Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Privileges are NOT Rights

Posted 8 years ago on Jan. 26, 2012, 11:25 a.m. EST by slammersworldisback (-217)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

In our modern society we have certain privileges borne of that advancement and progress, those things are dependent on others to enjoy.

Right's on the other hand are independent of others, no one is responsible for another persons "rights" and no one may force or coerce another by "right" to provide them with anything. Rights are inseparable from humanity, no society grants them and can only take them away by force...

Freedom to speak, associate, practice personal religion, the right of self protection, the right to travel freely, the right to personal property...these are all INDEPENDENT RIGHTS

Jobs, Healthcare, Income, Retirement, Products, Services, Money, etc etc etc......These are all DEPENDENT PRIVILEGES and should be respected, as such....you don't have the "right" to privileges....

You earn them......



Read the Rules
[-] 11 points by beautifulworld (23316) 8 years ago

No, sorry. We have the right to have a government that is not bought and paid for by the wealthy and corporations and we have the right to an economic system that functions to benefit all people, not just the wealthy and corporations.

[-] 2 points by freewriterguy (882) 8 years ago

where our society went wrong, is this: corporations found a way to automate the products that we want and sell them for less, and then mass shipped them to our grocery stores, while the small business man cannot even get one of his products stocked on a market store's shelf. It really is a closed system.

[-] 1 points by Judi49 (10) from Silverstreet, SC 8 years ago

Isn't the key word in what you say is 'want'. not need. I am not saying not to buy things you want just be a lot more selective. Buy less and support those small businesses. Maybe you pay a little more, but look at the long term ramifications of doing that.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23316) 8 years ago

Okay. So another reason to get back our government and our economy. Good.

[-] -1 points by FreedomIn2012 (-36) from Hempstead, NY 8 years ago

Consumers drive this. Do you want to pay $50 for bluejeans at a local store, or $25 at Walmarts? That's an individual choice. Most of us will pick the $25 pair. Consumers do this every day. That's how our economy works. If you believe the reverse, then the best buys will be the $100 pair or jeans from the mom and pop around the corner, If you buy them there, you can't afford the $100 shirt, $50 pair of underwear, or $25 Bud light!!

[-] 2 points by UncomonSense (386) 8 years ago

You can support your local mom and pop or you can give more money to the Waltons and the Chinese. The choice is yours.

Don't complain about the result of your wallet vote.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23316) 8 years ago

I never shop at WalMart.

[-] -3 points by BonTon (57) 8 years ago

maybe you should check it out, give it a chance. plenty of stuff occupiers would dig.


[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23316) 8 years ago

What, like tents and sleeping bags? Cool. Actually, I can afford to shop elsewhere.

[+] -4 points by Galt01 (55) 8 years ago

occupiers should be getting used to sleeping bags & tents. After all you too it up voluntarily lol!

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23316) 8 years ago

What is wrong with camping? People go on camping vacations.

[+] -4 points by Galt01 (55) 8 years ago

Nothing is wrong with camping. Go ahead - camp out everyday. Just not in a city park.

[-] 2 points by XaiverBuchsIV (508) 8 years ago

We'd camp on your lawn, but it's just dirt and garbage around your trailer.

[-] -3 points by Galt01 (55) 8 years ago

hahahaha! in your dreams. Even if that were the case - any trailer is better than the feces infested campgrounds you have created. No worries - you will be cleared out of any location as soon as we get tired of you.

[-] 2 points by XaiverBuchsIV (508) 8 years ago

13% think they are the 1%.

[-] 0 points by FarIeymowat (49) 8 years ago

I shop there for some stuff. I would hate to see layoffs on my account.

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 8 years ago

great point, but what is wrong still is while prices of things were going down thanks to being made overseas, the land prices were skyrocketing, this single event that took the lion's share of our income is going to be our undoing. We should have been more like the indians, share the land, dont withold it from people. this land is a blessed land, more choice than any other land, and is reserved for a righteous people. Im ashamed of americans and cant wait until they are swept off of it.

[-] 1 points by Judi49 (10) from Silverstreet, SC 8 years ago

Of course consumers drive this. But isn't the real question we need to ask is do we need those new jeans at all. So I save that $25 dollars, or use it to pay down my debts. I'm not helping anyone but myself.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 8 years ago

I mean, the price disparity between big/small retailers isn't that bad, but I think the problem could be remedied by worker owned retailers and worker owned manufacturers (at least in many cases). Also, we have to deal with wealth disparity, political corruption, unfair trade, the power of banks, and education. Equal opportunity and fairness may not imply equal outcomes, but when someone says something like "life isn't fair, get used to it" ... I can't help but to think they've been indoctrinated to believe life shouldn't be fair, they've gotten used to it, and I believe we can do better (and there's no law of nature demanding we accept this state of affairs as a foregone conclusion).

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 8 years ago

i love debating this because, it ignores the fact that the lions share of our money is wasted in a pyramid scheme of housing bubble. You see if we as a people strived to keep our house prices low, we could pay them off, we wouldnt be paying 80% of the mortgage payment to rich banks, and it would leave alot more money on the tables for american familes so they could afford those jeans.

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 8 years ago

Issue of currency should be lodged with the government and be protected from domination by Wall Street. We are opposed to…provisions [which] would place our currency and credit system in private hands. – Theodore Roosevelt

If congress has the right under the Constitution to issue paper money, it was given them to use themselves, not to be delegated to individuals or corporations. - Andrew Jackson

The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credits needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of consumers. By the adoption of these principles, the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity. - Abraham Lincoln

The bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money.” – Sir Josiah Stamp, Director of the Bank of England (appointed 1928). Reputed to be the 2nd wealthiest man in England at that time.


[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23316) 8 years ago

Thanks. I like history.

[-] 0 points by pedro01 (1) 8 years ago

don't forget Unions and left wing environmental groups! No double standards here.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23316) 8 years ago

Agreed. You will see in other posts of mine that I say that. I think we can all come together on this issue. It is very important.

[-] 0 points by pedro01 (1) 8 years ago

yes we agree on something:)

[-] -2 points by warbles (164) 8 years ago

What? That's basically what he said!

[-] 5 points by beautifulworld (23316) 8 years ago

In your mind.

"Jobs, Healthcare, Income, Retirement, Products, Services, Money, etc etc etc......These are all DEPENDENT PRIVILEGES and should be respected, as such....you don't have the "right" to privileges....

You earn them......"

No. These are things that the economic system should provide to all people. Right now, they are overwhelmingly the lot of the wealthy.


[-] -1 points by skylar (-441) 8 years ago

jobs, healthcare, income, retirement, products, services , money are up to the individual to earn. any govt that provides those things without the individual earning the money to get them for himself does not foster the individual 's freedom to create, innovate, discover and invent.

[-] 4 points by beautifulworld (23316) 8 years ago

That is nonsense. I am talking about Americans earning a living wage so they can provide those things for their families. We actually live in a nation in the modern world where one-half of our working citizens earn less than $26,000 per year leaving them on the brink of poverty. How are they supposed to be free to create, innovate, discover and invent. Huh? They're busy working their asses off to still not be able to pay their bills. Oh, I see, those things are only for the wealthy.

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 8 years ago

i dont think i ever have made more than 26k a year in my lifetime, but my business is doing well and i bought a house this year... had record sales during the collapse, but banks wouldnt finance them so i laid off two employees, its a strange strange world ill tell you what.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23316) 8 years ago

Yes. We can sit back and accept the status quo or we can try to improve things.

[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 8 years ago

Poverty as determined by whom beautiful world? And poverty compared to whom?

A majority of the worlds poorest countries today are in Africa - are you comparing America's poor to those who live without sanitary water? How many TV and Cell Phones do the poor in America have access to? People in Africa are busy working their asses off to put food on their table - not to pay cell and TV bills.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23316) 8 years ago

I don't buy that argument. I am well aware of the abject poverty that exists around the world, but it is in no way an excuse for the greed that has left so many Americans behind.

[-] 0 points by Concerned (455) 8 years ago

Greed exists. It has and always will. But the "$26,000 median annual national income figure is not telling the whole story.

First, the actual number is $26,364 for 2010... correction included based upon the following figures which are the 2011 Health and Human Services poverty thresholds...

1 Person (s) $10,890 Contiguous States $13,600 Alaska $12,544 Hawaii 2 $14,710 $18,380 $16,930 3 $18,530 $23,160 $21,320 4 $22,350 $27,940 $25,710 5 $26,170 $32,720 $30,100

Edited - table doesn't translate when posted so here's a link to the full table for easier reading - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_level_%28US%29

So a one, two, three or 4 person family making $26,364 in the 48 contiguous states is not at poverty level - its not poverty level unless they live in Alaska. Even a five person family in the 48 states is living above poverty level at $26,363 aren't they?

Other variables exist depending on which department numbers you are using - for example the Census Bureau uses slightly different means of determining it ...for example a family of four with 2 children under 18 is different than a family of four with 2 children over 18.

