Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: New Socialist Government in France

Posted 2 years ago on May 6, 2012, 5:18 p.m. EST by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The wave of change is sweeping across Europe; pro-austerity parties in Greece have suffered major losses. The workers are finally waking up and realizing they have the power to install new governments, which will respond to the workers' needs. America is next.

280 Comments

280 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by Shule (2030) 2 years ago

I truly wish we had the power here in the U.S.A.. Problem in the States is we get only two choices; the evil party and the really evil party. (Pick your flavor as to which party is which.)

In the U.S.A. if we want to install a new government, we can't achieve it by merely voting.

[-] 2 points by mjbento (74) 2 years ago

I am stating a similar point to yours. This requires much tougher approach.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/new-socialist-government-in-france/#comment-728186

[-] 1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

TROLL!!!!

Don't fall for this crap.

Anybody promoting the "both parties are the same" and "Voting is futile" surrender is working for the Cons!!! Whether they know it or not!!

Taxing the rich and marriage equality are just two examples of the many that make up huge differences between Cons and Dems, and the result of wise and effective Voting in 2006 and 2008!!

Get out the Vote!! The Cons hate that!!

Unite and Win! 2010 Never EVER Again!!

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

How true. To reinforce the feasability of non-violent change, Rocker brought up the necessity of educating the proletariat in order to effect lasting change. So did Trotsky, which goes along with some of Che's notions.

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

I may not think everything Obama has done is ideal.
I may think some things Obama has not done should have been done.


If you have opinions and beliefs such as :
……Obama is not an American / Obama can control gas prices / Obama is a Muslim -
don’t waste your time reading the following facts


If you have opinions and beliefs such as :
……koch, fox, alec, beck, heritage, rush are good news sources
don’t waste your time reading the following facts


If you have opinions and beliefs such as :
……evolution is a “theory”, Noah put the kangaroos back in Australia, Bush is not a war monger
don’t waste your time reading the following facts


If you believe that, during the last 5 years, that
……Bain Romney or Cotton Mather Santorum has helped America
don’t waste your time reading the following facts


By Paul Glastris, Ryan Cooper, and Siyu Hu

  1. Passed Health Care Reform: After five presidents over a century failed to create universal health insurance, signed the Affordable Care Act (2010). It will cover 32 million uninsured Americans beginning in 2014 and mandates a suite of experimental measures to cut health care cost growth, the number one cause of America’s long-term fiscal problems.

  2. Passed the Stimulus: Signed $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009 to spur economic growth amid greatest recession since the Great Depression. Weeks after stimulus went into effect, unemployment claims began to subside. Twelve months later, the private sector began producing more jobs than it was losing, and it has continued to do so for twenty-three straight months, creating a total of nearly 3.7 million new private-sector jobs.

  3. Passed Wall Street Reform: Signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (2010) to re-regulate the financial sector after its practices caused the Great Recession. The new law tightens capital requirements on large banks and other financial institutions, requires derivatives to be sold on clearinghouses and exchanges, mandates that large banks provide “living wills” to avoid chaotic bankruptcies, limits their ability to trade with customers’ money for their own profit, and creates the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (now headed by Richard Cordray) to crack down on abusive lending products and companies.

  4. Ended the War in Iraq: Ordered all U.S. military forces out of the country. Last troops left on December 18, 2011.

  5. Began Drawdown of War in Afghanistan: From a peak of 101,000 troops in June 2011, U.S. forces are now down to 91,000, with 23,000 slated to leave by the end of summer 2012. According to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, the combat mission there will be over by next year.

  6. Eliminated Osama bin laden: In 2011, ordered special forces raid of secret compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, in which the terrorist leader was killed and a trove of al-Qaeda documents was discovered.

  7. Turned Around U.S. Auto Industry: In 2009, injected $62 billion in federal money (on top of $13.4 billion in loans from the Bush administration) into ailing GM and Chrysler in return for equity stakes and agreements for massive restructuring. Since bottoming out in 2009, the auto industry has added more than 100,000 jobs. In 2011, the Big Three automakers all gained market share for the first time in two decades. The government expects to lose $16 billion of its investment, less if the price of the GM stock it still owns increases.

  8. Recapitalized Banks: In the midst of financial crisis, approved controversial Treasury Department plan to lure private capital into the country’s largest banks via “stress tests” of their balance sheets and a public-private fund to buy their “toxic” assets. Got banks back on their feet at essentially zero cost to the government.

  9. Repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”: Ended 1990s-era restriction and formalized new policy allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military for the first time.

  10. Toppled Moammar Gaddafi: In March 2011, joined a coalition of European and Arab governments in military action, including air power and naval blockade, against Gaddafi regime to defend Libyan civilians and support rebel troops. Gaddafi’s forty-two-year rule ended when the dictator was overthrown and killed by rebels on October 20, 2011. No American lives were lost.

  11. Told Mubarak to Go: On February 1, 2011, publicly called on Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to accept reform or step down, thus weakening the dictator’s position and putting America on the right side of the Arab Spring. Mubarak ended thirty-year rule when overthrown on February 11.

  12. Reversed Bush Torture Policies: Two days after taking office, nullified Bush-era rulings that had allowed detainees in U.S. custody to undergo certain “enhanced” interrogation techniques considered inhumane under the Geneva Conventions. Also released the secret Bush legal rulings supporting the use of these techniques.

  13. Improved America’s Image Abroad: With new policies, diplomacy, and rhetoric, reversed a sharp decline in world opinion toward the U.S. (and the corresponding loss of “soft power”) during the Bush years. From 2008 to 2011, favorable opinion toward the United tates rose in ten of fifteen countries surveyed by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, with an average increase of 26 percent.

  14. Kicked Banks Out of Federal Student Loan Program, Expanded Pell Grant Spending: As part of the 2010 health care reform bill, signed measure ending the wasteful decades-old practice of subsidizing banks to provide college loans. Starting July 2010 all students began getting their federal student loans directly from the federal government. Treasury will save $67 billion over ten years, $36 billion of which will go to expanding Pell Grants to lower-income students.

  15. Created Race to the Top: With funds from stimulus, started $4.35 billion program of competitive grants to encourage and reward states for education reform.

  16. Boosted Fuel Efficiency Standards: Released new fuel efficiency standards in 2011 that will nearly double the fuel economy for cars and trucks by 2025.

  17. Coordinated International Response to Financial Crisis: To keep world economy out of recession in 2009 and 2010, helped secure from G-20 nations more than $500 billion for the IMF to provide lines of credit and other support to emerging market countries, which kept them liquid and avoided crises with their currencies.

  18. Passed Mini Stimuli: To help families hurt by the recession and spur the economy as stimulus spending declined, signed series of measures (July 22, 2010; December 17, 2010; December 23, 2011) to extend unemployment insurance and cut payroll taxes.

  19. Began Asia “Pivot”: In 2011, reoriented American military and diplomatic priorities and focus from the Middle East and Europe to the Asian-Pacific region. Executed multipronged strategy of positively engaging China while reasserting U.S. leadership in the region by increasing American military presence and crafting new commercial, diplomatic, and military alliances with neighboring countries made uncomfortable by recent Chinese behavior.

  20. Increased Support for Veterans: With so many soldiers coming home from Iraq and Iran with serious physical and mental health problems, yet facing long waits for services, increased 2010 Department of Veterans Affairs budget by 16 percent and 2011 budget by 10 percent. Also signed new GI bill offering $78 billion in tuition assistance over a decade, and provided multiple tax credits to encourage businesses to hire veterans.

  21. Tightened Sanctions on Iran: In effort to deter Iran’s nuclear program, signed Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act (2010) to punish firms and individuals who aid Iran’s petroleum sector. In late 2011 and early 2012, coordinated with other major Western powers to impose sanctions aimed at Iran’s banks and with Japan, South Korea, and China to shift their oil purchases away from Iran.

  22. Created Conditions to Begin Closing Dirtiest Power Plants: New EPA restrictions on mercury and toxic pollution, issued in December 2011, likely to lead to the closing of between sixty-eight and 231 of the nation’s oldest and dirtiest coal-fired power plants. Estimated cost to utilities: at least $11 billion by 2016. Estimated health benefits: $59 billion to $140 billion. Will also significantly reduce carbon emissions and, with other regulations, comprises what’s been called Obama’s “stealth climate policy.”

  23. Passed Credit Card Reforms: Signed the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act (2009), which prohibits credit card companies from raising rates without advance notification, mandates a grace period on interest rate increases, and strictly limits overdraft and other fees.

  24. Eliminated Catch-22 in Pay Equality Laws: Signed Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act in 2009, giving women who are paid less than men for the same work the right to sue their employers after they find out about the discrimination, even if that discrimination happened years ago. Under previous law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., the statute of limitations on such suits ran out 180 days after the alleged discrimination occurred, even if the victims never knew about it.

  25. Protected Two Liberal Seats on the U.S. Supreme Court: Nominated and obtained confirmation for Sonia Sotomayor, the first Hispanic and third woman to serve, in 2009; and Elena Kagan, the fourth woman to serve, in 2010. They replaced David Souter and John Paul Stevens, respectively.


do you have the courage to answer this question:
WHICH OF THESE ACHIEVEMENTS IS BAD FOR AMERICA?
AND WHY?

[-] 1 points by Pequod (17) 2 years ago

They are all bad without an corresponding tax to fund them. He placed the burden of paying for those efforts on future generations.

He failed on his #1 and #2 goals, job creation and the public option. Its like shooting for the World Series and suggesting that giving away lots of souveniors is equivalent.

Epic Fail.

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

who signs your paycheck - david or charles ?

[-] 0 points by Pequod (17) 2 years ago

No answer. Too bad, you lose. Epic Fail, loser.

Anyone can write phony checks and Obama is the worst, but Bush was bad also.

Argue the truth or admit you are a loser. Epic Fail, schmuck.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

Great detail Bensdad!

