Forum Post: Demand an Apology
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 7, 2011, 2 p.m. EST by reaganite
(100)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Demand an apology from your parents and an education system that has left you in total ignorance about how to make your own way. You have arrived far too late in life without the creativity, the dedication to family, the moral fiber and the work ethic required for success in the most open, creative culture on the face of the earth. Those who have convinced you that you are unable to attain have lied to you. After you demand an apology, go achieve beyond their dreams.
1 in 5 people think they will be a millionaire in the next 10 years... Only about 3% of Americans are actually millionaires. Even though it's that belief we can succeed that drives us and makes this country great, statistically speaking it was more likely your parents that lied to because very few people ever actually get the "american dream"
If you think that, you have missed the dream that counts. The reward for one's efforts is not measured only in cash. Being a productive, creative, loving citizen, fully engaged with family and community, then providing greater opportunity for others...that is the dream, and it is more possible in this nation than any other.
I agree it is more possible in this nation than most nations, i don't say every other nation because that's extremely arrogant, we're not the only country that allows it's people to succeed. But i work my ass, every day, many nights, too pay may bills and feed my family and i still feel like i slave my life away to make my company millions while i barely get by till my next paycheck, and i have better high paying job than most middle class. Not everyone lives in Mayberry where you can even engage in your community, in most cities people are isolated from each other and don't have the time or money to do anything but find a way to pay the bills and survive, and thats no american dream.
bitterness is a waste of time
and having a discussion with someone who throws a fit when they have no rebuttal is a waste of mine, good day sir
I'm sorry if my response to you was unclear. It was not intended to offend you or to stray from our discussion. My point is that opportunity for personal advancement is hindered by anger that turns to bitterness and envy. To give in to hopelessness is an awful thing. I believe that the American Dream is far more than a bank account-though I admit the bank account makes it easier. What I am saying is that opportunity exists, and time is better spent using one's freedom and intellectual capital to take advantage of that opportunity.
Isn't that what were doing here??? pushing for a better a world so everyone has an opportunity for that american dream? Not just the ones wealthy enough to pay for the government to work in their favor? Personally i believe i did have that opportunity for the american dream and i lead a pretty good life, i really don't have much to complain about, what concerns me is that with the trend in our government and economy there will be no country left for my daughter, and she's why i care, she's why it matters to me.
I simply don't believe that is what is happening there. I have seen via a sympathetic media, mostly misdirected anger, anti-semitism, fist shaking and hatred. I have seen very little I could call productive or directed toward a worthy goal. So far, no one seems to know what the goal is-and now you risk simply becoming pawns of interests who are as moneyed and corrupt as those capitalists you mention-when the union bosses give back the salaries they take from the dues of those hard paying members, I'll believe they are not just exploiting your work for their gain.
i mostly agree with that, this movement did start on that premise of a protest that really did have no clear goal, only protesting wall street, their crimes, and their influence in government. But it spread because so many people agree and now that there's number and media, people are trying to use it as a platform for their own gain, unions are co-opting and it won't be long before this becomes a political movement, and then i'm out. But as long as there is hope that this movement can remove some of the corruption out of our government i'll support it.
We mostly disagree on the means. In my opinion civil disobedience without a clear objective risks watering down whatever legitimate goals exist, and it risks anarchy.
It's the only tool we have to voice our opinions, thats why it's a constitutional right, because the founders of this country knew thats the only weapon the common man has against the powerful leaders... numbers..
The differences between the French Revolution and the American Revolution...and their corresponding results...are worth noting when deciding to engage in mass civil disobedience.
since when did the right to assemble become an act of civil disobedience? I'm not sure i follow where your references to the french and american revolutions and how it pertains to this? Both two completely different revolutions for two completely different reason, both eventually succeeded, and if anything this more closely "resembles" (and i say that loosely) how the french revolution started, but still completely different causes and goals. And i don't really think people want revolution in either of those terms, they may say revolution, but all anyone really wants is for the leaders and rulers of this country it's corporations to stop being assholes to put it as plain as possible. Would that really take a revolution to make happen?
We should leave this discussion on the points on which we agree and part friends. I take those who say they seek revolution at their word. Until they elaborate clearly on their remarks and objectives what else they expect? My point is that it is the objectives that determine the differences between a mob descending to anarchy and a movement that leads to better governance or liberty.
agreed
distortion. What was your goal when you were a kid? What did you want to be?
mostly either a fighter pilot or in the NFL
Reagan actually agreed with part of the #OWS movement, Mr. Reaganite: He wanted to close tax loopholes for the rich:
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/10/03/333912/reagan-tax-loopholes-crazy
He was nuts. But you guys make him look like a Nobel Prize winning genius.