If you dug a bit, you'd find that there is only one journalist who even writes about that median annual income figure - and he was quoted by liberal news outlets for purely political purposes - and was followed by the OWS folks picking it up and using it as one part of their mantra.

With a bit of digging, its not quite as bad as it seems now is it? I mean when you consider not only the figures shown above as well as the fact that poverty here is not necessarily hand in hand with literal starvation as it is in oh, let's say, Africa?

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23316) 8 years ago

No. I don't agree. I'm still quite shocked that the median income is $26,364. That is extremely low leaving approximately half of the population financially fragile. This at a time when corporate profits are at an all time high.

I know that it is more common to look at household income, but the light that has been shined on how much money each working American is making is significant. In a quick google search I found it mentioned in a few places:




I would be interested in seeing what the average is at the 60th and 70th percentiles as well. Have you seen the charts that show how income has sky-rocketed for the top 1% while remaining flat and even decreasing over the past thirty years for everyone else? There's a good chart on this link:


[+] -4 points by skylar (-441) 8 years ago

do you think that all the things that were invented , created and discovered were done by rich or middle income people? when a person is driven by ambition and passion they find a way.

[-] 7 points by beautifulworld (23316) 8 years ago

Look. I don't agree with you guys. I don't think it is good at all for our country to have 1 in 7 people on food stamps and 22% of our children living in poverty. It makes no sense. 30 years ago, the average CEO earned 40 times the pay of the average worker. Today, the average CEO earns 343 times the wage of the average worker. Workers are oppressed today due to this unbridled greed. Capitalism can work, but it can't work if those holding the capital remain this greedy.

And, I don't blame poor people for being poor. You can't just say that everyone should work hard and they can get material success too. No. Not if half the jobs pay less than $26,000. That is a mathematical impossibility.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

everyone should be on food stamps

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23316) 8 years ago

Do you mean like a basic guaranteed income or are you being sarcastic? Sorry, I just want to clarify.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

yes guaranteed income

so markets will have the people to cater to

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23316) 8 years ago

The economy should exist solely for the benefit of the people that it serves.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 8 years ago

That's right, not exactly a "beautiful world" that we live in today, is it?

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (23316) 8 years ago

Well, no. Hell, no. That's why we're all here on this forum, right?

[-] 3 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 8 years ago

That's right, we are here trying to make it a "beautiful world".

I see you're very active here, and quite regular in your contributions. Keep up the good work.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (23316) 8 years ago

I'll try. You do the same.

[-] -1 points by warbles (164) 8 years ago

You're right, 1 in 7 people should not be on food stamps. I could fix that overnight....

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23316) 8 years ago

Not in a nice way, I'm sure.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23316) 8 years ago

Read the preamble of the constitution. The government should promote the general welfare of the American people. I kind of think not leaving people to starve would fall under that purview.


[-] -3 points by smartcapitalist (143) 8 years ago
  1. The disparity between CEO salaries and the shop floor guy has been widening not in US alone but globally. So if American firms are to attract top talent, they have to pay the price.

  2. At the bottom end however there is already excess supply so salaries are bound to fall.

  3. Our median household income of $26,000 is the 8th highest in the world.

  4. Real (inflation adjusted) average income has been continually rising in the US. Here is the graph http://visualecon.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/avg-income-2006.jpg So I don't think you have much to complain about.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23316) 8 years ago

You've been doing some work, smartypants.

  1. Doesn't make it right. What, are our CEO's going to flee the country? (with their money?) Poor things.

  2. Doesn't make it right. The economy must prepare for this. The economy must work for the masses.

  3. Are you comparing this to cost of living? And, regardless, that is no excuse. That is like saying Ethiopia should be happy they are better off than Bangladesh.

  4. Mostly for the wealthy whose wages have risen exorbitantly. See exhibit C in this link. It breaks down wage increases by percentiles: http://www.midwestprogress.org/post/8758523422/politicizer-column-2-how-the-democrats-should-frame

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 8 years ago

i say the ceo's can leave but their money cannot! while i was looking for this i found the rest and thought you might be interested! by the way our great liberal clinton forced korea to allow capital flight. this is chomsky ......."But they did it through state intervention, directing of resources, and also by restricting capital flight. Capital flight is a major problem for a developing country, and also for democracy. Capital flight could be controlled under Bretton Woods rules, but it was opened up in the last 30 years. In South Korea, you could get the death penalty for capital flight. So yes, they developed a pretty solid economy, as did Taiwan..............here is the whole paragraph and then an interesting piece follows.........One major exception to this is South Korea and Taiwan. They were very poor countries. South Korea in the late 1950s was probably about the level of Ghana today. But they developed by following the Japanese model – violating all the rules of the IMF and Western economists and developing pretty much the way the Western countries had developed, by substantial direction and involvement of the state sector. So South Korea, for example built a major steel industry, one of the most efficient in the world, by flatly violating the advice of the IMF and the World Bank, who said it was impossible. But they did it through state intervention, directing of resources, and also by restricting capital flight. Capital flight is a major problem for a developing country, and also for democracy. Capital flight could be controlled under Bretton Woods rules, but it was opened up in the last 30 years. In South Korea, you could get the death penalty for capital flight. So yes, they developed a pretty solid economy, as did Taiwan. China is a separate story, but they also radically violated the rules, and it's a complex story of how it's ending up. But these are major phenomena in the international economy.................About 10 years ago there was an important book called Global Finance at Risk, by two well-known economists John Eatwell and Lance Taylor. In it they refer to the well-known fact that there are basic inefficiencies intrinsic to markets. In the case of financial markets, they under-price risk. They don't count in systemic risk — general social costs. So for example if you sell me a car, you and I may make a good bargain, but we don't count in the costs to the society — pollution, congestion and so on. In financial markets, this means that risks are under-priced, so there are more risks taken than would happen in an efficient system. And that of course leads to crashes. If you had adequate regulation, you could control and prevent market inefficiencies. If you deregulate, you're going to maximize market inefficiency.

This is pretty elementary economics. They happen to discuss it in this book; others have discussed it too. And that's what's happening. Risks were under-priced, therefore more risks were taken than should have been, and sooner or later it was going to crash. Nobody predicted exactly when, and the depth of the crash is a little surprising. That's in part because of the creation of exotic financial instruments which were deregulated, meaning that nobody really knew who owed what to whom. It was all split up in crazy ways. So the depth of the crisis is pretty severe — we're not to the bottom yet — and the architects of this are the people who are now designing Obama's economic policies.

Dean Baker, one of the few economists who saw what was coming all along, pointed out that it's almost like appointing Osama bin Laden to run the so-called war on terror. Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers, Clinton's treasury secretaries, are among the main architects of the crisis. Summers intervened strongly to prevent any regulation of derivatives and other exotic instruments. Rubin, who preceded him, was right in the lead of undermining the Glass-Steagall act, all of which is pretty ironic. The Glass-Steagall Act protected commercial banks from risky investment firms, insurance firms, and so on, which kind of protected the core of the economy. That was broken up in 1999 largely under Rubin's influence. He immediately left the treasury department and became a director of Citigroup, which benefited from the breakdown of Glass-Steagall by expanding and becoming a "financial supermarket" as they called it. Just to increase the irony (or the tragedy if you like) Citigroup is now getting huge taxpayer subsidies to try to keep it together and just in the last few weeks announced that it's breaking up. It's going back to trying to protect its commercial banking from risky side investments. Rubin resigned in disgrace — he's largely responsible for this. But he's one of Obama's major economic advisors, Summers is another one; Summer's protégé Tim Geithner is the Treasury Secretary.

None of this is really unanticipated. There were very good economists like say David Felix, an international economist who's been writing about this for years. And the reasons are known: markets are inefficient; they under-price social costs. And financial institutions underprice systemic risk. So say you're a CEO of Goldman Sachs. If you're doing your job correctly, when you make a loan you ensure that the risk to you is low. So if it collapses, you'll be able to handle it. You do care about the risk to yourself, you price that in. But you don't price in systemic risk, the risk that the whole financial system will erode. That's not part of your calculation.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23316) 8 years ago

Great post, as usual, flip. Thank you.

"In the case of financial markets, they under-price risk. They don't count in systemic risk — general social costs."

Reminds me a little of WalMart (and I'm sure many other low-wage industries). The social costs of paying their workers such low wages become burdens to the taxpayers for things like food stamps and medicaid. Sad, unnecessary and unjust.

[-] 1 points by eyeknowstuff (9) 8 years ago

All the flak about Walmart is curious to me. I know people who work there at rather distant ends of the payscale. They are satisfied with their lot. One thing that I don't hear or see mentioned with regard to the number of low-wage jobs at Wal-mart is the fact that, although there are employees who are trying to raise a family on those salaries, they also provide A LOT of jobs for students! At my local Wal-Mart the majority of the cashiers I talk to are students at one of the local colleges. Same with Target!