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

The president can do several things that will immediately influence gas prices specifically, the oil futures market generally, and lower the pump price now:

  1. Open up the strategic reserve

  2. Approve the new Trans Canada pipeline that now skirts enviro-sensitive areas

  3. Executive order for a six-month gas tax holiday, require that states do the same or lose Fed funding (Ave gas tax ~ $ 0.46, $ 0.18 of which is Fed)

  4. Increase the rate of off-shore permitting

  5. Go all-in on natural gas fracking (ease pressure on oil with alternate fuel)

  6. Prohibit state-by-state custom gas blending requirements (Can add 20% to the price per gal)

  7. Get rid of the ethanol requirement

  8. Increase the domestic refinery capacity. (A US refinery permit right now is pretty much impossible. We currently ship US oil to China, refine it into gas, and ship it back).

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

I'm just going to address a couple of your points for now. The strategic reserve could not affect any more then a couple of pennies reduction in the price of gasoline, and then for no more than a few weeks. No. 8 is just nonsense. Oil companies have recently closed several refineries due to lack of demand. US refineries are shipping gasoline to Canada, for the same reason, overproduction in the US. I will agree that corn ethanol is a bad idea.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Glad we agree on something.

How about a gas tax holiday?

[-] 0 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

As to the gas tax, kinda short term. And as for nat. gas, right now there is a glut. It's very cheap. Seems like there should already be a lot of conversions (in cars, trucks) since the cost equivalent to gasoline is about $1 a gallon. I don't have any easy long term fix for the problem, because unlike a lot of people here, I don,t see government or speculators as the big problem. Rather, I think the world is at, or near peak oil.

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

AAAAHHH! Oil is so last millenium. Get your head out of the sand. Lets stop polluting the planet (and our childrens future). Lets take all pollution subs and put it into Alt energy Job creation. Support OWS. Vote out Big oil supporting politicians.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (26863) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

You might like this:

Green Tech.

This is where we should be going: Green Energy we have the technology we just need to use it. This is what I am talking about. A clean future to be implemented NOW!

http://www.hopewellproject.org/

http://ecat.com/

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/all/1

FuelCell Energy http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/progress_alerts.cfm/pa_id=600


From:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/get-active-be-proactive-unite-in-common-cause/

[-] 0 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

Yes. I'm sure I'm with you on this.

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (26863) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I try to toss it out when people ask what we are supposed to do to fight fossil fuel or find an alternative to it.

Education of what is "already" available is essential.

[-] 0 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

Excellent. Reading it now. Familiar with some already.

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (26863) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Lot of good stuff in there.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

How do you stop high gas prices from hurting poor people today?

This problem disproportional hurts low income people now. Taking the above actions does not stop the work on alternate energy sources (in fact pushing natural gas is an effective way to reduce pressure on oil prices).

The gas tax (~ $ 0.46) is a much larger percentage of the cost of a gal of gas than the big oil co. profit (~ $0.03).

[-] 3 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

STOP POLLUTING MY PLANET GOD DAMN IT. You would drill over the largest underground water source on the continent? We use that water to feed the planet! You would frack with no regard for burning drinking water and creating earth quakes? Alt energy is the only way. Stop subs big oil. hire the poor in alt energy jobs. subs alt energy, & electric cars. Subs jobs for the poor refitting houses to save energy. Support OWS. Vote out anti alt energy politicians

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Which close-in alternate energy sources do you favor?

[-] 0 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

Why.? You want something to attack? Solar, wind, Ocean current, goethermal, fuel cell, Algae, pedestrian traffic (motion). Any and all that work! Which do you support? None? Which do you not support? Why? not enough pollution and destruction? Support OWS. Save the Planet! Vote out anti alt energy politicians

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

I support energy sources that make sense.

Why do you favor the sources that you list above? They all pollute.

You may support those sources because you have looked at the technologies and selected those that have the least environmental impact. But it is a complicated problem and the wise choice may be pick the best two or three and focus our efforts. An all-of-the-above approach is like buying 1000 tickets for the pick-three lottery.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

I love that first line. Start by asserting a lie, and then take us on a wild goose chase. Nice.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Which non-polluting energy sources do you favor?

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

An all-of-the-above approach is like buying 1000 tickets for the pick-three lottery.

No, it really isn't. Chances are in the near future there will be no one silver bullet to kill the energy supply beast, that was fossil fuels. Working to perfect every alternative energy source makes the most sense.

Will solar power work the best in Washington or Oregon where over cast skies are prevalent? Or will another source like geothermal be better for that geographic area? Or maybe tidal for the coast communities? We need to investigate all the possibilities.

The idea of a centralized power distribution is over as well. It may make a lot more sense to let people generate and supply their own power, or separate communities than being tied to Duke Energy for example.

Another thing is that many of the technologies coming out now are deemed not environmentally friendly because they are being created in the existing infrastructure. Electric cars suffer this fault. How can an electric car be considered green if it runs of coal fired power plants? The whole infrastructure has to change.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

I agree that we need more than one energy solution, but we waste a lot of time and resources if we don't pick the best alternatives (3 - 4 at the most) and focus. It is not like we have a huge reserve of cash and intellect that can be thrown at all of these alternatives, many of which are not well posed.

The electric car has so many advantages. Aside from just being a simpler mode of transportation it is far more reliable than a conventional auto. If only there were a way to charge batteries on the fly to extend the range. Maybe some kind of induction charging system buried in the road surface?

BTW, Obama is building more nukes today to provide clean electricity to charge the car batteries.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Nukes don't provide clean energy. The waste problem is extremely long term and rather nasty, including at the end of a nukes life cycle dealing with the core, piping, valves and cooling system which are 'hot'.

Hybrid cars charge batteries on the fly today. H + Fuel cell technology for electric vehicles is promising and better than batteries in my opinion, which is the weakest link.

Again, the more designs and attempts at bringing alternate energy sources in the better. The best designs will weed out the losers. I would not sell ourselves short by thinking we don't have the intellect and monetary reserves to do this. We are not bankrupt, contrary to popular opinion.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Technology is not static. In 70 years that waste will be more valuable than gold. We will wish that we had more.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Correct technology is not static. I won't even begin to guess what might or might not happen in 70 years. If you look at some of the predictions made in the 1920's about what today's world should be like its pretty entertaining.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

I was surprised to learn that one of the most profitable steel plants in the the US uses recycled steel. Who would have predicted that 70 years ago.

Want some good news about the US (Steel: Chapter 5):

http://video.pbs.org/video/2227791872/

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

It is not like we have a huge reserve of cash and intellect that can be thrown at all of these alternatives, many of which are not well posed.

that would cause a wild growth of many failures

one would have to have strong faith in competition for that to work

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Any good engineer evaluates the alternatives and selects a subset that provide the most elegant solutions.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

and put out seed for next crop of ideas

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

That's why a good engineering team has a mix of experienced and novice engineers. The novices inject the crazy new ideas and the veterans keep them from driving off the cliff.

[-] 1 points by penguento (362) 2 years ago

A central problem with all such sources is that they won't be in a position to replace a significant percentage of fossil fuels for some time to come. Some technologies, like photovoltaic and batteries, will require a technological breakthrough in efficiency that may or may not come. And for some industrial processes like steelmaking, its an open question whether any alternative source will ever capable of reliably producing that much energy -- a steel plant uses one hell of a lot of energy, right now from fossil fuels.

So what do we do in the interim, and what do we do if those efficiency gains don't materialize? It's a thorny problem.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

I agree its a thorny problem. I believe that change is happening and that technologies are slowly being replaced. Many people are using solar panels in their homes. As older homes become replaced, newer better designed ones will take their place.

Nothing is going to happen overnight, as much as we need that to happen. The fossil fuel industry is deeply entrenched, and until we find higher efficiency alternatives that really do work, we are screwed. Its painful... waiting always is.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

They ignore battery disposal in this assessment, so todays ICE cars are more environmentally sound.... again because of infrastructure constraints only. Don't get me wrong, I am in favor of alt fuel cars. But I realize the limitations.

[-] 2 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

I think the focus here is co2 emission. I have to disagree. The article below explains why. "8 Reasons Why Fear over Hybrid and Electric Cars Is Overblown" http://www.thedailygreen.com/living-green/blogs/recycling-design-technology/electric-car-battery-disposal

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

If you closely look at the bulleted items, except for a small few the answer is "We have some time to figure this out."

The focus has to be on more than just CO2, but the total life cycle of the car and its impact. Having a myopic vision of problems gets us invariably into trouble. Think of the MTBE gas additive problem to help with air pollution, but gave us an incredible water pollution nightmare.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

You have a point. many, if not all new technologies seem to have unintended consequences. I'm not all that convinced that e-cars are going to be our salvation. Especially without a dramatic price reduction. It does seem though, with a simultaneous clean up of our power generation methods, there would be an advantage. I'm curios as to what your opinion is on "peak oil"?

[-] -2 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

It's not like that at all. And of course we should choose based on environ. impact. Should we decide based on profit? and nothing else?

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

A good engineer looks at all of the possibilities and selects a subset of the most elegant solutions. Factors that determine the best solution include things like environmental impact, cost, reliability, safety, etc; however each of these must be weighted appropriately. For me the life of a plant worker is more important than another few ppm of CO2.

On the subject of safety, how many people have died due to wind turbine accidents over the last 10 years? How many have died at US nuke plants over the same period (or ever)?

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

Death/injury of workers at energy plants (wind,nuclear,coal, etc) is important of course. I would also weigh the damage to environ in terms of death/injury of people as well.

[-] 2 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

I care about all the good we will do, and the millions of lives we will save when we replace fossil fuel/nuclear with alternative energy. Support OWS! Vote out anti wind power republicans.

[-] 2 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

I disagree with your contention that nuclear is safe, & that Solar is bad. I'm not being "callous". We disagree! For you to start name calling simply because I don't agree with you reflects the weakness of your arguments. I can't be bullied into thinking we should expose people to radiation. Support Alt energy. Support OWS. Vote out anti alt energy republicans.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Don't you care about the 82 people killed by wind turbines? Not a single person has ever died at a US nuclear power plant. How do you explain your phobia with nuclear power?

http://www.wind-works.org/articles/ASummaryofFatalAccidentsinWindEnergy.html

[-] 2 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

The dangers of nulcear power are well known. Your pretense is not relevant. Safe energy is possble. Stand with us to end dangerous energy. Support OWS. Vote out pro big oil republicans.

[-] -2 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

How many people have died in US nukes, ever? Zero.

20,000 people die each year mining coal worldwide.

83 people have died in wind turbine accidents in the last 10 years.