And I guess Warren Buffett--who is a billionnaire, and agrees w/ increasing taxes on the wealthy and redistributing the wealth more equitably is a loser too? [http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/aug/15/warren-buffett-higher-taxes-super-rich]
I guess your education didn't include classes on basic logic, only had classes on being condescending, huh?
U mad?
Nice try on the video though. I find nothing in it that makes Obama, or you for that matter, look like Reagan. 10 seconds of video compared to a purposeful obfuscation of the difference between income tax and capital gains tax is not impressive
Yeah, not surprising that you still don't get it: The point is to close loopholes, like capital gains tax loopholes that people like Warren Buffett want to close. Equitable levying of taxes is the issue here; why should people who don't have capital gains taxes pay more than people who do?
I know you're not impressed, because you're a genius, but that's the issue.
Nice shot with the sarcasm. Equitable taxation is in the eye of the one being taxed, I'm afraid. Plans are being offered, most recently by Herman Cain, that could be more equitable. Why not use your energy to get behind them? Why not advocate that the government spend less and tax us all less?
The 999 plan? Yeah, that's a non-starter. But I'm not going to spin wheels on this one. You never addressed my main point. Which is that if Warren Buffett is paying less taxes, as a percentage of income, than, say, his secretary, that's patently unfair. That's the issue. And yeah, I"m really not going to address your questions until you address mine. So there.
I appreciate mr Buffett's publicity generating machine, but he has refused to support the Obama tax hike, and he also brought suit against the IRS: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/business/articles/0927buffett27.html?&wired As for the discrepancy, he made investments with already taxed dollars and claims his income now is via the gains on those investments. Those gains are what is taxed at 15%. If those investments had been losers, the maximum allowable deduction, no matter the loss is 3000. Buffett vs his secretary is an apples to oranges comparison for public consumption that generates sympathetic publicity, but nothing more. So now...what about the 999 plan? A less complex code would seem to go farther toward that equality you seek. Is your goal equality or punishing the wealthy? How would you respond to the subchapter S owner who shows 250k on his return but due to his reinvestment an hiring, health care provision for employees had a net personal income of 75k? At what rate should he be taxed?
The tax system needs to be overhauled to eliminate capital gains as somehow taxed at a lower percentage. It's income. Pure and simple. Income should be taxed like all other income--that's pretty flat, isn't?
I don't want to punish anyone. But calling a higher tax rate of 2% (that's the plan) socialism or punishment or any other pejorative term is what's that marketing ploy. It was higher before, when the economy was better. It needs to be higher on those who can best afford it to pay down the debt, right? I agree that the tax code should be simplified--dramatically--and offshore accounts that enable corporations to pay little or no taxes should be illegal.
I've made lots of money. I've paid lots of taxes. I'm fine with it. Why? Because my lifestyle is better than 99% of the world's population, and I'm grateful for that. I'm just not that greedy, to be honest; I want to share my good fortune. I've been that subchapter S owner--only it's an LLC, not an S corp, although I'm my only employee. But you raise a good point, and this is also, btw, why a "flat tax" won't work--there should be dispensation for small business owners who hire people, and in some cases, I think they're punished by an unfair tax code. And I'm not a tax lawyer or expert--I do know that the system as it currently stands favors the wealthy and the lawyers who service them. You raise a legitimate and important scenario, however...
Nah-I'm not mad. Why should I be mad?
Well, U should be mad because Reagan was actually much more reasonable than his political progeny (i.e.,. you and your ilk) who think that taxes and equitable distribution of resources is the province of lazy, ne'r do well people. And U should be mad because you have to be condescending to make your points, rather than use facts which, as of this writing, I still see none from you. Just snark.
I asked legitimate questions...see above. No answers from your encyclopedia of factual knowledge?
Reagan believed in equitable distribution of opportunity. Socialism was anathema to him, a product of the evil empire he strove to destroy.
Look, taxes are the lowest they've been for corporations and individuals in a long time. Look it up. It's not socialism to bring them to the level they were in years past. You use George Will-like logic: levying taxes more equitably doesn't equal socialism. It's equals levying taxes more equitably. More high-level platitudes are a great way to get out of the specifics, but it still avoiding the issue--and it's spurious reasoning.
My reference was to Reagan. It still stands. Why does no one here seem to advocate govt. Spending less instead of taking more?
Well, I it's not either or--and why should it be? Reagan raised taxes, what, 11 times?