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23316) 8 years ago

At the WalMart near me they are mostly adults.

[-] -1 points by smartcapitalist (143) 8 years ago
  1. CEOs don't have to stick to any particular country.

  2. Yes it should. But it cannot work for each and every person, at least not to the equal extent. That does not mean that there should not be any efforts to improve everyone's life either. But free everything is not one such effort

3 8th highest is far better than being Ethiopia or Bangladesh.

  1. Agree on that and I said as much. However, let's think for a second what kind of occupations each of those percentile would have. Now, since 50% are below $26k, it is safe to assume that these are people without a college degree or may be a 'not so useful' degree from a community college. They certainly aren't engineers, doctors, scientists etc. So it is mostly people with a bad education that are suffering. So we need to ensure that every kid makes the best use of the education he/she receives. May be what we are seeing is the flip side of being in a developed country, the disappearance of low skilled jobs.
[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23316) 8 years ago

I don't think the economy needs to work equally for every citizen, but it should provide enough for every working citizen to live a decent life. The rich can become as wealthy as they can, that's great, nobody wants to stop them, but everyone needs to have enough.

And, the economy needs those low skilled jobs, that is why half of America is in those jobs. I don't see them going away any time soon. They support the capitalist system that we live in. We should value the labor from those jobs much differently than we do.

I went to Starbucks yesterday and noticed a significant price increase so I asked the workers if they got a raise. "No," they laughed. Why not? You tell me, smartcapitalist.

[-] -2 points by smartcapitalist (143) 8 years ago

Yeah i noticed the price rise too. here is one that explains it http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203550304577138922045363052.html

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23316) 8 years ago

Okay. I paid $5.15 for a strawberry smoothie. They better watch it, because I won't be doing that as often as I used to. Remember Netflix?

I just don't understand. Starbucks is making great profits, shares rose 43%. Why is that not enough? Why do they need more profits?

[-] -3 points by smartcapitalist (143) 8 years ago

Who doesnt need more profits? And starbucks treats its employees quite well.

[-] 2 points by UncomonSense (386) 8 years ago

Greedy, avaricious fucking pig. More, more more! Profit, profit, profit!

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23316) 8 years ago

And employees don't get to share in that?

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 8 years ago

you dont really believe that do you? you only have to read history to know that most (not all) of the break throughs and inventions were not made by someone that had to work for a living. they were made by someone that had someone else paying the bills.. just like now.. most are made at corporations or the government that are paying the living expenses of the person that is doing the inventing creating and discovering.. there has not been an individual with out outside money paying for their livlihood that has invented anything.

[-] 0 points by warbles (164) 8 years ago

Ever heard of George Washington Carver? There have been THOUSANDS of innovations during the course of time made by people who are extremely unfortunate economically.

I have never made more than $30,000 per year, yet due to my relentless studying I am about to be in a very nice position in product development working for myself. My family has never taken a dime in charity, grants or food stamps even when my mother was homeschooling me and my four siblings on one $50,000 per year income. I've never had a day of formal education of any kind, yet I am expecting very good success ahead...

[-] 1 points by grapes (5232) 8 years ago

Please report back your experience with the good success ahead. We need real data.

[-] 0 points by warbles (164) 8 years ago

Well actually, I already have success, because part of succeeding is being happy with where you are. I shall report.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5232) 8 years ago

Good and best wishes!

[-] -1 points by skylar (-441) 8 years ago

ever hear of thomas edison?

[-] 1 points by bill1102inf2 (357) 8 years ago

Yeah, he took a need 'HOW do we have light at night' and invented a THING, the light bulb.

So, i take a need 'HOW do we provide people with a minimum amount of $ to survive/and/or prosper', and I invent a THING, a system that takes money from the wealthy 1% horders and distributes it to the masses.

There, I invented it b@@@ches. I accept $1.00 for my invention. Now use it.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 8 years ago

allowed the impoverished youth to live and work in the basement of his Elizabeth, New Jersey home.

so he had someone paying his way that allowed him the time ..

[-] -1 points by skylar (-441) 8 years ago

he was born in 1847. he began his experiments in 1852. he did not come from money , he worked as a telegrapher until 1869. he moved to nyc and slept in a room of the company he worked for. he didn't open his menlo park lab until 1876

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 8 years ago

Yeah, Keep 'em poor or they won't innovate. That's a good one. Got any others?

[+] -4 points by Kirby (104) 8 years ago

To all people? One has to earn an income, correct? One has to pay a doctor for services, correct? Doesn't a person have to save for retirement? Don't people pay for products and services with their own money, not someone else's? What am I missing in your logic?

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (23316) 8 years ago

You are missing the fact that this economy does not work well for the majority of people. I am talking about workers earning enough money to live decently and not need "entitlements." And, yes, I'm talking about all people. What do you want to do, leave some out on the street?

[-] 2 points by eyeknowstuff (9) 8 years ago

Perhaps there were would be more money if we weren't being forced to fund those entitlements. Perhaps with that flexibility would come jobs that are being kept on hold. I agree that some people do need 'entitlements', incapacitated by poor health and old age. However, I have a fair amount of personal experience with growing up poor and we never took or asked for any kind of assistance. It didn't occur to my mother. I am sure she had many sleepless nights then got up each morning to try to move things a little bit forward. And, I don't see how you can say that our economy does not work well for the majority of the people. As a matter of fact, it does! It is difficult to be successful financially, it should be. Personally, I am 53 and we are doing all right.... now. You would probably label us as wealthy. But, we are still trying to get where we can be prepared for our old age and we don't see retirement at 65. We plan to be working well into our 70s. When we started our business 18 years ago, our salary put us at poverty level or below. But, we had enough food, we had a TV, cable, and two cars (used). Our splurge was a Friday night at Borders. I have had personal experience with Poverty and I am glad that experience was here in America.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23316) 8 years ago

Oh, gee, we are not on the same page at all. I don't think it is okay that the median wage in this country is $26,000 when corporate profits are at an all time high. 1 in 7 Americans are on food stamps, 49 million have no health insurance, 22% of our children live in poverty.

30 years ago the average CEO earned 40 times the wage of the average worker. Today, the average CEO earns 343 times the wage of the average worker. I have a problem with these statistics and the greed that created them. This is not the country I want to live in.

I've heard the argument before that the poor in America are not poor compared to other countries around the world. No kidding. I'm well aware. That in no way justifies the concentration of wealth at the top of the 1%.

Yes, I do agree with you that it would be lovely to get rid of the entitlement programs, so long as everyone has the opportunity of a decent paying job.

[-] 2 points by eyeknowstuff (9) 8 years ago

What is your definition of 'decent paying'? As I said, our salary was at or below poverty level. I was pregnant and we didn't have insurance. I was concerned but, I never thought, and still don't, that it was anyone's fault, or anyone elses reponsibility. As a matter of fact, we ended up owing a large hospital bill. That was one of the best things that ever happened to me. I had the opportunity to actually see what the hospital was charging us for and how much. I had to be responsible for having items removed from the bill. I took a devastating $20,000 bill (1994 #s) and got it reduced to $5400 (which was still huge to us). More responsibility and less fear-mongering beautifulworld. There will never be enough 'decent paying' jobs for Everyone. That is a Utopia of some kind. By the way, even with all of our hardships, I do think it is a beautiful world. All that we have could go away tomorrow and that is not a pleasant thought but, I know we would make it. And, drumroll please, I have a disability. Imagine that, and I still don't feel that my government owes me anything. And, believe me, many people have suggested that I should get disability payments. Just my 2 cents.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23316) 8 years ago

Decent paying would mean something like a living wage where people who work full time can afford to have children and provide things like housing, food, transportation, healthcare, education, etc. for their family.

Hubris will get you nowhere, eyeknowstuff.

[-] 1 points by eyeknowstuff (9) 8 years ago

Hubris? Hmmm.... just sharing my personal experience and thoughts. How many children? What kind of food? What type of transportation, new - used - sporty? Education is already available, although the state of it is abhorrent. Lot's of subsidized transportation around. When we didn't have insurance we still received healthcare, we just had to pay for it. I don't think it is our economy's (or our government's) responsbility to be sure I can afford children, housing, transportation, etc. That is MY responsibility! You still seem to be arguing for unlimited Utopia for all, unless one can afford it. Then it should be taken away.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23316) 8 years ago

How many children? That is a weird question. Do you want to limit a person's human right to procreate?

You don't understand what a social contract is. You don't understand what political philosophy is. You don't understand that an economic system exists to serve the people and not vice versa. Read the preamble of our constitution where it states that the government should promote the general welfare of the American people.

I never said people should be handed things, but in this country, with all the wealth that abounds and concentrates at the top, no one should be living in poverty or on the brink of financial disaster.