Solar panels add to global warming, scar the land, displace vegetation, and expose workers and surrounding towns to toxic chemicals during manufacture.

Hydro destroys habitats, displaced towns and families, kills people in landslides, kills fish, and destroys the environment.

How can you have such callous disregard for the lives and health of your fellow human beings and the environment.?

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

It is easy for rich people to be green. They care little about how assuaging their guilty conscience hurts the poorest among us.

Take Norway. They just spent ~ $ 1 billion on a carbon sequestration experiment for oil fired electric power plants. They did this because they feel guilty about all of the money they made on oil extracted from the North Sea.

With $ 1 billion spent on food no child in world would go to sleep hungry for 3 months.

[-] 3 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

So you're against spending money on attempting to capture pollution in order to feed the hungry children?

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Yes,starving children come first.

I would also put them ahead of:

Feeding our pet dogs and cats, military spending, IPODS, the 1 % protesting against the .01 % (because that is what this really is relative to the rest of the world), and sitting around posting on forums like this, just to name a few.

Go to work, raise some money, save some kids, much better use of your time.

[-] 2 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

Protesting is required if we are gonna "save some kids". minimizing pollutiom also saves kids. We welcome all %'rs against anti children forces. We work. we raise money as well as awareness, and the conversation. stand with us to save the children.! Support OWS. Vote out anti children republicans.

[-] -2 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

4 million people starved to death in the last 12 months.

Every life could have been saved if the people that spent time protesting since the beginning of OWS got part time jobs for only 4 hours a week at McDonalds and gave the money to charity.

That would have been a much better use of their time.

[-] 3 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

Every life could have saved if the wealthy people/corps gave a fraction of their income to feed them. Why would you take from the minimum wage worker for charity when there is much more money with the wealthy whose money has already come from the poor and working class. Doesn't seem fair! I guess you speak for the wealthy and want to take from the poor. Support OWS. vote out anti buffet rule republicans

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Based on your own posts you believe that the only people that care are the OWS folks. Why did they let 4 million people starve to death and continue now to let them die at a rate of 10,000 per day? They could solve the problem if they worked 4 hours per week flipping burgers. Small price to pay with time left over to post in this forum.

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

reply ran out. Your question. "But is it true?" Here's my answer. "That is the most sickening, underhanded perversion of reality I've ever heard in my life."

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

OWS is standing up, marching for, all poor people. If you stand against OWS you stand with the criminals who exploit the poor. Support OWS! Vote out anti poor austerity supporting republicans

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

That is the most sickening, underhanded perversion of reality I've ever heard in my life.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

But is it true?

[-] -1 points by cooperbl (-88) 2 years ago

Oil. coal, natural gas and nuclear power plants work. what you cite are the follies of the dems.

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

Pollution and catastrophic disasters is what you support. Old tech. We look forward. clean energy. new American jobs. Support OWS. Vote out anti alt energy republicans

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Tesla

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by MikeInOhio (13) 2 years ago

Why don't you try to educate yourself? Your comments are absurd.

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

I am educated fine. Your personal attacks show your inability to argue the issue with facts. Support the 99%. Vote out anti green politicians

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

The Pres has done more for Alt energy than anyone before. his mistakes are a result of the pressure from the opposition, from big oil/gas 1%r's. I disagree with him but I give him a by on this because I believe he can be made to serve the 99%. The republicans are too far gone. The Pres will take big oil subs away, repubs won't. the Pres reduced mileage standards over repubs objection! vote out pro big oil republicans

[-] 1 points by grapes (3250) 2 years ago

Our President knows how to bend over, and getting lubricated, from his "overseas experience." This is just his way of saying "Be nice -- frack US now and tell later." This is a breakthrough achievement relative to the former President's "Don't ask. Don't tell." policy.

[-] -1 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

Thats crude and insulting. In fact this article indicated the Pres got the nat gas industry to disclose the chemicals they use. no one has done that before! Slow progress. inadequate. but more than anyone else. He can't do it alone. He needs a robust citizen protest movement behind him. it's our fault. not his. we are bending over, getting lubricated and such. hello!

[-] 2 points by grapes (3250) 2 years ago

This is NOT the first time if you have been monitoring the actual events for years. He knows what needs to be done alright. It is definitely a "breakthrough"!

[-] -1 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

I monitor fine thank you very much. He is one man. If the people ain't pressureing adequately nothing wil get done.

[-] 1 points by grapes (3250) 2 years ago

If the office is not occupied by the right one, nothing will get done through that avenue, either. Yes, there ARE many other avenues through which things can get done so let us leave it at that. Okay, I concede that overseas trips and residencies are bad not only for "secret service." We need "curfews" on our Presidents, too.

[-] 1 points by grapes (3250) 2 years ago

What you wrote about "no one" was inaccurate. Some companies did disclose what chemicals they had used but did anyone follow up on the disclosures and verify them? New regulation on fracking means that the general public will most likely NOT know the state of the environment before fracking and so will be UNABLE to prove that fracking had caused problems in the environment.

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

The more you defend the criminals destroying our environment for their profit the more I will stand with the people. stand with your fellow Americans. Do not be the mouthpiece for the corps that exploit and prey on you. They continue to hide the truth of the drilling abuse, of comp secret chems. It's offensive. Support OWS. Vote out big oil/gas lovin republiicans

[-] 1 points by grapes (3250) 2 years ago

I am NOT defending your so-called criminals because in our system of justice, anyone or any entity is innocent until proven guilty (yes, there is non-judicial guilt handed down in our court of public opinions such as quiet settlements out-of-court). I AM standing with my fellow Americans. This (federal) land is your land. This (federal) land is my land. Do you still remember that? However emotional we get, the real truth must always reign supreme. Regulations are COMPLETELY within the jurisdiction of our executive branch of government and our Department of Interior has jurisdiction on federal land. If the people's interests have been sold out there, you should know where that RESPONSIBILITY truly belongs. It is NOT a partisan thing because the foundation of representative government is the authentic representation of the people's interests. If that has been betrayed, it is incumbent upon the people to set it right or re-make it in our image. In our people, I trust.

[-] 2 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

Our people have been put to sleep. Our sleep has allowed the 1% to get laws passed that legalize their crimes. OWS seeks to wake up people so that we can "set it right or re-make it" support OWS Vote out 1% supporting republicans.

[-] 1 points by grapes (3250) 2 years ago

I think that our people has started realizing what has truly been going on all of these years. There are "laws" that legalize crimes but remember that there are also common laws that existed well before any of these. There can be trials elsewhere aside from our legal court system and you know that where the "laws" do not reign, anything goes.

[-] 0 points by cooperbl (-88) 2 years ago

Mistakes?????????? he wasted billions of taxpayer money paying off his green energy friends. the greenies were subsidised with taxpayer money. the oil companies were not, they use the legal tax code the same way anyone with a business or a house does.

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

A mere bag of peanuts. We have created millions of green jobs, and would have millions more if not for republican obstruction. they would let this country suffer just so that this Pres has no successes. We need more green investment. take big oil subs and put them towards green jobs. Support OWS. vote out anti green job republicans

[-] 0 points by cooperbl (-88) 2 years ago

created " green jobs"? wrong, wasted taxpayer money on the failure that is the green job " industry". obama gambled away billions of taxpayer money, gifts to his friends.

[-] 2 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

more money for green jobs! invest in American innovation. New Tech! not old. Clean up the environ. Stop pollution.! Support OWS. Vote out Anti green job Republicans

[-] -2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

They still want to drill the Great Lakes.

You have noticed how much money the Kochs and ALEC are spending in the surrounding States?

Here's some just released photos on the Gulf spill. The stuff they didn't want you to see.

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2012/05/greenpeace-bp-photos

[-] 2 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

It is criminal. Old tech. profit over people. Can't believe anyone would speak for the big oil corps.

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (26863) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Cap prices at 2.00 a gallon at the pumps. Fuck the speculators that are screwing our economy. They have been making obscene profits while bleeding the economy white. Remove Oil subsidies and transfer that money into green tech R&D and Implementation.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Caps make the problem worse, particularly for the poor that have to drive or take the bus to work in order to survive.

Caps reduce the supply. $2 per gal is nice but does not help if you can't buy it.

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (26863) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

You miss the point I take it. 2.00 a gallon "at The Pumps" it is way over 3.00 across the nation right now some areas already over 4.00. This alone would pour vitality back into small business in a reduction in cost to operate.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

If you force someone to sell something for less than they pay for it they lose money and the stop selling it. That creates a shortage.

If you impose a $2 cap on the price of a gal of gas there will be no more gas sold.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (26863) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago
[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

BTW, the Gov is getting ready to pull a fast one on all of the folks that ran out to buy hybrids to save the world. Now they will tax you per mile, instead of per gal. Is it the oil co. or the Gov that is the problem?

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/18/travel/pay-per-mile-transportation/index.html

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

What was their $ profit per gallon? The link sited does not reveal the profit per gallon because it does not fit their spin. The state charges you 20 times the oil co. profit for every gallon of gas that you buy.

http://www.allamericanblogger.com/15382/chart-shows-exxon-profits-per-gallon-of-gas-vs-taxes-collected-per-gallon/

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (26863) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Look at the price/cost comparison chart. Or are you intellectually challenged in that regard. 3 days to come up with that lame rejoinder?

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Have you found in the charts or the text the amount of profit $ per gal of gas enjoyed by the oil co?

Another obfuscation is the fact that only half of oil co. profits come the sale of gas.

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/eng99/eng99288.htm

http://seekingalpha.com/article/267072-busting-the-myth-about-oil-company-profits

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (26863) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Wrong. There has been unbelievable profits made by the industry. Even with a loss of sales due to cost . We have a current glut - prices should already have dropped they have not. The price cap would affect the unbelievably high/inflated profits - the commodity would still get sold.

[-] 2 points by Pequod (17) 2 years ago

Prove these unbelievable profits or declare yourself a lying fraud.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26863) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

What nothing more to say? You jump all over how meager a 7 billion one quarter profit is for 2008 ( while other business is struggling to stay afloat) then when you are provided with follow-up information for 2001 - 2011 including a profit to cost comparison chart you suddenly fall silent.