Former Senator ALAN SIMPSON (Republican, Wyoming): Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times in his administration. I was here. I was here. I knew him. Better than anybody in this room. He was a dear friend and a total realist as to politics. (source: http://tinyurl.com/4ltt8mn)
He was no liberal--he was the father of the modern conservative movement--yet he raised taxes when he needed to, because it was the right thing to do. Did you piss off his base? Sure, but they trusted him, because it was the right thing to do at the time.
And no one--not a single person--called it class warfare back then. But they do today.
I find that curious. Don't you?
Cut spending on inefficient programs? Sure! But does the oil industry continue to need $4 billion a year in tax incentives to "explore for oil" when they're experiencing record profits and gas is $4 a gallon? Oh, dear sir, I think not. It doesn't make sense. Sometimes you have to increase taxes--a position that my dear old new friend Ronald Reagan held, as well...
Reagan the realist did raise taxes when necessary. But it was the tax cuts and deregulation that stimulated the growth of the 1980s. Reagan's only error was believing congress when they told him they would cut spending more. There is no way this country should agree to a tax increase while the current president pisses away $535 million, then subjugates the citizens who trusted him with that money.
Of course, what's ironic is that the budget deficits ballooned--for the first time in post-war history--to the hundreds of billions. Under Carter, the highest was $69 billion. Funny, people talk about Solyndra. What about that debacle known as the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) AKA Star Wars. Funny that know one talks about that, but I digress. Oh, and Bush? He followed the pattern. More than doubled the national debt in 8 years (http://tinyurl.com/6c9lap4 -- source is Treasury Dept.) and ushered in the first-ever $1 trillion budget deficits.
Where was the hew and cry then? I find it ironic...
But hey, that's not the main point here. I could do this all day, and really, I am trying to reach out to the "other," which is what's needed.
Actually, one reason for the hue and cry was the national debt under Bush. As for the Reagan deficit, it would have been much less had Congress kept their promises about shrinking the size of the government...could do this all day myself.
"Actually, one reason for the hue and cry was the national debt under Bush." Perhaps, but I never heard anything about the national debt outrage until a Democrat was elected, did you? It's ironic that the first Tea Party rally happened about a week after Obama was inaugurated, and he was accused of increasing the national debt (even politifact got this wrong: http://groobiecat.blogspot.com/2011/09/politifacts-pants-on-fire-how.html).
Look at the trend--federal spending has increased under republicans much more than under democrats over the past 40 years. I love a good myth as much as anyone. As for shrinking the size of the government under Reagan, no, sorry, this was on his watch--can blame congress for that. SDI star wars? Remember that? That was a Reagan initiative--not a congressional initiative. How much did we waste on that program? A lot less than the problematic Solyndra, I can tell you that...
SDI was a triumph.
I assume that you mean that SDI was successful because the Soviet Union fell because we spent them into the ground. That's possibly partially true--the other reason is because they spread themselves far too thin around the world, and were bled dry by a little something called the Afghanistan war.
Unless I'm missing something.
how bout a flat tax? I think thats fair
I'd love to debate the merits of the flat tax--which was last floated by Forbes when he was running. It keeps coming back around, and I understand the need for simplicity in our tax system. But unless you get a handle on the different financial instruments that are available (Credit Default Swaps should be eliminated) and until you drastically overhaul the tax code (capital gains taxes that the republicans won't let you touch), there's no way a flag tax would make sense, IMO.
Your points have merit, though I may disagree. So why not use the ballot box to achieve them? Why let the message get lost in the vegan, anti-Semite, anarchist, gold standard soup that is now being co-opted by a union leadership that is as moneyed and corrupt as any corporate interest? I don't argue with pubic dissent, but I think the mixtue dilutes well crafted arguments.
Ballot box? No, that's why #OWS is about, at least in great measure. It's been proven that no matter who's elected, the corporate cash is what sways the votes. That's the key issue: it really isn't one vote = one vote. And now that the supreme court has enabled the flood of cash to be endless, it'll be even worse. BTW, the supreme is loaded with strict constitutionalists who believe that nothing should be regulated--and in our political system, that just leads to more of the same: corporations and the wealthiest 1% have the final say.
Trolololololllll...
You funny...
You obviously haven't spent that much time really talking to any of the protesters one on one.
No I'm too busy raising a productive family.
Then you probably also have a job, a decent income, healthcare, savings, and so on.
You have nothing to worry about...
So don't be surprised if you can't understand the rest. But if you shared the misfortune of many of these people, you would understand.
And just ftr, I am employed, I'm clever and smart, I've been able to work hard to get for what I have, but it required one lucky break. And there aren't that many lucky breaks anymore. And that is what is hurting us more than anything else.