[-] 1 points by eyeknowstuff (9) 8 years ago

I was asking how many children You thought a 'living' wage should have to support. Unfortunately, when one is losing a debate it is all too common to get personal. This has become boring beautifulworld. TTFN.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23316) 8 years ago


[-] -1 points by skylar (-441) 8 years ago

he has no logic, just an entitlement mentality.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 8 years ago

Many of the jobs that we previously had that allowed us to earn those things have been shipped off to China. But the Chinese work for so little, that they can't have the things that we once earned.

We just want to have those jobs back so people can earn those things again. We don't want something for nothing. (I say "we", but I have a job, by the way).

Of course, it would be better for us to create new jobs making the things that the Chinese really want to buy from us, like high technology, rather than cheap consumer stuff.

[-] 2 points by eyeknowstuff (9) 8 years ago

We can't get those jobs back. Pandora's box has been opened. We have to adjust to a different landscape now. We will not be the manufacturers that we once were and we need to move with that shift. If anyone can do that America can.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 8 years ago

We don't have to get cheap consumer goods manufacturing jobs back. Instead we should target the market for high tech infrastructural products. There is a big demand for such right here in the US and throughout the world and we could dominate it.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 8 years ago

The need for most of our infrastructure will be gone in 20-30 years and we will have simply wasted resources. Communications, power, hell maybe even waste water treatment will either be so small per unit or made efficient enough that the only thing we will need to maintain are street lights and the streets. Simply pumping out products of any kind, large or small is now an unreliable way to sustain labor and personal income at all. In fact our near future only requires about 10% of the world population to maintain the world for the rest of us. We are headed right for what we have been working towards and for since man made the wheel, an easier way to live. Welcome to automation, welcome to the machine.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 8 years ago

I suppose that if the elites have their way with nuclear war as they desire, that our population may well be reduced to that level.

Otherwise I would see an expansion of infrastructure, not only making all of the earth habitable, but eventually other planets as well.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 8 years ago


I am headed to bed or I would debate the obvious with you. Instead I offer you this video since you are new to the idea of conflict between labor income and automation. I myself have been working all night on updates for my content management system, E1.3 . It already makes it as easy to manage a website as your facebook, but now I'm adding RSS and ICS(ICal) functionality to it so it integrates with Google calendar and Outlook. The software I produce allows a restaurant owner to have the same scale of technology for their website as CNN without the need to pay for the size of design team CNN has on payroll. This is one example of automation cutting out labor. Without it, I could not compete as a web developer.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 8 years ago

Automation may "cut out labor" as you say, but scientific creativity creates more demand for it. For example, the space program, created a whole new industry, the aerospace industry, that provided many good paying jobs to highly skilled workers.

The problem is, we gone off this path to a great extent.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 8 years ago

The reason it takes more skill is because that skill is needed to operate and maintain the automation that cuts out labor. As the skill required increases, the need for labor decreases. As I said, I imagine it will eventually hold steady at around 10%. Most of that will be for running agriculture. The best bet is to find new ways of exploiting the entertainment industry and as you said, space. That may actually yield some pretty good stuff.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

There is a large Chinese market for US muskrat pelts.

Up to $10 a pelt.

How good are your trapping skills?

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 8 years ago

There is also a demand for high tech US goods in China. Things that would help them develop their economy. We could reduce our trade deficit substantially by selling to them.

However, the elites promote the fear that China would use these products for military purposes.

[-] -2 points by skylar (-441) 8 years ago

you're missing nothing, the ows sheeple want free everything for everyone.

[+] -4 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

"provide for all people"......paid for by whom?

the economic system is inanimate and doesn't "provide" which is verb, and action word.....provision must have a "provider" who do you supposed that should be? Those who don't contribute to the system which they expect to provide for them.....or those who make weak or marginal contributions?

Tell me....who is the provider?

[-] 4 points by beautifulworld (23316) 8 years ago

The aggregate wealth. Right, the economy is inanimate and so humans can make it work for the benefit of all humans, not just a select few.


[+] -4 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

the aggregate wealth? as if it is something that just "exists" and not something that was created by someone.....are you really that foolish?

what do YOU hope to gain from the plunder of those more successful than you?

[-] 4 points by beautifulworld (23316) 8 years ago

Profits are created by the labor productivity of the working people and exploited by the wealthy elite and corporations. Who are you kidding? They are the ones pillaging the workers.

[-] -2 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

actually that is incorrect in almost all enterprises other than pure physical labor entities like simple landscaping and such...

It is the organization and management of the labor that creates the results and rewards....simple labor itself could not accomplish any of the modern advances, without the creation, organization, and management of systems of organized labor we'd still be digging with simple tools, eating course food, living is simple shelters and wearing animal skins.....

labor didn't change the human condition, organization of labor did.....if you think workers are exploited in a universal sense, why don't you consider who they would perform their labor without the organization that directs it and divides it for benefit of all

[-] 6 points by beautifulworld (23316) 8 years ago

Not true. It matters not who organizes the labor or how it is organized. In the end, the profits are the result of that labor.

"the organization that directs it and divides it for the benefit of all" Huh? The benefit of all? Are you kidding? Right now, one-half of all Americans earn less than $26,000 per year. That is not acceptable.


[+] -4 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

You have no idea what you are talking about......do you claim that labor organized itself and created more efficient means, procedures, tools and machinery and create organizations to properly organize those things?

Of course they didn't....the average laborer has a minimum effect on profits, it's only when collectively organized and managed that it produces more than marginal results...

the fact that one-half of americans (which includes part time jobs, children and contract workers) says more about those people themselves than it does the system.....but you and those like you pretend that people aren't responsible for themselves and are just victims of the fact that they aren't in possession of marketable skills....it's bullshit

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23316) 8 years ago

You're wrong. Labor is made up of all the workers including management. Members of management provide labor as well, and their wages are part of the cost of labor, too.

You like to pretend this country is not in trouble. We have big trouble, slammersworld, if one-half of our working citizens are earning so little and that doesn't even include the millions who are unemployed or those who have dropped out of the labor market.

[-] 0 points by DiogenesTruth (108) 8 years ago

Its up to the individual, starting in elementary school to work hard at becoming extremely skilled. An American worker who is no more skilled than a Chinese laborer is a failure.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23316) 8 years ago

You really think the world has to be this fierce?

[-] -2 points by DiogenesTruth (108) 8 years ago

Yes. Walmart would not exist if the world was not fierce. People want to pay less for goods and services. You cant possibly be this naive.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23316) 8 years ago

Okay. So dumb Americans, we are. We pay less for the goods and nobody tells us how many WalMart employees are on food stamps and medicare because, you know, the Walton's need a little more money. They don't care if the American people pay for that. Did you know that six members of the Walton family have as much wealth as the bottom 30% of Americans.

[-] -2 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

I don't deny we are in trouble, the disparity in participation and contribution are far in excess of income disparity....and until that changes, income shares won't change

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23316) 8 years ago

So let's try to fix it. Reactionary methods will get us nowhere.

[-] -2 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

you can't make positive change by demand...

The philosophy of OWS is wrong and misplaced

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23316) 8 years ago

OWS is barely making demands. On this forum we try to discuss things.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 years ago

It is simple labor that streamlined industry and raised productivity. I know I was there. The boss wants cost savings, he says do it. The rest of us analyze what is currently being done and look for where we can eliminate wasted movement for one, we analyze how a process is run from A to Z to see if there are improvements that can be made in tooling or equipment which will help increase the speed and consistent quality of the process as well as help each individual in that process. I did this phase or worked in this phase of the business for over 18 years. The boss took the credit and the bonus and the pay increase.

So Fuck off with the notion that simple labor has nothing to do with success and profits.

The simple labor is the driving force of constant process improvement. This needs to be recognized and acknowledged/rewarded as is only "FAIR".

[-] 1 points by 1169 (204) 8 years ago

u never worked in a coal mine

[-] -2 points by Kirby (104) 8 years ago

Beautiful thinks that socialism will provide utopia for all. The fool forgets what has happened to the great socialist countries. They are broke, or going broke. Wtf?

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (23316) 8 years ago

You know what Kirby, you greedy people are forcing our hand. We wouldn't even have OWS had people like you not become so freaking greedy. I'm not looking for socialism. When did I ever say that? I'm looking for corporations to share the wealth so that everyone has enough. I don't give a damn how rich anyone gets. No one wants to stop a greedy grubber from having his material wealth. We just want everyone to have enough. 22% of American children living in poverty is just unacceptable.

[-] 1 points by TruthRightsFreedom (259) 8 years ago

beautifulworld, Not sure Kirby is defending the greedy grubbers, justifiably capitalism because it allows incentive, intuition and resorcefullness. For socialism to work the people need to have a well known and shared human purpose with unity around it. That would be the family unit based on uncondititopnal love with absolute values sought and found with the independent living.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23316) 8 years ago

He put that socialism tag on me. I never said socialism. He likes to call OWS supporters socialists. I would like for our capitalist system to work as well, but it needs more bells and whistles. Our economy needs to work for everyone, not just the wealthy and the corporations.