[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (7982) from Coon Rapids, MN 9 hours ago

General economic theory holds that companies will produce more of a good if its price is higher, or if it receives subsidies. Funny that these rules didn’t seem to apply to Big Oil in 2011, when the highest oil price since 1864 and $2 billion in subsidies to the five largest oil companies — BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Royal Dutch Shell — yielded lower oil production than in 2010. But these five oil companies combined made a record-high $137 billion in profits in 2011 — up 75 percent from 2010 — and have made more than $1 trillion in profits from 2001 through 2011.[1] This exceeds the previous record of $136 billion in profits in 2008.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=oil%20profits%20by%20year&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CHYQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fgrist.org%2Foil%2Fbig-oils-banner-year-higher-prices-record-profits-less-oil%2F&ei=KZ2oT-6hKYmq8ATu-InNAQ&usg=AFQjCNFRKmhIolgfJkVVOsLcN-sdRfbPpw&cad=rja ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply edit delete permalink

[-] 1 points by Pequod (17) 2 years ago

ExxonMobil had $486 billion in sales and a profit of $41 billion, 9%.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=XOM+Income+Statement&annual

The Center for American Progress is a fucking yellow rag leftist bullshit organization. They skew numbers to paint oil companies as evil. I dont buy it. Exxon has 84000 employees, most very highly paid. I knew guys working the rigs, they like their jobs and they have very solid middle class lives. Now you might make a case for Wamart or Apple being evil, not the oil and gas industry. Oil roughnecks get up to $90/hr working rigs, with a high school education or less. total full benefits. If all industries paid like oil, we would have a thriving middle class. You hate oil, ok, thats your right, but clearly you dont get it.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (26863) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

So you quote the ABC news network - corporate owned current member of news blackout coverage of the movements against greed corruption crime.

Who does not get it?

[-] -1 points by Pequod (17) 2 years ago

YOU. Epic fail, loser.

The stats come from an audited fiduciary report, not ABC. The CAP is just using percents, not looking into the meat of the reports.

EPIC FAIL! What a loser. EPIC FAIL! EPIC FAIL! EPIC FAIL!

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26863) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

The next time you're gritting your teeth as you fill your tank with $4 gas, here's something to consider: Your pain is their gain.

The last of the Big Five oil companies announced first-quarter earnings Friday, so the totals are in. Between the five of them, ExxonMobil, BP, Shell, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips made $34 billion in profits in the first three months of 2011 -- up 42 percent from a year ago.

That's about $110 for every man, woman, and child in the United States -- in just three months.

Exxon alone cleared a cool $10.7 billion profit from January through March, up 69 percent from 2010. That's $82,175 a minute.

Why the staggering increase in earnings? Precisely because you're paying $4 a gallon for gas.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/29/gas-prices-your-pain-their-gain_n_855673.html

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26863) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

General economic theory holds that companies will produce more of a good if its price is higher, or if it receives subsidies. Funny that these rules didn’t seem to apply to Big Oil in 2011, when the highest oil price since 1864 and $2 billion in subsidies to the five largest oil companies — BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Royal Dutch Shell — yielded lower oil production than in 2010. But these five oil companies combined made a record-high $137 billion in profits in 2011 — up 75 percent from 2010 — and have made more than $1 trillion in profits from 2001 through 2011.[1] This exceeds the previous record of $136 billion in profits in 2008.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=oil%20profits%20by%20year&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CHYQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fgrist.org%2Foil%2Fbig-oils-banner-year-higher-prices-record-profits-less-oil%2F&ei=KZ2oT-6hKYmq8ATu-InNAQ&usg=AFQjCNFRKmhIolgfJkVVOsLcN-sdRfbPpw&cad=rja

[-] -2 points by DKAtoday (26863) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Hell it's no secret - It has even been spoken about by MSM and they just don't present false or twisted info - Right? So go fuck yourself. Shit Head.

[-] 2 points by Pequod (17) 2 years ago

You csnt prove it. Lying either by the left or right helps no one. Please provide links or you are now witnessed as a charlatan, a slimy snake oil salesman.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (26863) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Time period there just entering the meltdown run. Follow their years. every one is drying up - practically every one - but oil just keeps pounding away, those profits in that time period talked about in the article are not even the large profits they made in following quarters in following years.

[-] 1 points by Pequod (17) 17 minutes ago

I dealt with elsewhere but $7 billion in profit is on $75 billion in sales, per quarter. Not real exciting.

Starbucks had a 17% profit.

BTW BP employs 80,000 people. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] -2 points by DKAtoday (26863) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Someone took pity on your pitiful whining.

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1735821,00.html

Excerpt:

But you just can't keep Big Oil down. Trouncing analysts' expectations Tuesday, BP and Royal Dutch Shell, Europe's largest oil companies, delivered record profits for the first quarter of 2008. Anglo-Dutch firm Shell netted $7.78 billion in the first three months of this year, up 12% over the same period in 2007. Profits at rival BP, meanwhile, swelled by almost half to $6.59 billion. Shares in each firm climbed almost 5% on the news.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1735821,00.html#ixzz1uF9wItPb


[-] 0 points by Pequod (17) 10 minutes ago

i have. there are no "unbelievable profits." One company, Apple had ridiculous income but most others do not. Please help. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 2 points by Pequod (17) 2 years ago

I dealt with elsewhere but $7 billion in profit is on $75 billion in sales, per quarter. Not real exciting.

Starbucks had a 17% profit.

BTW BP employs 80,000 people.

[-] 0 points by ronniepaul2012 (214) 2 years ago

Wow!!! 12% over 5 yrs....that's, that's like 2% a yr growth! The shame!

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (26863) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Eat shit and bark at the moon. The information is free for anyone to access. Do your own work. Fuck Head. Take 30 seconds and do an internet search - as anyone with internet can do.

[-] 2 points by Pequod (17) 2 years ago

i have. there are no "unbelievable profits." One company, Apple had ridiculous income but most others do not. Please help.

[-] -3 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago
[-] 4 points by Pequod (17) 2 years ago

So BP had a $7 billion profit on $75 billion in sales, quarterly. 10%. Wow. I dont call that unbelevable.

Apple had $45 billion in profit on $195 bilion in sales or 24%. Thats getting high.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26863) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

BTW - where did you get your information? Also 7 billion in profit is huge when many businesses of that time period were struggling to stay solvent. Did you look at any of the follow-up information on 2010 - 2011? Look at the cost and profit chart on the one.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=oil%20profits%20by%20year&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CHYQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fgrist.org%2Foil%2Fbig-oils-banner-year-higher-prices-record-profits-less-oil%2F&ei=KZ2oT-6hKYmq8ATu-InNAQ&usg=AFQjCNFRKmhIolgfJkVVOsLcN-sdRfbPpw&cad=rja

[-] 0 points by Pequod (17) 2 years ago

I got my info from their balance sheet. $7 billion would be obscene if it were based on $30 billion in sales, not $75 billion, quarterly. Sorty but we will have to agree to disagree on what represents "unbelievable profits." Facebook has unbelievable profits. Apple has unbelievable profits. The oil industry does not.

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

ya apple is ridiculous, at some point you think they would care more about humanity than their pocketbooks, One day I plan on looking Steve Jobs in the eye, in the lower kingdom he inherited, and asking him, why did he keep his product from me? If I compared my business plan to his, I would only sell to the east side of my city and not offer it to the west, just plain ridiculous! (i.e. did he really expect me to pay 800 cancellation fee from tmobile to buy an apple phone at at&t ?) Nope, now he's just another broke dead person that couldnt care less.

[-] 2 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

The oil companies make $ 0.03 per gallon.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26863) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Down vote me assholes - go ahead. But that silent shit is a known tool of trolls. Can't fight fact so you throw mud or change the subject or do the silent down vote. Well eat shit.

Look at the cost and profit chart.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=oil%20profits%20by%20year&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CHYQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fgrist.org%2Foil%2Fbig-oils-banner-year-higher-prices-record-profits-less-oil%2F&ei=KZ2oT-6hKYmq8ATu-InNAQ&usg=AFQjCNFRKmhIolgfJkVVOsLcN-sdRfbPpw&cad=rja

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (26863) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

No problem - if that is reality - they still can.

[-] -1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

A much simpler solution -
the only ready renewable resource -
easy to manufacture and plentiful -
soylent green
............................................................................................................yum yum

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

It's free, too, but the proletarian pellets are tough, probably because of inadequate proletarian diet.

[-] -2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Not quite ready for a revolution are ya? No prob, most of the country isnt either.

[-] 2 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

No change in America until the MIC stops buying off Congress and the pres.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

the title of this column does not match the content

[-] 2 points by JeanPaulHolmes (13) 2 years ago

The importance in this is that, if the socialists are successful in generating a non-austerity based recovery, it really flies in the face of everything stated as part of the right wing's utopian capitalist ideology. I think they will succeed too, given that most economists worth their salt have been pulling their hair out over why it is everyone has forgotten Keynes for years. Even if one is not a socialist in the way the French socialists are, this bodes well for all us anti-capitalists.

[-] 2 points by teddy99 (-5) 2 years ago

So the solution is to spend more money that the government does not have? We welcome the French millionaires (and all other hard working French) to come to the U.S.A. as they flee their socialist country.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

and america GIVES away 2 billion a week to the enemy(terrorist countries). but will let allies(and americans) starve? and you say they are not sociopaths.

[-] 0 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Ahhh, bullshit only a semi-literate sociopath could love, thanks for the laughs teddy, keep em coming :)

[-] 0 points by forjustice (178) from Kearney, NE 2 years ago

Do you have your arms that open for Mexican immigrants?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Forgotten Keynes? We havent had any real investment in the western world in quite some time.

You bet on this; France will continue to suffer and will continue to have social services slashed. There is no getting out of this, as long as people still think simply voting for a preselected choice is all it takes.

Go ask Iceland what it takes. Balls.

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 2 years ago

I see you're as pessimistic as always...

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Hades (-13) 2 years ago

What is "most economists worth their salt"? Are you saying that Keynesian economics is the only legitimate system?

