopters of the elite. But he had no choice. He was just as much held for ransom as the rest of us. Only he has probably got more of that money back from those that profited over the years in 'contributions' than the rest of the US ever will. Furthermore, I do have some respect McCain, though it might not sound like it. I gained respect, then lost it almost at the same time when he ran for President. He never struck me as being the champion of the little people, it's just that if we are going by what was said - then Obama is just as much a valid choice for the proto-OWSers, if not moreso, than McCain. abe: Here's Obama saying some things in line with OWS views with an interview and some editorializing. The question becomes, will he follow through? Would Ron Paul do those things which you say are in the OWS philosophy? Would McCain? Should the OWSers trust any of these guys? Or are they all about saying one thing, and doing the other, as it benefits them? Should the OWS seek to create a Third Party to challenge this? I would have thought the key thing next would be to try and build bipartisanship over the big issues. Maybe create a Party that is conservative on social issues (as in, does not seek to make significant changes to social things such as gay marriage, abortion rights etc, this avoids the Ron Paul problem discussed above: The Party's position won't alienate people on one side of the political spectrum), pro-capitalist, but radical on financial reform. Edited by Modulous, : added footnote Edited by Modulous, : added video and small rant trying to make sure the thread focus keeps on OWS
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Rightly or wrongly that is exactly what many of those who acted to bailout the banks around the world did think was about to happen. The entire global banking system was believed to be on the verge of collapse. Large banks "too big to fail" going under and taking others down with them in a domino effect. A panic of confidence where savers all start withdrawing their funds simultaneously because they don't believe their money is safe in any bank at all. Etc. Complete paralysis of the financial system. That is exactly what we are talking about. So we cannot consider letting some banks fail without considering making every bank fail? What kind of flimsy house-of-cards are we talking about? I don't see how letting, say, Bank of America fail would mean that my Local Building & Loan would fail as well. Why would everyone pull their money out of their local bank because a corporate one failed? How about this scenario: Joe the Banker opens up a new local bank for people that have left the big corporate ones. Couldn't that work?
Which you just take down to the bank to cash. Oh..... If there were other banks, tho, then it wouldn't be the problem you're making it to be.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
A check drawn on what account, though? I dunno, where'd the last one come out of? I think I have a copy of the check at home that I could look at... But couldn't they just print up the money instead of using an account
Seriously, CS, you should look up how the FDIC closes banks. I don't say that to criticize you; No offense taken, but honestly (and maybe this means that I shouldn't participate in these topics) I think I'd rather go read Twilight.
I say that because I think you'd really enjoy it, it's seriously some super-spy shit because it has to be a big secret or else the presence of the FDIC causes a run on the bank and embezzlement by the top execs. I bet. I guess I can take a look.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
FDIC insurance does not cover trust accounts nor many other types of securities. My families entire nest egg...retirement future...everything! You should know not to put all your eggs in one basket.
...Is at Wells Fargo and if anyone had let Wells Fargo fail and we lost everything, I'd be out there with a gun aiming at the politicians responsible! What kind of gun do you have?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
CS writes: So we cannot consider letting some banks fail without considering making every bank fail? I guess it depends which banks we are talking about. "Too big to fail" is the phrase generally used here.
CS writes: What kind of flimsy house-of-cards are we talking about? One that needs radical and deepseated reform. That one of the Occupy movements demands.
CS writes: I don't see how letting, say, Bank of America fail would mean that my Local Building & Loan would fail as well. Why would everyone pull their money out of their local bank because a corporate one failed? As I understand it the problem is one of complexity related to derivatives and the fact that no one really knows how much exposure one financial institution has to any given other. Very few banks were actually left to fail and we still ended up with a credit crunch and recession. What would have occurred if all banks that would have collapsed had just been left to do so? That is the question.
CS writes: How about this scenario: Joe the Banker opens up a new local bank for people that have left the big corporate ones. Couldn't that work? Why don't you be "Joe the banker" and let me know what obstacles stand in your way. Starting capital would seem an obvious hurdle.
CS writes: If there were other banks, tho, then it wouldn't be the problem you're making it to be. Christ CS I of all people am not advocating bailing out banks for the sake of it or to save the asses of fuckwitted bankers!! I'm saying that if there really is a possibility of complete financial paralysis, extreme almost overnight economic contraction leading to depression and the complete collapse of the economic system as a whole - Then bailing out banks is a less worse option. If a given bank can definitely fail without causing even greater adverse consequences then - absolutely - let it go.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi hooah212002
Just a note:
... Why are conservatives REALLY anti-OWS (aside from Fox news telling them to be against it)? What is the real reason? What does the OWS movement stand for (facts please) that has the conservative base so upset? ... I have met conservatives, independents and libertarians at the Occupy Providence protest, so this is really more than a liberal and socialist movement. It isn't being reported that way, because the news media do have an agenda - especially Fox - to protect the big corporations and rich. Fox tries to make it an : us vs them : liberal vs conservative : because it suits their agenda. News also tends to focus on the confrontations and violence, just as they did for the civil rights protests -- it makes "news" to show on the half hour broadcasts. Showing people peacefully protesting does not make news, people in rational debate does not make news. If you have any doubts or questions about the Occupy Movement - go visit one ... who knows, you may end up learning something or (gasp) staying ... Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Son,
... you could create a public bank with the money you didn't use on the bailouts making sure the benefits from this new bank gets directly to the taxpayer(this bank would have only been for lending/depositing avoiding the mess in the markets). Restore the Glass-Steagall act and this become a regulation on all banks. Glass—Steagall legislation - Wikipedia
quote: This act was put in place after the first bank fiasco, commonly known as the Great Depression. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 830 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
It isn't being reported that way, because the news media do have an agenda - especially Fox - to protect the big corporations and rich. Fox tries to make it an : us vs them : liberal vs conservative : because it suits their agenda. I am well aware of that fact and that wasn't my question, nor does it answer my question. Just look at our local conservatives: they are all 3 very anti-OWS. My question was directed at them....which is why I asked Artie... There is no doubt about the bias that plagues US media, let alone Faux "news".
If you have any doubts or questions about the Occupy Movement - go visit one ... who knows, you may end up learning something or (gasp) staying ... I would love to. However, I don't get paid to take time off of work and the nearest protest is milwaukee and that only lasted for 6 hours a few weeks ago. {abe}Oops. Did I say a few weeks ago? ROFL it was early October. Time flies when you do nothing...... Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given."Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9199 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2
|
Have you signed the Walker recall petition?
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Just look at our local conservatives: they are all 3 very anti-OWS. Are you counting me? I'm not anti-OWS at all, let alone "very"... I asked a lot of questions. And they got answered. Er, wait, is this one of those 'if you're not with us you're against us' sorta things?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 7.4 |
Are you counting me? I'm not anti-OWS at all, let alone "very"... I asked a lot of questions. And they got answered. Er, wait, is this one of those 'if you're not with us you're against us' sorta things? Im not sure, but I'd put the "three" down as: BuzArtemis Coyote But I think we have others, don't we? I don't remember if I've ever seen a political opinion from ICANT...The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024