In fact, I have been fired, laid off, worked for a company that has gone bankrupt. I know the emotional devastation of all those things. I also know that the absolute worst option in those circumstances is to give in to anger or bitterness and blame someone else.
Fair enough. But again, it isn't your fault that those things happen. But again, all of life is a risk, and some people are directly responsible for deliberately going out of their way to screw us over.
lulz
True, the education system is poor, and although I'm all in favor of taking down today's ineffective and inefficient Top 10% Management Group of Business & Government, there's only one way to do it – by fighting bankers as bankers yourselves. Consequently, I have posted the Strategic Legal Policies, Organizational Operating Structures, and Tactical Investment Procedures necessary to do this at:
http://getsatisfaction.com/americanselect/topics/on_strategic_legal_policy_organizational_operational_structures_tactical_investment_procedures
Join
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/StrategicInternationalSystems/
if you want to support a Presidential Candidate Committee at AmericansElect.org in support of the above bank-focused platform.
Yes, demand an apology from those that told you the key to the American Dream, at least the financial American Dream, was a good education and hard work. You have been lied to. That is a good way to middle class, but not wealthy.
The people that are wealthy, do it differently. they were taught differently. Their wealthy parents taught them how to make money, and to make money for themselves, not for a corporation.
Here is two different situations that provide an example.
You study hard so you can get good grades, so you can get into a good university so you can get a good degree so you can get a good job. You graduate and get a good job at a smoothy king. You work hard at your job. You get promoted up until you are the district manager. You are now making a good living, maybe even upper middle class. But how many smoothy kings can you work at? ONE. You collect only ONE paycheck.
OR
You learn how to use money to make money. You (for example) take a loan out and buy a smoothy king. You hire the above person to work for you and run it. Once it is running smooth, you buy another one. How many smoothy kings can you own? As many as you want. How many paychecks are you earning? As many as you want!
Which one were you taught? What is wrong with the education system that we are taught the first scenario and not the second one? We were taught that because our teachers are doing that, our parents are doing that. Everyone else in our lives is living that way.
Why be limited by your teachers? Why assume they are right? The district manager from example 1 can find a night job, or live below his or her means in order to save enough capital or write a business plan that attracts investors to his new smoothy operation, then use those profits and accumulated knowledge to build 5 more. At the core of nearly every wealthy family is the first generation with a similar story.
Obamas' 2012 Finance Director is the son of BANK OF AMERICAS former CEO.... the guy who got us in this mess!!! Keeping it all in the Family
Hey Dad!
I want my apology!!
Sorry, you gotta find him for that.
You're fun!
moral fiber? since when was moral fiber needed to get ahead in this world. In fact I always saw "moral fiber" as an stumbling block on this culture. I don't know how many people have said "its not what you know, but who you know"
looking around we see people in the middle of society, installed as yes men, because they knew someone, and therfor could be trusted to tow the line. How many engineers in history actually got due credit, financial success for their work? Nicola Tesla didn't. JP morgan came, bought him out, and he died penyless.
Success, I think we will achieve it.
I think we need an apology from you, for lying to us, threatening us, and making up stories to keep your own ill-gotten power.
Achieve?? There are no jobs, they've all been outsourced to people willing to work far bellow what they are worth. Going to college is expensive, and debts are unforgivable.
So other than some high minded wishy washy ideas. vague insults, what do you have?
I'd like to here how YOU think this world works. I wanna hear how someone who owns stock works harder, and therefor deserves the rights to money, more than people who actually do work for the company. I also wanna hear how wall street works hard at something that betters society.
I also wanna know what you think about the best work done in the computer field in the last 30 years has all been open source projects of coders working for the betterment of their fellow nerds, and humanity as a whole, as opposed to letting businesment ruin everything.
I am a supporter of legitimate copyrights and patent protection.
Patents and copyrights where orginally established to protect writers and people who create and invent off cheap copycats.(statute of ann, england circa 1608 I believe) Hence you take the time to write a book, you should get paid for it, as the labor involved is not the printing of a book, but writing it. So someone else cannot profit of your work. Now it becomes a legal proccess to do the inverse. Now you can file a patent, not develop it, sue people who do most of the real work for the designs and profit off someone elses hardwork.
hence companies like microsoft that increasingly don't make anything anyone wants, but with an increasing "patent portfolio" they can boss around smaller companies and inviduals. They even abuse the system by claiming patent abuse when none exists, then making would be competitors go under before they start by making them rack up extensive legal fees they can't afford.