[-] 2 points by JeanPaulHolmes (13) 2 years ago

Not at all. Personally, I'm more of a Marxist myself, and would like to see more emphasis on participatory methods of economic management. What I'm thinking of is how many professional economists have been perplexed at the power of those more aligned with the Austrian school since the recession began. Many of the economic lessons encouraging stimulus in economic downturns, as opposed to austerity, got so little political traction. An example: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/05/economics-in-the-crisis/

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

It has nothing to do with the science of economics, Austrian economics simply aligns with the self-interest of many of its proponents (who are, in general, a bunch of douche bag narcissists and sociopaths).

[-] 0 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Transparent, RP gobbledygook.

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Paul Krugman ????????????
what the hell does he know ?????????????


OH! he got the Nobel Prize
what the hell do they know ?????????????

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Hades (-13) 2 years ago

I see.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Yes.

[-] 0 points by UnionsCare (-31) 2 years ago

But someone still needs to lend them the money for them to spend. Even you non-capitalists need resources.

[-] 3 points by JeanPaulHolmes (13) 2 years ago

Of course. What will likely happen is that France will both raise taxes on the wealthiest individuals (periods in which this occurs is not uncommon in France) and borrow additional funds on the international market (with what is a fairly good rating). They will then put that to use on infrastructure that increases economic efficiency (rail, for swifter shipment of raw goods, for example) and needed jobs (increasing demand for goods) and then pay the debt off with the resulting increase in output.

[-] -2 points by UnionsCare (-31) 2 years ago

Or enough of those in the cross hairs will leave, the government spending will be a waste, even more regulations to protect everyone from everything will further slow the economy and markets will cut them off.

[-] 5 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

you guys are hilarious with your; "the job creators will leave" mythology. Most people do not pick up and leave their home, the country of their birth, and their friends and family, just because taxes go back to what they have been in the past,. a past that apparently worked better.

If the wealthy want to leave good riddance!,. and we also add a wealth export tax that captures 90% of fleeing capital.

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

lulz the job creators. That shit cracks me up too. That's a synonym for people that pocket all the money and hoard it for their greed.

Without employees and citizens products could not be made or sold... therefore no profits could be made. It would be much better if people just learned how to grow some balls and strike and realize how much power they have versus the 1%.

99 to 1. Gotta love those odds. People need balls first. Then we win.

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

It's currently "illegal" for me to give my friend a dozen eggs or a pail of fresh milk from my animals, but it seems to be fine for a member of congress to vote for an illegal invasion, and make millions of stock holdings in a military hardware supplier.

Time we took back the reigns of this runaway chariot, people.

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

agreed, the enforcement is more important than the laws,. as they currently have zero bankers on trail for the crimes they openly commit. and many regular folks having their lives destroyed for 1% profits. We really need to take the power back.

[-] 1 points by flip (6987) 2 years ago

south korea used to have the death penalty for capital flight (and their economy was booming!) until clinton twisted their arm to get them to repeal the law.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

interesting,. . will look into tha,t.

[-] 1 points by Pequod (17) 2 years ago

Actually they do change their residence and since they are rich, they can easily maintain a home in their place of origin.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

SInce most countries in the developed world have higher taxes than we do, where will they go? Do they renounce their citizenship when they do, and be subject to the laws of another country? As long as they are citizens, they are taxed at the rates determined by American law, regardless of where they are.

If they want to pack up and leave a country that is among the most productive in the world and give up their rights to live in a civil society, let them go. Other business people will happily fill the void in competition.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

that property can be taxed

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

They are leaving whether there are higher taxes or not...

[-] 4 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

don't let the door hit you in the ass,. . really. I see no loss at all. they can leave when they acknowledge we are not required to pay 'the debt', the extortion money the banksters demand to 'keep the system working', as it was criminal when put on the books (bailouts, war-budget, etc.) and it has been criminal for the years we have been paying back the endless interest on money borrowed by the 1%'s government from the 1%'s banks, for the profit of the 0.1%

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

They are already leaving as we speak. Its been happening for about 15 years. We are holding on by a shred right now. Its over, they are leaving for the BRIC countries and this country is going to turn into a real shit hole once they leave because the only thing we value is material goods.

They've already made their money off of us. They are leaving for the next host body, and leaving us for the flies.

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

you act as though the 1% actively do something useful, wherever did you get such a silly notion? If they run away,. they will not be able to continue their claims to all the land and resources around here, and we can do some good, with them. Perhaps a better solution is arrest and trial of these greedy leaches, and the confiscation and redistribution of the stolen resources. that is another viable approach.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

I am all for throwing them in jail. Im just saying, I don think this country is going to adapt too well to really rough times. Just look how they act on Black Friday. And that is rage to SPEND money.

We'll survive, Im just not sure what the transition period will look like.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

it will look much better when more of us start working together, to build communities and supporting systems to sustain them.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

We have the military power to force their extradition and to hunt down their money. Who will stop us, who would even care about those traitors? But first we need to be in power.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

If the military turns on the ones that write their paychecks, then we are going to be in one hell of a mess....

I'm not looking forward to that whatsoever.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

We write their checks, not the 1%. We just need to give them both an occasional reminder.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Who do you think funds the debt/bond issuances for those wars? The same ones that start the wars and keep em going.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Taxpayers.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Try the vampire squid my friend. The tax payers make the decision to put the country into debt to go invade Iraq? the taxpayers make the decision to keep massive amounts of contractors and whatnot over there for decades? And certainly the tax payers arent the ones doing the bond selling to the Treasury to finance this horrific mess.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

No, but the taxpayers will pay for it. You don't think the loigarchs will pick up the tab, do you? Whsy do you think they bought the politicians? No, my friend, it is we who will pay. You and me.

[-] 0 points by UnionsCare (-31) 2 years ago

It's an awful big bet on inertia.

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

what is the bet? to see a parasite move away from me?? I think I like that part. if you make over 500k and have to pay some more taxes, you should recognize that you never gained any of that on you own,. none. nothing is achieved in a vacuum,. support the society you exist in,. or perhaps be ASKED to leave!

[-] -3 points by UnionsCare (-31) 2 years ago

Here's an example. I grew up in very high tax Minnesota. I was ambitious, something perhaps unknown to an OWS type. Perhaps look up ambition in a dictionary. I always knew that Minnesota was a bad place for someone like me. So, I left and now I make around $1 million a year and have $5 million saved already. I save about $60,000 in income tax annually by not living there. Funny, but liberals in Minnesota would call me the parasite too and not those on, for example, Medicaid that stayed behind.

Support the society you're in. Absolutely. But when they cross the line and simply look to take advantage of me, I look for the door. Freedom is an important check and balance that continually frustrates liberals.

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

you are perhaps too confused to help,. . ambition is a consuming desire for self importance,. sorry, but ego is often not useful. self-importance is masturbation, perhaps you should keep your claims of wealth/superiority behind closed doors,. it is quite ugly actually, and has the opposite effect of impressing most normal people secure in their own self-worth. Just sayin'

what ever you take you take away from everyone else.

[-] -2 points by UnionsCare (-31) 2 years ago

It isn't superiority, it's freedom and economics. Socialism depends on the interia of the people paying the bills. I left Minnesota and won't return because they charge too much. I can bet no one of the dependent class ever left over high taxes.

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

you are an ugly person. "the dependent class" really? this is how you think? truly sad for you to display your self-love so publicly. try a little selflessness it seems like the only thing that could possible help you. munch some shrooms and get in touch with the universe, the connections available are endless and you are clearly stuck in your own ego. realize the oneness of our reality and then perhaps you will take more interest in the rest of your 'self', it is all around you.

don't feed the ego.

[-] 1 points by UnionsCare (-31) 2 years ago

Ugly? That's OWS and its demonizing of the successful. They are the dependent class. That's a very apt description.

Funny how selfishness and greed are words to describe people wanting to keep what they've earned and not those wanting to take it. Takers are virtuous.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

the 1% are by definition "successful" takers,. they take more than everyone else, this is the only virtue you respect, that is ugly! you just don't get it. taking more than you need is not a good thing,. it is not to be looked up to., it is to be ridiculed and scorned. Oh good, you need more resources to live than all the people around you,. great! you are cool? No. not so much.

[-] -2 points by UnionsCare (-31) 2 years ago

That's the OWS upside down anti-success world view, I know. It isn't a matter of what i've earned, it's a matter of what you want to take. So, I used my freedom and got my checkbook out of reach of Minnesota's liberals.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

some of us are successful, and are now focusing on the success of the humanity. you know something selfless and positive.

the take/earn/success focus you have is disconcerting. have that looked at.

[-] -1 points by torusngamble (9) 2 years ago

Take the narrow-eyed green-teethed trailer-trash Skinheads out of the Tea Party ... and take the whiney live-with-their-Mom no-real-clue Marxists out of the Occupy Movement ... and what you have left could very well be the kernel of a new America and - with our endless wars for profit and oil terminated - a new World.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26863) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Minnesota also has one of the top health care systems in the country as well as one of the highest rated standard of living ( quality of life ).

Tell ya what U C we don't want you back - nor anyone like you.

[-] 0 points by UnionsCare (-31) 2 years ago

What Minnesota has is less poverty than the rest of the country, not because of socialism, but because of historic geographic isolation. Local liberals are trying to forfeit this advantage as they maintain sanctuary and welcome becoming a refugee dumping ground of Somalis and Hmong. The quality of healthcare is better the fewer non-payers you have in the system. Minnesotans would do well to understand this simple obvious fact... before it's too late.

I know you don't want me back. But that's just the smugness talking. You need more payers and fewer payees. That's the simple math of it. God knows you aren't paying for it.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26863) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Hence the fight against greed corruption and white collar crime. We have it better then many places due to the fact that greed corruption and crime have been better attended to. Can Minnesota do better? You Bet. As can the entire country and world.

[-] -1 points by UnionsCare (-31) 2 years ago

Funny. Hence the fight against corruption? Huh? You should be fighting against the poverty the government is bringing to Minnesota that will undermine that healthcare system you about talk about. Minnesota liberals welcome with open arms the very forces that will unravel everything. Start with Norm Coleman. His plan for development is to become a refugee and illegal dumping ground and then wonder why stable families that happen to move to the area almost never choose St. Paul. They must just be racists, to adopt the leftist view. LOL. Minnesota is making itself worse off and it's sad to watch.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26863) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

You will notice that Normy is not in office. The public said WTF - and Bubye Normy. We even elected an ex pro wrestler to get across the point that we are disgusted with professional politicians. Are we in a better place? for the moment - but like the rest of the nation We The People need to own our political system before it all goes to hell.