[-] 1 points by TruthRightsFreedom (259) 8 years ago

Ahhhhh, labeling, generalizations = cognitive infiltration. I've been hearing about that here.

We need a constitutional government.

[-] -1 points by Kirby (104) 8 years ago

"I'm looking for corporations to share the wealth." share? I think you want them to share by force and coercion. I am not greedy. I live quite modestly. I pay taxes, just like you. I don't expect a company to share with me beyond my wage and benefits we have agreed on. I've left jobs because I thought the company sucked. I wish all companies treated employees well, but in no way would I want legislation to impose morality on a company. Government fucks things up. Rarely does policy improve things, IMO.

[-] 1 points by TruthRightsFreedom (259) 8 years ago

Kirby, In reading your post, I don't really think you are a cognitive infiltrator. I'm considering that you are a lover of capitalism that hasn't addressed the damages such unbridled activity can have. I believe capitalism to be a very functional thing for one reason. It provides incentives to innovate and develop our human intellectual potential in ways that provide alternate and better ways of doing things.

I do not believe that unlimited profit is needed for this.

As soon as the business activity conducted capitalistically starts to exploit people or conditions in any way that is not commonly accepted amongst the people of the work force, it's passing that limit of acceptability.

Since we have never had a constitutional government on this continent in our lifetimes, the generalization that "Government fucks things up" is not quite accurate either.

I do agree that often committees "fucks things up" and that special, secret interests do that, but such is not the intent of government which is acting under the republic or that w create with an informed democracy. We have neither now. People much watchdog every move of government with vigilance OR, it gets to acting as you describe.

If I'm not mistaken, I think I may have described a position that beautifulworld could accept, and you may as well.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23316) 8 years ago

I say "you" because you defend the corporations. I don't want to ever have to force corporations to share the wealth but something has to be done with our economic system. It's not working.

I've left jobs too, but I had the ability to do that. Not everyone does. It is so easy to blame people for their situation. Even you admit that you wish companies treated their employees well. Is it so much to ask? There is a moral factor here. The economy should work for the benefit of the people and not vice versa.

I also saw that you called me a fool, thanks. And, btw the countries you call socialist, like Denmark and Sweden and Norway are doing just fine.

Here, read about how great things are in Denmark:


[-] 2 points by 1169 (204) 8 years ago

how is wanting to have a fair economic system utopia or socialist?

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

The provider is the guy who did the actual work.

[-] -2 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

which work? the organizing that creates the production, or the piece work that, alone, creates nothing of much value?

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

All the parts in the world are useless without someone to put them together.

All the gold in the ground is useless, without someone to dig it up, and smelt it.

All value stems from labor.

[-] -2 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

there are no parts to assemble without the investment, idea's and organization which creates them......without those things, man is reduced to digging in the ground with simple tools.....

All advancement comes from idea's, capital investment, and organization...

[-] 3 points by nucleus (3291) 8 years ago

Tell that to the Amish.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

there are no freeloading or entitled Amish......My Grandmother taught school for the Amish in Iowa, and I visited Amish homes many times.....they EARNED what they had.

[-] 2 points by nucleus (3291) 8 years ago

And built everything they have without investment capital.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

hahaha...that is not true, I guess you've never been to an Amish farm purchase.....when the shoeboxes of cash come out, huh?

They save and invest in their own lives, and they do share funds with each others and pay each other back without exception....

[-] 2 points by nucleus (3291) 8 years ago

investment capital n. Money invested in a business venture with an expectation of income, and recovered through earnings generated by the business over several years. It is generally understood to be used for capital expenditure rather than for day-to-day operations (working capital) or other expenses.


[-] -2 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

My friend you are the idiot because you try to play semantics with the word "investment"

If I give you money with the intent of you paying it back with interest, that is an investment........

your attempt to look intelligent has failed and you look more foolish than you did before...

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

You aren't very good at conceptual comprehension.

All value stems from labor.

Even Henry Ford understood this.

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 8 years ago

Sorry, sitting at one's desk and trying up a Excel spreadsheet doesn't "entitle" anyone to millions of dollars IMO.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

yeah, it's that easy to create and organize a commercial enterprise.....you callow fool


[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 8 years ago

Well yeah, that and a lot of daddy's $$$.

Tell me, how many Waltons have picked up a shovel at least once in their lives? Trumps? Kardashians? Did they work hard and "earn" their vast fortunes, or are they just mooching off of one wealthy family member?

[-] 0 points by Kirby (104) 8 years ago

Kim kardashian makes $40,000 for every damn tweet she does. Her ass ain't that pretty. Over 6 million last year she was paid to tweet. Only in America.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

2/3's of the Forbes 400 created their wealth from scratch.....no inheritance, no advantage....So, your cherry picking is an ineffective argument....and Sam Walton took it from a local/regional enterprise to an international force....in less that 25 years, for the benefit of millions, not just his heirs

The Kardashians are popular because Kim made a movie of herself fucking and the drooling pop-culture fools became interested...most of us weren't, ans aren't.....

Trump created far more than he inherited....

[-] 2 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 8 years ago

"2/3's of the Forbes 400 created their wealth from scratch.....no inheritance, no advantage....So, your cherry picking is an ineffective argument....and Sam Walton took it from a local/regional enterprise to an international force....in less that 25 years, for the benefit of millions, not just his heirs "

No, they didn't create their wealth from scratch. Not a single one. Do you know why? Because they had to HIRE PEOPLE to help their business make money!

Sam Walton wasn't out there by himself stocking all of the shelves, checking out each and every customer, moving the products from the suppliers to the distribution centers to the stores. He sure as hell didn't write a single line of code that maintains all of the vast computer systems that maintain the logictics. He didn't design the catalogs, or build the shopping carts, or build the buildings...

Nope, it takes millions upon millions of people to run Wal*Mart every day. Everyone from the truckers who ship the goods, to the stockers who put the goods on the shelves, to the people who process the orders at checkout, and all of the technical people behind-the-scenes are necessary to keep the company in business. If they all call in sick for a day, the company stops making money.

The Waltons NEED people to do these jobs, or they have nothing. Yet these people, who the company NEEDS to function, are rewarded with wages so low that they have to take out government money (Food Stamps aka your tax $) in order to survive.

It seems unfair to me that out of the MILLIONS of people who keep that company running day-in and day-out, only a handful receive the blunt of the profits. That's not fair, and THAT'S why you are wrong!

[-] -1 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

do you know what the profits vs gross payroll numbers are?

you make a big claim, can you back it up?

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

you made the assertion, I expect you to back it up...that is how debate and conversation work, I don't have to prove your assertions correct...that is your responsibility...

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 8 years ago

How about doing your own research?


[-] 1 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 8 years ago

You mean, like Wall Street, after they blow their gambling wad?

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

Funny how you all use the term "Wall Street" as if there is some combined leviathan of singular purpose individuals all pursuing the exact same end.......

which of course is false, there are a myriad of different people and goals in the commercial sector, and they compete with one another the idea that it is a integrated whole is just stupid...

Now, having said that, do you have a specific reference or references you would like to discuss, or are you another fool that just broad-brushes everyone more successful than you?

and as far a "gambling"..... investors invest the money of others at a risk, and every investor knows there is a risk.....

[-] 1 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 8 years ago

Would you prefer we use some other name? Like Money Mad Pirates?

See the Oscar winning documentary "INSIDE JOB" it's all about how WALL STREET used lobbyists and RepubliCONs to work on Congress to weaken regulations on WALL STREET, which allowed WALL STREET to go crazy with greed and indifference to the economy of the country they reside in, America. And gamble recklessly, causing untold carnage to millions of Americans.

Are you interested in the myriad of different Americans whose lives were ruined by WALL STREET's multiple criminal transgressions?

Would you list the reparations that the myriad of WALL STREET people have made for their costly transgressions?

Can you list the names of the people of WALL STREET who were responsible for the gambling risks that caused such costly debacle?

Please tell us who in WALL STREET was prosecuted for these costly gambling risks from which millions of Americans may never recover?

In the midst of the War on Terror and service to America, why should WALL STREET be exempt?

Considering the unparalleled costs of WALL STREET'S deliberate transgressions, why aren't the responsible people being prosecuted for domestic terrorism for committing the most costly and damaging terrorist act in American history?

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

so now a movie holds all the truths of the situation....get a clue, just because some partisan hack puts together a movie and it gets lauded by the left in hollywood doesn't make it some magnum opus to the truth...

and "Wall Street" is a public road in lower Manhattan, there is no cooperative effort by the investment banks to erode the customer base that the businesses they trade in use to earn their profits...that is simple stupidity...

As for recklessly gambling....no one who did not engage in the investments themselves, or took on risky mortgages were forced into things that they "may never recover" from....