The copyright system is broken, and rewards those with money and legal finesse instead of inventors and inovators. Hence open source succeeded because it was hard to target. It needs reform.
oh, then there is some kid name George Hotz, who hacked his PS3 into a full desktop. in a sane functional world the kid would never worry about work again. This as a kid, imagine what he could have done when he grows up. I think he earned himself a blacklist for daring to dream and succeeding.
there are countless examples of how financial industry assholes have preyed on and screweed engineers out of the greatest invoations of all time. These are not some bullshit artists with a BA in philosophy, these are the men who make the world go around. JP Morgan personally swindled Nicola Tesla out of everything after Thomas Edison had his lab burned to the ground by a gang of hired thugs. He died peniless.
The only success I see coming out of financial companies is hustling people out of their ideas and livelyhood
I have made no threats. The greatest flaw I find among the many in the logic I see on this site is that no one addresses how the utopian view so many advocate will be enforced. How would you prevent capitalist motivation?
What uptopian view? Are you making an argument based on what OWS said or did, or based on what someone else told you, or what ideas you extrapolated about us from other sources.
The idea is that wall street and the venture capitalists they enable are a bunch of power hungry morally bankrunpt, often socially incompetent, often inept bunch of money grubbing assholes who have taken the money from those who actually work, think, improve, and achieve in terms that are real to the benefit of mankind.
How does one achieve risk capital without having capital to begin with. Except the few, most start with money, then use money to buy the economic rights to people's dreams and futures. The stock market is complex and viotale, and full of tricksters and scammers, most sanctioned, that prey on the novice participant. This pretty much excludes all but the wealthy, and full time participants. Venture capital is achieved by making a sizable return on the first project, to invest in the next and so on. It creates a never ending system of people who do work, and people who profit off this work by trading little slips of paper.
Those of us who actually build cars, bridges, buildings, radio equipment, do the design work, do so for a wage that is far less than what it should be, because people who spend all day swapping stocks get a large slice of the profits from sales. Of which at the end of the day they have no stake in their own creations, which of course is reserved for people who did not put any real effort into anything constructive.
On top of this, this entire system is marginally stable at best. It was less than 10 years from stock trading going mainstream in the 1920s until the first crash of 1929.
I am not against a free market of real viable goods and services, but I am against a system that is built to trick, fraud, blackmail, and otherwise reduce the rights of the people who actually do real work.
And yes, you did insult all of us by calling us all "failures", implicitly. If anything you should ask for an apology for being
I cannot ask how most of us are wrong when we stand up for the millions of unemployed, downtrodden, and becoming desperate.
So I don't know who told you that blaming people for things outside of their control was OK, or where you learned this verbal ninjinitsu, but all I can say is your uninformed. Or mabey its just easy to blame someone who's hard on his luck because its easier than doing something about it.
I have called no one a failure, nor have I implied such a thing. Scratch beneath the surface of the most successful and efficient social service agencies a, and you are likely to find a US capitalist who is a large donor to the effort. I actually agree that government should have no role in bailing out any corporate interest. I would prefer the market prevail. I could also be persuaded to reinstate Glass-Stegal. That "never ending cycle" is however, a myth. Despite imperfections the US as constituted today stands alone as the only culture that can break that cycle. As for your points: Point one is not correct. Many factors, from over-regulation to frivolous lawsuits, to untenable labor demands, have contributed to jobs going overseas. The unions ought to be protesting in China-that's where they are most needed. Number 2 could have been prevented had the Government stayed out of the real estate markets and refrained from favoring some industries over others.
I do not think that someone who owns stock works harder, necessarily. Sometimes they are more talented, sometimes they are just lucky, sometimes they are more informed, sometimes they have worked very hard to establish risk capital to make that investment. And sometimes they were courageous enough to risk it all on their own talent. But I know none who blamed anyone else for their losses. And many of them donate and actively advance the social safety net through their own charitable efforts far more efficiently than the government.
thats an argument about class warfare, doesn't really pertain to OWS
although i "mostly" agree with you
Oh wow, why not go out and get a degree that matters?
I did, and it provided the opportunity to have that productive family
I'm so glad you're on here . . . making me laugh!
I also paid back my student loans, sometimes with manual labor that gave me sunburn. I paid them back because I considered paying them back a moral obligation, not exploitation.
I hope your sunburn didn't hurt too much!
I paid for college by myself completely. No loans. None of my parents' money. Went to a school I could afford. Graduated in four years. Got a job right out of college. Still support the movement.
You don't. Stop trolling.
Do I come to your Reagan-loving, moral fiber-having, patent-protecting, "Obsama" birther-claiming forums and make you feel bad? No. You are a troll. Go back to your hole, troll.
For a group who prides themselves in dissent, you seem awfully intolerant. Your feelings are your own, they are no one else's responsibility.