[-] -1 points by UnionsCare (-31) 2 years ago

Wrong Coleman, excuse me. The Minnesota high tax consensus is breaking down. Years ago, government charged a lot and gave you a lot of services, many of which people didn't really want. But at least they got the services. But increasingly, the taxes are going to buy SOMEONE ELSE'S services. That's a very different thing. The mass immigration of refugees that don't even know how to use a toilet is making it worse, fast. Leftists blow me off, but people like me underpin your ability to pay the tab. Drive off 20,000 of us and wave in 80,000 Somalis that have never seen a day of school and then pump out 6 kids is really really dangerous math and it ends badly.

Your isolation is one of the best things you have going. Sadly, liberals are bent on throwing away this huge advantage. All that'll be left is crushing taxes, social problems like everywhere else, and, of course, nut freezing winters that last 6 months.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26863) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

UC - Jobs are already leaving have already left are gone. Apparently U don't C or U don't Care your username is an affront to hard working Americans in how you represent it - [-] 0 points by UnionsCare (-16) 3 hours ago

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

property tax

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by Pequod (17) 2 years ago

I dont believe there is any conclusive proof that Keynesian theory works.

[-] 6 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

The New Deal.

[-] -2 points by MikeInOhio (13) 2 years ago

Still working the forums? I would have thought that some of this debate would have sunk in to your thick skull.

[-] -3 points by Pequod (17) 2 years ago

It was more World War 2

[-] 4 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

The Depression was mostly over by 1937, before the war began.

What's more, The War itself, in terms of government deficit spending, was Keyenesian. And the recovery after the war also followed Keynesian principles, and created the Middle Class as we now know it.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Keynes, I believe, favored private central banks, while many OWS supporters oppose the Federal Reserve. One alternative is a national bank owned by the people/government.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by Pequod (17) 2 years ago

Nothing i hsve read has indicated KT works. If you hae a link please post it.

[-] 4 points by flip (6987) 2 years ago

the depression was over by 1940 because of war spending - gov't spending on military equipment put people to work - if you do not think that was keynesian then i don't know how to help you. lots of info on it if you want more - use google and you will be overwhelmed. epa is wrong about the depression ending in 1937 - that was the time of another cut in government spending (an attempt at deficit reduction - sound familiar?) and another downturn in the economy. do you know anything about that history? do you have a different version?

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

The depression was over mostly by 1937. The economy was expanding, not shrinking or stagnant. It was due to deficit spending and jobs creation by the government. That is Keynesisn.

In 1937, FDR was persuaded by deficit hawks to cut back on spending and impose some austerity measures on the economy. THat was anti-Keynesian. The result was an almost instant recession (not depression) that lasted until the outbreak of the war.

The war itself was also an example of massive government deficit spending and full employment by the government. The military was the employer from millions of men, and women joined the workforce in huge numbers to work at factories producing war materials. These factory jobs, too, were, in effect, jobs created by and paid for by the government. While it could be argued that this was not Keynesian since it did not spur consumer spending, it did create pent up demand that would become consumer spending when the war ended and production shifted to civilian products. What's more, the GI Bill, granting free education to returning vets (Keeping them out of an economy that could not absorb all of them at once), was also essentially Keynesian. Keynesian policies continued to be in effect long after the war. not only in terms of the GI Bill, but IN terms of projects like rural electrification and the construction of the interstate highway system, not to mention Social Security and Welfare. Together these spurred economic growth, a broadening - and enriching - of the tax base, and the creation of the middle class. This 30 year period was also known as the Great Contraction, as the gap between the rich and the poor was narrowed. Poverty was reduced over 50% at the same time as the top after tax incomes were reduced. Everyone had more.

This was reversed by trickle down, anti-Keynesian economic policies initiated by Reagan, And the result is the economic crisis (and the crisis in democracy itself) and the collapse of the middle class that we are experiencing today.

[-] 1 points by flip (6987) 2 years ago

why are you telling me this - i know all of this - you said it was over in 37 - i was just correcting the record

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

I was addressing the both of you, including Pequod. The depression was effectively over in 1937, not 1940. A second recession hit in 1937-38, due to what we both have cited (austerity measures) but was not a depression. The measures were reversed again in 1938, but the recession austerity caused ended in 1940.

I was correcting your correction. :)

[-] 1 points by flip (6987) 2 years ago

ok, and what was the unemployment rate in 1937

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Average rate of unemployment

in 1929: 3.2%

in 1930: 8.9%

in 1931: 16.3%

in 1932: 24.1%

in 1933: 24.9%

in 1934: 21.7%

in 1935: 20.1%

in 1936: 16.9%

in 1937: 14.3%

in 1938: 19.0%

in 1939: 17.2%3


GDP (in millions)

1929 101,444

1930 91,513

1931 84,300

1932 70,682

1933 68,337

1934 74,609

1935 85,806

1936 95,798

1937 103,917

1938 96,670

1939 103,736

1940 112,961

[-] 1 points by flip (6987) 2 years ago

14 and 19 sound like quite a recession to me - how about to you - and when did the depression start?

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Replyto post below:

Thank you Flip. I'll see if I can find that book in the local library.

Yes indeed, population growth and new paradigms of global resource management are becoming critical issues,

While I am afraid you're right about the Dems talking about deficit reduction too, comparing that to what the Repubs are not only talking about, but have been pushing hard for for years is like comparing the weight of a butterfly with that of a cannon ball. Right now I believe the Repubs are the single most dangerous force in the world, to the point of actually destroying much of the planet itself,

Anyway, thanks again.

[-] 1 points by flip (6987) 2 years ago

i agree but maybe not quite so strongly

[-] -1 points by katotohanan (-57) 2 years ago

"Right now I believe the Repubs are the single most dangerous force in the world, to the point of actually destroying much of the planet itself,"

Replace "the Repubs" with "the Democrats, Republicans and corporate fascist elite who control both parties" and we agree!

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

I agree that this is silly. But I happen to like accuracy, and when I'm "corrected" and happen to know I was right, I like to provide the information. And since we were talking about the American application of Keynesian principles to the American economy, I did not include the entire world-wide depression, but only the American one. That history, clearly demonstrates how effective Keyenesian economics were in ending the depression, and how even a single year of austerity led to two more years of very deep recession.

I didn't consider what we were doing as a debate so much as a clarification of history.

And yes, the stock market certainly lagged behind. I am particularly worried now in terms of the Republicans getting both the congress and the White House. They are pushing precisely the kinds of Austerity measures that reversed the recovery in 1937-38 and is currently crippling Europe.

Thanks, by the way, about the info on Sweden. I wasn't aware of that bit of history. It just goes to show how much smarter they've been about economics than us for far longer than I realized.

You mentioned a book in your post but I didn't catch the name of it. Could you repost it? I would be very interested in reading it.

Thanks.

[-] 1 points by flip (6987) 2 years ago

i would still debate depression - recession but i would rather not - the book is "the long decline" - resource depletion and the coming shit storm. i agree completely on keynesian policies and am afraid that the dems will push deficit reduction also. have you heard or read michael hudson etc on modern monetary theory? really interesting conference from italy. and have you read this?? - Time to Wake Up: Days of Abundant Resources and Falling Prices Are Over Forever

Jeremy Grantham

Summary of the Summary The world is using up its natural resources at an alarming rate, and this has caused a permanent shift in their value. We all need to adjust our behavior to this new environment. It would help if we did it quickly.

Summary

Until about 1800, our species had no safety margin and lived, like other animals, up to the limit of the food supply, ebbing and fl owing in population.
From about 1800 on the use of hydrocarbons allowed for an explosion in energy use, in food supply, and, through the creation of surpluses, a dramatic increase in wealth and scientifi c progress.
Since 1800, the population has surged from 800 million to 7 billion, on its way to an estimated 8 billion, at minimum.
The rise in population, the ten-fold increase in wealth in developed countries, and the current explosive growth in developing countries have eaten rapidly into our fi nite resources of hydrocarbons and metals, fertilizer, available land, and water.
Now, despite a massive increase in fertilizer use, the growth in crop yields per acre has declined from 3.5% in the 1960s to 1.2% today. There is little productive new land to bring on and, as people get richer, they eat more grain-intensive meat. Because the population continues to grow at over 1%, there is little safety margin.
The problems of compounding growth in the face of fi nite resources are not easily understood by optimistic, short-term-oriented, and relatively innumerate humans (especially the political variety).
The fact is that no compound growth is sustainable. If we maintain our desperate focus on growth, we will run out of everything and crash. We must substitute qualitative growth for quantitative growth.
But Mrs. Market is helping, and right now she is sending us the Mother of all price signals. The prices of all important commodities except oil declined for 100 years until 2002, by an average of 70%. From 2002 until now, this entire decline was erased by a bigger price surge than occurred during World War II.
Statistically, most commodities are now so far away from their former downward trend that it makes it very probable that the old trend has changed – that there is in fact a Paradigm Shift – perhaps the most important economic event since the Industrial Revolution.
Climate change is associated with weather instability, but the last year was exceptionally bad. Near term it will surely get less bad.

[JR: Well, it may get less bad, but not "surely." This year is pretty extreme already and 2012 could be as bad or worse than 2010, according to Hansen here.]

Excellent long-term investment opportunities in resources and resource efficiency are compromised by the high chance of an improvement in weather next year and by the possibility that China may stumble.
From now on, price pressure and shortages of resources will be a permanent feature of our lives. This will increasingly slow down the growth rate of the developed and developing world and put a severe burden on poor countries.

We all need to develop serious resource plans, particularly energy policies. There is little time to waste.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Most economists cite 1929 as the beginning of the Great Depression. (Some say the GD was from 1929 to 1933). Economic recovery began in 1934 and was sustained until 1937. 1937 was the year that GDP achieved the pre Depression level of 1929 for the first time, and marks the end of the Depression. A deep recession hit in 1938, with a severe contraction of GDP again, and recovered in 1939. Had that second contraction lasted more than 3 years, it would have been considered a second Depression, but it lasted a little over one year only. (The common definition of depression is a recession - measured as a drop in GDP lasting more than 2 quarters - greater than 3 years in length.)