....and this nonsense about Republicans weakening the regulations on "Wall Street" is sheer nonsense......if you are talking about the repeal of the separations of financial entities under under Glass Steagal you better check the facts...that was a broadly bipartisan bill and signed by a Democrat president....The Bush43 administration sought MORE regulatory control over the mortgage markets in 2003 and 2005 NOT less.....

Investment IS risk, people lose millions every day while others earn millions....there are no guarantees, and none are promised....

The job market is what caused the default of many loans, and others were caused by the borrowers taking more than they were able to ever afford, in the first place.......the decline didn't begin until nearly the beginning of 2008 and didn't really take hold until mid 2008....at that point the liberal democrat congress has been in complete control for 12-18 months and had busted the bank by doubling the yearly deficit....and passing onerous regulations which hit business right in the bottom line...which caused a need to adjust expenditures, which meant terminations and layoffs......effecting the paycheck to paycheck living people and sending them into default...

You really just accept what your told without researching the facts for yourself, don't you?

You need to stop watching and believing movies and go to a library.....

[-] 1 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 8 years ago

Mind your manners, Fascist, or I'll hit you with some broadmindedness and split your narrow-mind in half!

What do you know about Hollywood, documentaries or partisan hacks? Whoops, you got me on that last one... I'll bet you're president of the Krauthammer (THE PH King) fan club.

See: INSIDE JOB ~ http://www.sonyclassics.com/insidejob/ (There are many online sources to watch INSIDE JOB, this is one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fh3pikKEgcM)

Another Inside Job By PAUL KRUGMAN Published: March 13, 2011

Count me among those who were glad to see the documentary “Inside Job” win an Oscar. The film reminded us that the financial crisis of 2008, whose aftereffects are still blighting the lives of millions of Americans, didn’t just happen — it was made possible by bad behavior on the part of bankers, regulators and, yes, economists.

What the film didn’t point out, however, is that the crisis has spawned a whole new set of abuses, many of them illegal as well as immoral. And leading political figures are, at long last, showing some outrage. Unfortunately, this outrage is directed, not at banking abuses, but at those trying to hold banks accountable for these abuses.

The immediate flashpoint is a proposed settlement between state attorneys general and the mortgage servicing industry. That settlement is a “shakedown,” says Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama. The money banks would be required to allot to mortgage modification would be “extorted,” declares The Wall Street Journal. And the bankers themselves warn that any action against them would place economic recovery at risk.

All of which goes to confirm that the rich are different from you and me: when they break the law, it’s the prosecutors who find themselves on trial.

To get an idea of what we’re talking about here, look at the complaint filed by Nevada’s attorney general against Bank of America. The complaint charges the bank with luring families into its loan-modification program — supposedly to help them keep their homes — under false pretenses; with giving false information about the program’s requirements (for example, telling them that they had to default on their mortgages before receiving a modification); with stringing families along with promises of action, then “sending foreclosure notices, scheduling auction dates, and even selling consumers’ homes while they waited for decisions”; and, in general, with exploiting the program to enrich itself at those families’ expense.

The end result, the complaint charges, was that “many Nevada consumers continued to make mortgage payments they could not afford, running through their savings, their retirement funds, or their children’s education funds. Additionally, due to Bank of America’s misleading assurances, consumers deferred short-sales and passed on other attempts to mitigate their losses. And they waited anxiously, month after month, calling Bank of America and submitting their paperwork again and again, not knowing whether or when they would lose their homes.”

Still, things like this only happen to losers who can’t keep up their mortgage payments, right? Wrong. Recently Dana Milbank, the Washington Post columnist, wrote about his own experience: a routine mortgage refinance with Citibank somehow turned into a nightmare of misquoted rates, improper interest charges, and frozen bank accounts. And all the evidence suggests that Mr. Milbank’s experience wasn’t unusual.

Notice, by the way, that we’re not talking about the business practices of fly-by-night operators; we’re talking about two of our three largest financial companies, with roughly $2 trillion each in assets. Yet politicians would have you believe that any attempt to get these abusive banking giants to make modest restitution is a “shakedown.” The only real question is whether the proposed settlement lets them off far too lightly.

What about the argument that placing any demand on the banks would endanger the recovery? There’s a lot to be said about that argument, none of it good. But let me emphasize two points.

First, the proposed settlement only calls for loan modifications that would produce a greater “net present value” than foreclosure — that is, for offering deals that are in the interest of both homeowners and investors. The outrageous truth is that in many cases banks are blocking such mutually beneficial deals, so that they can continue to extract fees. How could ending this highway robbery be bad for the economy?

Second, the biggest obstacle to recovery isn’t the financial condition of major banks, which were bailed out once and are now profiting from the widespread perception that they’ll be bailed out again if anything goes wrong. It is, instead, the overhang of household debt combined with paralysis in the housing market. Getting banks to clear up mortgage debts — instead of stringing families along to extract a few more dollars — would help, not hurt, the economy.

In the days and weeks ahead, we’ll see pro-banker politicians denounce the proposed settlement, asserting that it’s all about defending the rule of law. But what they’re actually defending is the exact opposite — a system in which only the little people have to obey the law, while the rich, and bankers especially, can cheat and defraud without consequences. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/opinion/14krugman.html?_r=4&hp

Citizens United was decided by the Roberts "Partisan Hack" Supreme Court. But Obama just happened to be president and Dems had a technical majority in the Senate at the time of the Crime.

Does this mean you dirty RepubliCONs will again rewrite history and say Obama and Dems passed Citizens United? Just like Cons say Dems caused the wolds greatest international bank heist in human history, which in truth was caused by Bush and RepubliCON Laissez Faire (no watchdog) governing??

If you can just get a complete and utterly malicious debauchery to just take it's time to fall apart and explode until the other side takes over (in appearance, at least) then it won't be your fault at all, IT WILL BE ALL THERE'S!! Nice touch, Cons.

Oh yeah, I forgot, scurrilous attempted homeowners caused the international economic collapse, not a bunch of hedge-fund managers and bond traders who knew they could make a killing even if they destabilized the whole world economy, knowing they'd bear ZERO responsibility. Whoops, they were right.

And yeah, nobody forced those whiny victims in on this any more than Bernnie Madoff's vics were forced, or those whining victims of the 1918 flu.

Accept what we're told?? That's Con MO, authoritarian obedience, believe and don't ask questions, or else. That's not how we roll at all. We don't even believe each other 'til we see the facts.

Go to A LIBRARY??? What library would we find your opposite world info in?? Ronnie Raygun's "I can't remember" history of denials?? Or W's library of colored-in place mats (from Sizzler to Applebees)??

You RepubliCONS are just all hearts and minds, aren't you?

The house of cards of public opinion is falling, and you can't re-write history fast enough, can you? All that truth flooding in on you like that, like a big old vampire caught in the bright shining sunlight of a bright sunny day. Must be hell for you.

Also watch Moyers & Company, Bill Moyers came back to help the people understand why the nation has gotten so sick of Con and Big Biz chicanery they occupied the nation. PBS weekly and on line: http://billmoyers.com/

[-] -1 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

Polly want a cracker?...

Nice parroting job, ever think and research for yourself?

Another brainwashed hater.....typical

[-] 1 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 8 years ago

Classic Con RECRIMINATION. The standard fallback from failed PETTIFOGGING!

I know you are, but what am I?

You should read the article I just posted, it's all about your Con-damaged mind: The Truth About the Conservative Mind: Why Reactionaries from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palin Have Fought Real Liberty

[-] -1 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

HAHAHAHA!!! yeah, was that written by another avowed socialist, or ivory tower academic separated from reality.....

[-] 1 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 8 years ago

What is something [good] Republicons have done for the American people in the last decade?

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

well...let's see, 8+ million jobs created, and the largest period of growth in our nations history from 2004-2007.....

A tax cut that put more money in EVERYONES pocket in 2003

In 1997 a Republican controlled congress lowered the capital gains rate, and in the subsequent 4 years, deficits fell to the lowest rate we've seen in almost 3 decades......

The Public debt as of today is 15.2 Trillion dollars, (using FY 1993 as the beginning point) the part of that debt created by expenditures authorized under Republican Congressional control (where spending originates...feel free to consult the Constitution if you have any doubts about what entity authorizes spending) was: 4.043 Trillion (FY1996-2007) 12 total years = 336 Billion average yearly deficit

The total of Democrat Congressional control expenditures 5.616 Trillion (FY1994-94, FY2008-2011) 6 total years = 936 Billion average yearly deficit..

The Republicans are outspent by democrats by 178%...so there is also that.....

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 8 years ago

I think that as tax payers we should advocate policies that "provide" productive jobs for the unemployed. The more we do this, the less taxes we will have to pay to support them.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

there's that word "provide" again......and what will they do? in these fantasy utopia jobs.....and how will that add to the private economy?

[-] 2 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 8 years ago

Why does the economy have to be private,When everybody is expected to work.How about a Public economy .Why is every thing supposed to be private.Yet when things don't pan out losses are to be subsidised by the public.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 8 years ago

Funny you should ask. One on the most important needs would be to rebuild the country's C and D rated infrastructure. This stuff is all a disaster waiting to happen.