[-] 2 points by flip (6987) 2 years ago

this has become a silly debate but here is what wiki says - The Great Depression was a severe worldwide economic depression in the decade preceding World War II. The timing of the Great Depression varied across nations, but in most countries it started in about 1929 and lasted until the late 1930s or early 1940s.[1] It was the longest, most widespread, and deepest depression of the 20th century.[2] - i am well aware of what the econ textbooks say about recession etc but they are completely full of shit so who cares what they say. what is interesting is that - 1934 - Sweden becomes the first nation to recover fully from the Great Depression. It has followed a policy of Keynesian deficit spending. - also i assume you know the stock market didn't recover until the early 50's - we are in for a "long decline" - that is a good book if you are interested

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

WWII represented the greatest time period of concentrated government spending up to that time, while having a flexible fiat currency. Spending topped at 125% GDP in 1945, over shadowing New Deal spending by orders of magnitude.

So you basically supplied conclusive proof that Keynesian theory works.

Oh, and bonus... there was no hyperinflation when the war ended and millions of servicemen came back home.

[-] -2 points by Pequod (17) 2 years ago

Then by this definition, invading Iraq was a great economic move. Also The $860 billion stimulus should have created milions of jobs.

There is absolutely no difference then in massive military spending today, and massive military spending prior to WW 2. Instead of increasing government hand outs, we should invade Canada.

Sheesh. Think people.

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Read the stats again.... the government was spending 100 - 125% GDP during WWII. The invasion of Iraq was no where near that amount and required far less armaments. Only a handful of defense contractors got work for Iraq or Afghanistan, versus all of our industry geared up in support of WWII.

There is a huge difference in the spending amounts, types, and who benefited from them. I don't recall either Iraq or Iran creating near full employment numbers do you?

[-] 2 points by Pequod (17) 2 years ago

Uh, you arent making any sense, and backpedaling to boot. Now you are suggesting only certain types of government spending work. Bullets are bullets, k rations are k rations, smart bombs and drones are just more advanced WW2 bombs.

Sounds to me like pure rstionalzation. If there is truly a Keynesian multiplier, which i believe is not proven, then the $100 billion spent in Iraq yearly should have lead to $200 billion in output. It didnt.

You are just cherry picking stats to defend a defenseless position.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Production is the key. 1 smart bomb today costs $1 million dollars and needs very few people to assemble. One smart bomb also delivers more firepower than a B-17 with full bomb load.

We had whole shipyards cranking out Liberty ships, employing hundreds of thousands of people in WWII. More people were employed and benefited directly from WWII spending, than a small segment of the population today benefitting from ME war spending.

We also didn't outsource military manufacturing as we do today.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

japenesse and german cities were subject to incendiary bombs that burned cities to the ground

still doesn't justify NATO bombings

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

This isn't about the ethics of war, but a comparison in economics and government spending. Government spending on war or peace is the same.... unfortunately we more often chose war.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

those bunker get filled with weapons during peace

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

If the retarded ancestors of GWB had had their way we would have been on the German side in that war. There were a LOT of Nazi supporters in this country then, and you got, the loudest ones were the forefathers of the current 1%.

[-] -2 points by MikeInOhio (13) 2 years ago

Nazi supporters are the 1%?

I really feel sorry for you, Gypsy. Speaking of retarded ancestors, I would suggest getting some professional help.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Thanks for defending GWB. We have no more to say to each other, and now I don't need to feel bad about that at all.

[-] -1 points by MikeInOhio (13) 2 years ago

Great! You and shooz can commiserate.

Turn out the lights when everyone leaves. I think there are now only 10 posters left.

Fight the power!

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Why are you here? Is it just to insult people?

Is that really the ultimate level of your intelligence?

This place needs a good troll sweeping. You would you like to be included?

[-] -1 points by MikeInOhio (13) 2 years ago

There is no one left here, in case you haven't noticed. Your movement has died with a whimper (or rather a failed attempt to blow up a bridge in Cleveland).

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Was that a yes, or a no?

Such difficulty you trolls have answering questions.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by JeanPaulHolmes (13) 2 years ago

Why is that?

[-] 1 points by UndertheCobblestones (5) 2 years ago

Hollande is a centrist. His campaign director, Pierre Moscovici, is the vice-president of a lobby that represents the premier leaders of industry in France; indeed, the itineraries of most of the leaders of European socialism show how the worlds of financial capitalism and politics are intertwined (this information comes from an article in the French-language magazine Le Monde diplomatique: Geoffry Guens, "Les marchés financières ont un visage," Le Monde Diplomatique N° 698 - 59e année. May 2012. It's not available in the English language edition). Today's front page article in the French newspaper of record, Le Monde, is about his network of capitalist friends. (Cédric Pietralunga, "Le modeste réseau d'un président apprecié des patrons," May 11 2012).

I live in France and speak French. Don't idealize what is happening here; the revolutionary tradition can be a source of inspiration but there is simply no reason to believe that Hollande will mean radical change. Imagining that it is a proletarian revolution is facile; at best, his election gestures towards a de-emphasis on austerity.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

I did not mean to idealize what is happening in France; the point is that workers are pushing for something new. I don't believe that any major politician in the industrialized world will bring any type of radical change: they're all bought and paid for.

[-] 1 points by UndertheCobblestones (5) 2 years ago

Sure. And it's true that the majority of the workers and employees voted for the Left (Julia Hamlaoui, "Ouvriers et employés votent à gauche," L'humanité, 10 May 2012). But there was also an important level of abstentionism (at least for France, where electoral participation is more pronounced than in the U.S.).

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

From what you have written, I surmise that a large segment of the French electorate are as disgusted with the process as many here are. So often people tell me they will sit out this next election; they don't believe any of the candidates is truly interested in solving the workers' problems.

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

"which will respond to the workers' needs."

don't count on the long time case hardened sell outs and bullshitters of the Social Democracy to come through with anything more than Obama would, ie. not much to nothing.

[-] 1 points by zoom6000 (430) from St Petersburg, FL 2 years ago

It was suppose to happen in last election in England., but Murdock rigged the election,and the british are mad., I could told them that from day one,however the rest of europ will follow.,if election of soicalist party take over in germany that the end of capitalist beacuse US will be cornered,until than America !

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

The resistence to change is very strong in the US. Trotsky believed some headbanging would be necessary to install a new type of government here. I hope not, but believe that he was right.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

change the title to greece

[-] 1 points by Rush123 (3) 2 years ago

Because spending lots of Indy they do not have is definatly going to help the French.

[-] 1 points by monetarist (40) 2 years ago

We will know how effective Hollande is in a few years. Too early to say anything now. Yes, he own a victory because of his populist language but populism does not always work.

As for Greece and booting out pro austerity party, if their historic record of economic irresponsibility is anything to go by (this current crisis being just one of many) they are making a huge mistake. The Greeks have been one of the most pampered in EU and also one of the most profligate. They need to cut down spending.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

The question alway is who pays for the spending cuts. We already know: the proletariat. This is the unacceptable part of the cut-spending equation as it has been practiced in the past.

The first order of business should be to make those who can afford to, this includes businesses, pay more and take in less, while the proletariat, who truly earn their livelihood, should reap their fair share, which at this point they do not. Sooner or later the workers will take what belongs to them; the concern really is in how.

[-] 1 points by monetarist (40) 2 years ago

I don't think you understand the meaning of spending cut. We are talking about reducing govt expenditure and what you are talking about is raising taxes by taxing the rich disproportionately. Raising taxes and cutting spending are two different ways to tackle deficit.

I am not sure how you say business did not earn their 'livelihood'. Also, understand that businesses aren't the concrete structures that house them but the people who work in them. When you tax business disproportionately, these people will bear the brunt of it. Their salaries will drop and there will be layoffs, in effect hurting the same people whose cause you are championing. Shareholders, that includes you and me either directly or indirectly through pension funds or mutual funds, will see their wealth eroded.

Greece for instance created this massive debt by profligate public spending including unduly high salaries for govt employees.Those need to be checked. Unlike a private organization that sells products, generates revenues and then pays its employees, govt pays for everything, including employee salaries, out of taxes. And Greek workers, even considering the relaxed work hours of Europe, are among the laziest.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

I don't think you understand the difference between spending cuts and defrauding the proletariat. The obscene pay of many corporate executives and the astronomical profits of some large businesses clearly demonstrate the bourgeois willingness to subjugate workers, until the latter serve as little more than serfs.

When people talk about spending cuts they almost always mean reducing government assistance and government-insurance benefits, as gruppenfuhrer Paul Ryan proved with the recent so-called budget.

If workers currently received a proportionate amount compared to what CEOs do since about 1980, the average worker's pay would be $200K per year. Back then, before Reaganomics or plutonomics, the average CEO earned about 40 times more than the average worker. Today the average CEO earns about 500 times more than the average worker: so much for trickle down.

Only when we level the paying field, and the proletariat earn their true share of the GDP, can "spending cuts" even be considered.

If by spending cuts, you mean reducing the military budget, drastically reducing or eliminating politicians' pay, cutting waste, well, then I agree.

[-] 1 points by monetarist (40) 2 years ago

Looks like you are another neo-commie. I find you guys massively entertaining. What is wrong with profits and who decides what is atronomical? Any and every business is in the business of making profits. And I am not sure which workers you are talking about but most high skilled workers (like engineers etc) are getting paid well. They ain't complaining.

And salaries aren't decided based on what the CEO gets, it's decided based on what the job is. And even if I were to assume that the base salary become $200k (which would be unprecendented and unparalleled across any developed countries and a figure for which you have not provided any substantive proof so I guess I am simply supposed to accept it on good faith), it would drive up the cost of everything else. The economy then would be very different from what it is now and prices of all goods/services would increase to reflect these new realities. Therefore, these low skilled workers may not necessarily be any more well off than they are now.

Sure I am all for reducing the military budget and also for slashing politicians pays. Absolutely.

[-] 0 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

You have made wrong assumptions all the way around. I am not a "neo-commie;" I am an anarchist, who believes proletarians should control their own fate.

As far as how pay is determined; up until now CEOs and board directors have made those decisions. That's intolerable. Workers, who contribute the most, should make those decisions collectively.

Incidentally, here's the link to the source of my figures: http://www.kyklosproductions.com/articles/wages.html

[-] 1 points by monetarist (40) 2 years ago

All the best then for your 'rule of proletariat' dreams. I, for one, am happy with my salary at this current position (not that I dont want to rise up the ladder) and I do not envy the salary the CEO makes.

[-] 0 points by Spade2 (478) 2 years ago

Violence, that's how Lenin, Trotsky, Che, Castro, Mao, and Minh did it, let's just do that.

[-] 1 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 2 years ago

I would be careful in celebrating a "socialist" victory in France. Hollande strikes me as an Obama like figure in that he speaks in the language of populism but acts in a way that is very corporate friendly. Check out this article by Chris Hedges.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_globalization_of_hollow_politics_20120423/

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

I agree, but as I pointed out to Reneye, Hollande's election is a start. If change comes by the ballot box it won't be revolutionary.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

We have the power in the US. We also have a sleeping electorate.

Occupy America's Wake-Up Call!!!

[-] 0 points by Rush123 (3) 2 years ago

The new plan in France is to send more money to get out of their economic hole. In 6 months they will be even worse off then they are now.

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

So far "austerity" hasn't worked either, just as it hasn't in southern European countries like Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy. Time to try a different tack that doesn't penalize the workers.

[-] 1 points by Rush123 (3) 2 years ago

France's plans are not the answer either.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Not exactly.

Looks like Greeks have invited the Nazis. The situation is eerily similar to Germany in the 1930s.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0507/Greece-election-results-cause-problems-for-bailout-plans

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

The Nazis won a percentage of the overall vote and parliamentary seats. Social unrest is a breeding ground for extremist groups; look at the Minutemen and Tea Party in this country.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Not anytime soon its not. Take a look at some of my posts that say maybe we should start going on another path. I get blasted regularly.

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

I no longer believe the ballot box is an option for meaningful change in this country; the process has become so corrupted that no matter who the American public elects, we get basically the same government, just different faces and few different slogans.

Still, the workers can effect real change. The only way I currently see for a peaceful solution is a widely supported general strike. The problem lies in gathering enough support to make the strike effective enough to force change. Successful general strikes include those of the Belgians, the recent general strikes in Egypt, as well as many parts of Portugal and Spain. There is the very real danger, though, of violent government retaliation as in the Winnepeg general strike of 1919.

With the new "anti-terrorist" laws the government could quickly mobilize forces against workers in a general strike and excuse such oppression in the name of quelling terrorist forces.

[-] 3 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

It's the same basic shit with every protest movement .... in not only our own history, but generally speaking. In the 1960's, eventually, we get incidents like the Kent State shootings, before that workers uprisings often met with harsh suppression. Unfortunately, none of those protest movements ever finished the job, so we're still dealing with this same basic structure.

The simple brilliance of OWS is it realizes this.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

Exactly, but it's a wake-up call to those, who believe we can somehow achieve our goals without violent outbursts from both sides.

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

I wouldn't endorse violence by our side, and it is a different world (so it's hard to predict how far the government would be willing to go, but if I had to guess, I'd say ... probably not as far as they did in the past).

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

I don't endorse violence; only see it as inevitable. I certainly hope I'm wrong, since I live here, too, but he 1% will not give in without a fight.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Shule (2030) 2 years ago

I agree the ballot box is not way to achieve change (although I do go vote anyway for kicks.) Bringing about political-economic change is a very complex process that cannot be achieved by way of any one single type of action. May I suggest an interesting book "Guerilla Warfare" by Che Guevara. One can skip the gun and bomb parts as I don't think violence is accepted or even effective in this day and age, but the underlying tactics and strategy, as in a three part process of first reforming oneself, then educating others, and finally undermining the ruling oligarchy is meaningful. Che Guevara did say revolution is not necessarily about changing governments; its about changing the minds of men.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

I'm hoping to see change this November. If the people who don't vote for what ever reason, would vote this year for anyone but the same group of two, there would be change. Don't give up on voting, that is exactly what the 1% want.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

From where or from whom do you hope to see the change?

If it's just more politicians, regardless of what they call themselves, I believe you will be disappointed. Still, if nothing changes by early fall, I will reluctantly register and vote, once again for the lesser of evils.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

If everybody shares that attitude, then we are already defeated. There are more than enough to defeat both Obama and Romney. The only thing stopping us is we don't believe it's possible.

Some thought they couldn't overthrow King George, but those that didn't triumphed. Our country was not founded by people who laid down, but by people who stood up.

There is no greater weapon on earth than a mind that believes it can accomplish what is difficult, and no weapon weaker than one that believes it impossible.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

No, I would not vote for either of the major candidates, but a politician is pretty much a politician, though some are better than others.

Yes, if a viable workers' candidate miraculously emerges between now and November, I will definitely vote for such a person.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago
[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

They are already there, you just have to look for them. they wont appear on your TV during prime time.

[-] -1 points by MikeInOhio (13) 2 years ago

Fortunately, the stupid will not rule the earth. Your socialist comrades are heading down the same hole they did in the 1980's.

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

Then obviously neither will you.

[-] 0 points by MikeInOhio (13) 2 years ago

You are better suited to build dams, not debate intellectual ideas.

[-] -1 points by mjbento (74) 2 years ago

Message from Europe to our brothers in America.

Yes, change is coming in Europe. But guess what, surprises... And how ironical let me say:

Already the stock markets are plumetting because of votes cast in France and Greece. The people decide to make their choices, in democratic fair & transparent elections. And what is the result? Markets already picture doomsday scenario. This is the levek of respect markets have for democratic choice.This is how international finance regards elections: every time in a country election where the 1% looses, they sanction that country.

There is only one way to change that. Occupy the very centre of all problems in world economy and distribute the wealth of worlwide millionaires who increased their fortunes at the expense of austerity packages imposed over millions of europeans and americans, who were to blame for more than 20 years of mistakes in world finance.

These millionares make BILLIONS thanks to the MISERY austerity taxes imposed on PEOPLE. And they don't give a dam* about it. They just care in receiving money regardless of the SACRIFICES they impose on people.

ENOUGH. Greece and France had ENOUGH. Spain, Italy, Portugal and Ireland have ENOUGH. Europe has ENOUGH. The US has ENOUGH. We need Worldwide Change.

The only way to terminate this madness is to take control over a decadent Wall Street and international finance. But how?

International finance (millionaires and stock billion investors) control everything in today's world. They can control politicians, the economy, Congress, police, education, health, armed forces and media. The non-millionaires (what is known as "99%") only control their civic rights.

Sit-ins, marches or occupy protests WON'T make the diference. And much less the forthcoming elections. Between Obama and Romney, how seriously these are going to listen to social demands? The first one will listen, but will eventually let it all go with time, all being broken promises. The second one will just pass by since he's himself part of the 1%. Thus, elections WON'T make that of a difference.

Rise up americans, only FORCE will allow the 99% to finish the imoralities of the greedy international finance. Using force is not resorting to violence though, for we can't act like the 1%. Using force is taking control of the army, the police, the courts, shools and universities,media.

Realize this: only when you control these, international finance greed will stop.

[-] 1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

TROLL!!!!

Don't fall for this crap.

Anybody promoting the "both parties are the same" and "Voting is futile" surrender is working for the Cons!!! Whether they know it or not!!

Taxing the rich and marriage equality are just two examples of the many that make up huge differences between Cons and Dems, and the result of wise and effective Voting in 2006 and 2008!!

Get out the Vote!! The Cons hate that!!

Unite and Win! 2010 Never EVER Again!!

[-] 1 points by Shule (2030) 2 years ago

Yep, I agree.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

the markets aren't controlled by those making the election

they should be

[-] 1 points by mjbento (74) 2 years ago

Well, this is not presently possible because they CONTROL the election machine, the donations, the presidential candidates, congress members, the mayors and governors.

So, in order to change anything, it won't be through elections I tell you.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

I believe that you are right. Real change, at least in this country, will not come via the ballot box.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I greater number of voters will make in more difficult to rig elections

as more people will knew how they voted

[-] -1 points by UnionsCare (-31) 2 years ago

Then they'll simply cease to be markets and the capital will leave. Do you spend any time thinking about implications? If you did, would it even help you?

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

that;'s why property tax is important

land can''t move

[-] -1 points by UnionsCare (-31) 2 years ago

But you can't make people develop it further. The people with creativity, education and motivation are more mobile than ever. Hmm, that's a problem. Socialism depends on people not having that sort of freedom. You'll have to do something about that.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I know

non first resident property tax

just wish it were such a mouthful

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

You're wrong; socialism has nothing to do with mobility, in fact it liberates workers, including the most productive, by rewarding each according to his or her real contributions, though not neglecting those unable to contribute through no fault of their own. That truly amounts to greater freedom for all, especially proletarians.

You need to study Marx, Trotsky, Lenin and others to get a true feel for socialism, not simply accept what some bourgeois puppet has taught you.

[-] 0 points by UnionsCare (-31) 2 years ago

And for those that disagree with what big brother decides is his or her contribution, there's mobility and the freedom to leave.

[-] -2 points by Hades (-13) 2 years ago

Hopefully this will be the first step in breaking up the E.U.

[-] -2 points by Tarty100 (-98) 2 years ago

In six months the french will be facing west with their collective hands out saying " Mo please "

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

Which way will we face with our hands out? I believe we're already there. Our system is on a nosedive.

[-] 1 points by Recycleman (102) 2 years ago

The source of energy is not the problem.

Efficiencies in consumption is the real culprit.

Our average mpg is close to the 1970s

The promotion of large pickup truck purchases by companies with 100% accelerated depression in one year. Free trucks that consume fuel at record amounts.

The average of electric is close to 100 mpg to start.

They will start charging taxes on the number of miles instead of gallons of gas.

[-] -3 points by Reneye (118) 2 years ago

France just had elections with only 2 candidates pushed by the mainstream media: Sarkozy and Hollande. Now Hollande has won. If you do some googling on ” Francois Hollande Bilderberg Group ” .....

RIP France, another 5 years of NWO tyranny. People have no f*cking clue what’s going on!

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

I won't labor the point, except to say it's a move in the right direction. Hollande may not be the ideal workers' representative, but he is certainly better than Sarkozy.

After all France was the home of the first real workers' government: the Paris Commune.

[Removed]