If this were done on a wide scale, many products and materials would be needed, which could help reanimate our dying manufacturing sector.

Rebuilt transportation systems would allow commerce to function more efficiently.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

Billions of dollars are already extracted from the private economy each year and spent on other things, including 787 billion dollars of additional funds in 2009, of which less that 5% went to "shovel ready" infrastructure projects......there is no reason to believe more money will accomplish this goal....

the government already extracts a quarter of the production of the private economy......

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 8 years ago

Yes, that's terrible. But this "underdevelopment" process is what third world countries have been put through for a long time by global finance. In the US, I don't doubt that it is the same.

But wouldn't the solution be to ensure that the money went to the real projects that produced positive outcomes in economic development? A country's first world status is pretty much determined by its infrastructure, isn't it?

The problem, is that we are "colonized" by Wall Street and the City of London. These entities make up a kind of empire today, and we have to reassert our independence from them to attain the development that we desire.

[-] -3 points by Galt01 (55) 8 years ago

yes - you are correct. so hold your representative accountable.

[-] 2 points by rayl (1007) 8 years ago

i don't have enough money to hold my representative accountable. :(

[-] -2 points by Galt01 (55) 8 years ago

can you organize a group like the Tea Party? no money is a cop out. you have the numbers if enough people agree with you.

[-] 3 points by UncomonSense (386) 8 years ago

No money, my ass. The tea party was founded by former House Majority Leader and lobbyist Dick Armey and funded by the multi-billionaire Koch brothers.

There are occupations and support groups in over 1,500 cities and communities in the US and more than 1,000 more around the world. But you wouldn't know that because it's not on FOX or Rush.

[-] -2 points by Galt01 (55) 8 years ago

and Occupy has no Union money or Soros money I suppose?

[-] 1 points by rayl (1007) 8 years ago

no money is a cop out? it would seem that money is an integral part of the political process everywhere. :)

[+] -4 points by FreedomIn2012 (-36) from Hempstead, NY 8 years ago

That is NOT a right!! We have a gov't that we voted for over the years!!

[-] 2 points by UncomonSense (386) 8 years ago

Tell that to the Supreme Court that denied a recount and appointed Bush.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23316) 8 years ago

Don't worry. We'll be voting again.

[-] 1 points by UncomonSense (386) 8 years ago

Your vote didn't count then, what makes you think it will count now?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

my public opinions(vote) is public

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23316) 8 years ago

Things are changing, my friend.

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 8 years ago

none of the people i voted for has won over the years, like ross perot, i havent voted the two party corrupt system since Ross, but then maybe no one else knew it was corrupt yet. hmmmm

[+] -5 points by LaraLittletree (-850) from Scarsdale, NY 8 years ago

It's bought and paid for by corrupt labor unions, silly rabbit.

[-] 5 points by flip (7101) 8 years ago

i guess that why unions have been getting so strong over the last 30 years - boy are you stupid

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23316) 8 years ago

Exactly, flip, I couldn't be bothered responding. Glad you did.

[+] -5 points by LaraLittletree (-850) from Scarsdale, NY 8 years ago

Have a good weekend..I am going to Mohegan Sun to party with my 1% friends. Party on ! God Bless America.

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 8 years ago

Wii Bon Ton be with you?

[-] 0 points by BonTon (57) 8 years ago

I wish. Would love to drop a few bucks with my native american friends and party with Lara in the nutmeg state.

nice handle nobnot

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 8 years ago

have fun - make sure you tip all those people who make your weekend possible - maids and clerks and waitresses - they are probably union people and make big bucks. tip them well - they have good memories! here is a bit from ralph - "but millions of people in this country, one out of every three full-time workers, are earning Wal-Mart wages, many of them not far over the $7.25 rate."

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 8 years ago

What do you base your attacks on.If any thing is corrupt we must agree it is our system of corporate goverment. All corruption is brought about by Greed. The central commandment of theRepublican party and now being adopted by the Democrats. No in order to free ourselves frpm Corruption we must go outside the present system.

[-] 5 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 8 years ago

Why don't all you people who disagree with OWS start your own discussion group rather than disrupting ours and let us get on with a practical discussion of how to move forward and topple the oppressive, violent and antisocial society in which we live and build a better, more just, more loving, more egalitarian, more peaceful and more environmentally sound society free of all oppression, exploitation and hate?

[+] -6 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

why don't you go find another country to protest in instead of disrupting ours.....so we can move forward and increase investment and participation and reduce the freeloading entitlement whores, so we can build a just and equitably rewarded society based on results and the belief that all men have the ability and carry the responsibility to create and provide for their own individual lives.....so we can all exist together with the pride of accomplishment and self-relience

[-] 6 points by beautifulworld (23316) 8 years ago

"freeloading entitlement whores." Good grief, we'll never get anywhere with that kind of talk. We wouldn't need entitlements if corporations and the wealthy would share a bit. It's really not that complicated. Does the Walton family of WalMart really need as much wealth as the bottom 30% of Americans? I bet many of the workers of WalMart qualify for foodstamps. Shame on those Waltons.

[-] 3 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 8 years ago

'Freeloading entitlement whores' is rather inflammatory language. We should probably just stick with calling them the 1%.' ; )

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23316) 8 years ago

OMG. That is funny.

[-] 3 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 8 years ago

Most woman that work at walmart carries three cards. A walmart asso identification card. A Walmart discount card. And a foodstamp Acess card.Just another example of the American taxpayer having to subsidise The largest corporate employer .

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23316) 8 years ago

That's what I'm trying to get at. Despicable. Thank you.

[-] 0 points by BonTon (57) 8 years ago

Most women working at Walmart? What's your source for that?

[-] -1 points by BonTon (57) 8 years ago

That's your source? Thx, try again. First, it doesn't support the claim "most women that work at Walmart" are on food stamps. Second, what the Dem pol does claim about Walmart in Ohio was deemed only 'half-true' by factcheckers.


[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23316) 8 years ago

Half true. That's pretty good. So, half the women at WalMart in Ohio are on food stamps. Fabulous.

Look yourself. Google Walmart and foodstamps. Loads of stuff comes up.

There is so much about how we taxpayers support WalMart I didn't know which to choose.






[-] -2 points by BonTon (57) 8 years ago

"most women" "half true" whatever.
it's not like we care about facts or truth, right? whatever, it's OWS! Believe!

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23316) 8 years ago

You can't face the fact that Wal-Mart is ripping off the American people. Do you think it is un-American to say that?

And, I just gave you a bunch of links, there are hundreds more.

[-] -2 points by BonTon (57) 8 years ago

I didn't ask for a bunch of links about walmart. I asked for support for cJessgo's assertion about "most women" at walmart being on food stamps. You havent provided it.

Walmart isn't ripping off the American people; it actually has very low prices, which the American people seem to appreciate. Bloomingdales, OTOH, now they're ripping off the American people!

(And no, dear, it's not unAmerican of you to criticize WalMart. It's just reflexively pro-union, but you often seem to be singing from that songbook.)

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (23316) 8 years ago

You are so funny, BonTon. You just can't face it. Corporate greed has taken over your nation.

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 8 years ago

It is always the same private profits, public subsidies.What makes these people think that we need a private economy is beyond comprehension. Oh I know It has always been like that so it must always be like that.An economy based on need not greed.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23316) 8 years ago

Right, I think.

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 8 years ago

Is Walmart paying it's workers less than what the rest of the industry is paying? If not, the Waltons have nothing be be 'ashamed' about.

[-] 2 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 8 years ago

Yes they do. They set the standard.Have shatterd thousands of small store owners.decimated whole towns in rual areas. Lead the way in expotation of american jobs.are a drain on the american Taxpayer.Have never had a property tax increase that was not fought with an army of attorneys.Promote slave labor standards here and abroad.

[-] -1 points by smartcapitalist (143) 8 years ago

The set the standard in terms of prices but they have to comply with state level minimum wage requirements.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23316) 8 years ago

I wouldn't hold anybody to the industry standard, pathetic as it is. If they aren't, then all in the industry should be ashamed.

[+] -5 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

they do share the wealth, they share it with those who invest and those who perform tasks for which they are compensated.....

"Need" is not found in the Constitution anywhere...need is the determination of the individual earner to decide, not you, or anyone else with your envy and covetous philosophy

[-] 4 points by beautifulworld (23316) 8 years ago

I am neither envious nor covetous. I don't care about money. Money doesn't make me happy. For goodness sake, why would you want to live in a country where 22% of the children live in poverty. What is good about that? Why do you defend that?

A capitalist economy is not found in the constitution either, but it does say that the government should promote the general welfare of the American people. If people like you do not want to put the bells and whistles on capitalism to make it work better for everyone then you force us to push harder.

[-] -2 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

why do YOU defend those who create children without the resources to care for them....why do you defend the abdication of personal responsibility?

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23316) 8 years ago

Because I come from a very different place than you. I come from the human race. Where are you from slammers?


[-] 0 points by beautifulworld (23316) 8 years ago

Is that supposed to be funny? It's not.

[+] -4 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

what does that hyperbolic and deflective response have to do with question I asked? You prefer the failures to the successes? You are likely one of those who calls it compassion to support those who refuse to support themselves instead of allowing the motivation of consequences and struggle motivate them to grow into better people

That is false compassion, and more akin to keeping pets than enabling human achievement

those like you weaken the human race

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 8 years ago

and for those that dont.. are we to just euthenize them? you have to come up with something better than the hope that all people have the intelligence or guidance to be successful. they dont. what are you to do with them?

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23316) 8 years ago

You are ridiculous. You are the one who uses hyperbole with your statements about "entitlement whores." I'm merely pointing out that I care about people. You don't. You care about money. I was giving you more credit for being smarter. Do I really have to point out to you that our economy is not providing opportunity to people right now. If half of Americans are earning so little, and so many are unemployed and out of the labor market, then where the hell are they supposed to go for opportunity.

You like to pretend (maybe because it makes you feel better assuming you do have a conscience) that people are poor because they are lazy. They don't work hard. They don't have skills. Right? Am I right? That is how you justify the poverty in this country and the fact that half of Americans are financially fragile. Well, I have news for you. Most poor people work harder than you ever will. You haven't got a clue.

[-] -2 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

You are the ridiculous one.....you claim to care about people and yet you enable their poor behavior, dismiss their bad decisions, and don't seek to educate them or allow them to be educated by consequence.....

You want to make the problem go away, and you don't care how, you want to believe that the world is sunshine and rainbows and that if you just "care" and "love" enough (without the actions that back it up) everything will be good times and happiness.....

The problem with that is that unless the lessons of bad behavior are learned the behavior is repeated and if repeated long enough it is installed in the psyche as the way things are.....there are no physical or genetic differences in those who succeed and those who fail, the only difference is in behavior, the ability to learn and understanding....

It is apparent in the words you choose: "our economy is not providing opportunity to people right now".....what your philosophy is.......do you think most of the successes of the world waited around for the world to "provide" them an opportunity? If you do, you lack any knowledge of the personal stories of those who have succeeded....and I am not talking just about large successes, everyone who experiences some level of personal success goes through the same experiences of failure on some level many many times......opportunity is "made" or "recognized"..not provided....

I will tell you EXACTLY where to go to find opportunity: find a demand and fill it, if it syncs with one of your personal abilities...great! if not, then you learn and build new abilities....there are hundreds if not millions of things that people need to have done and would pay you, or others to do...

I had a friend in college who started a delivery service in high-rise buildings to deliver from restaurants who didn't deliver themselves.....he would get the orders from the various businesses in the building and pick up the food for a nominal charge (a dollar, if I remember correctly)...he worked 3 hours a day and made the equivalent of what most of us made working many more hours.....

People are poor because they have the wrong philosophy, not because they are lazy...laziness is a manifestation of the bad philosophy in some, another is doing less or only what they are told or nagged to do, if you want to earn more, you do more...and eventually you are paid for doing more, or given the opportunity to do more for more pay.....that is how it works.....and if you don't understand that, your philosophy is wrong...

As for skills, they may have skills, but they often don't develop them, or keep them current, or they have personal issues with authority, or other problems that make them unattractive to the marketplace...if you want to earn more you have to become attractive to the marketplace....

The reason most Americans are financially fragile is that they spend all, or more than they earn.....the oldest, best, financial advice in the world is to live on less than you earn and save or invest the rest...and adjust and be responsible for your lifestyle by making reasonable choices, and not irresponsibly living haphazardly, or without goals....

As for how hard I work....now that I am approaching middle age I DON"T work as hard as I have in the past....but, that is because I recognized opportunities and earned my way to this point...I have delivered papers on two separate routes, done field work on farms, washed dishes in a busy restaurant, stocked shelves at a discount store, worked as a busboy and waiter, done landscaping, unloaded trucks, construction work, worked in a dry cleaners/laundry, shoveled snow, and many other manual labor jobs.....often two at a time...and in every case I exceeded my pay with my efforts which provided me with opportunities that others didn't get because of their marginal efforts...

See, I'ved lived "poor", and been homeless and broke...and the philosophy of those who live that way, and the effort level and personal behavior they exhibit is exactly the reason why they stayed in the position they were in and why I, and several friends, transcended the situation......

I doubt you will find someone "poor" who has worked harder than me for as long.....it is YOU who haven't got a clue

[-] 3 points by UncomonSense (386) 8 years ago

It all the fault of the poor ... how many times have we heard that old chestnut trotted out by those who exploit others for their own benefit?

The "poor" often work multiple jobs at pittance rates just to survive at a marginal level. Try waiting tables for less than minimum wage or stocking at WalMart as a no-benefit temp dependent on Medicaid for health care.

You are a colossal fucking idiot, blinded by greed and avarice, spoon fed a diet of hate from corporate purveyors that you lap up as if it were mother's milk.

You are the problem with this country, because of your blind ignorance of reality. You are a witless tool of forces beyond your comprehension.

[-] -2 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

I have done both, dipshit......and I evolved my skills and abilities and no longer have to stock shelves at a discount store or wait tables......

Your blind ignorance is palpable.....did you read about those things on a liberal blog? What are YOUR struggles in life and what did you do to rise above them? Or are you a spoiled suburb dweller who THINKS, or FEELS they know something about the plight of those with less income, and what makes, and keeps them in that postion....

I can introduce you to some of my former neighbors from the trailer park we lived in after my parents divorced, or those who frequented the plasma donation clinic I frequented when I was homeless so I could afford to eat.....maybe YOU should pull your head out of your ass and help find ways to assist people in believing they CAN rise above their circumstances, instead of convincing them they must remain their and be supported by others..

Fuck You and your ignorant Ass........

[-] 2 points by UncomonSense (386) 8 years ago

Congratulations on rising above your circumstances. Now try to rise above yourself, you inbred ignorant trailer park hick. And good luck with that. :)

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

You're certainly well on your way to becoming a judgmental old cuss.

Was that your original plan, or something you just fell into?

[-] -1 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

I have earned my judgement and will happily submit to it's parameters myself......I judge others much less harshly than I judge myself......

But because of my experiences I KNOW people are more capable and can achieve more than they think, or know...and it only requires continuous motion, it's not THAT difficult....except the "not quitting" part...you aren't a failure until you accept that you are.....even if you fail it can be just a step to success if you keep moving.....

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

Gotcha beat bitch!

45+ years here.

Spring chicken..........you are.

Inexperienced hack.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

not by enough to matter.......

and I'm not the one who can't make it in the system and are complaining about what is......

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

You sure do whine a lot for someone who's claimed to have "made it"............

How's the world record coming along?

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

Then what is it you're complaining about?

You sure do a lot of it.

It's just kind of dense, and hard to sort through.

[-] 1 points by Budcm (208) 8 years ago

Good shot kid! I was born in a shack on a hill in a lumber town in 1924. Mom said you could throw a cat through the cracks in the wall. That was a step up from my sister's birth. She was born in an abandoned railroad car on a siding. I'm sorry all of you had it so hard.

A stint in the navy during both WWII and Korea, followed by four years in the National guard bought me 12 years in the military. I picked up a masters degree and taught mathematics for 25 years. I got my own company in the '50's and held a ships masters ticket for 50 years. A heart attack in 2003 finally put me almost under the ground. Since then I have written and published 5 books. I guess I was just lucky.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

Yeah, your not very sharp in a philosophical discussion, you leftist automatons don't really have much beyond what you've been fed through the media and your social circles, when the discussion ventures outside those parameters you are lost and resort to repetition and parroting things you've heard or read from others.....

It's sad really

[-] -2 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

Unfortunately, "Budcm"......I think those such as yourself are a minority in today's world.....I didn't grow up an anywhere near the conditions you did, but I understood where I came from...both of my Fathers parents grew up on rented farms one with 15 brothers/sisters, the other with 7 brothers/sisters, during the depression....both of my grandfather's served in WW2 and came home, worked hard, and raised families.....they NEVER took any sort of handout, my grandmothers both "worked" and paid their own way through teachers college and became school teachers after the children were of school age.

I had mostly non-participatory parents...both of whom were sort of self-centered and self absorbed, so most of my interactive time as a child was spent with my grandparents.....so I learned from them, and appreciated, probably MORE than my parents what the history of my family was.

My parents were always in debt for things they wanted but could not afford, and there was very little money for anything for my brother and I....and after the recession of the early eighties when the bottom dropped out, even less....but, that is when my parents finally got the message about what was realistic and correct, and what wasn't, my father was severely injured also (broken neck) during this time and things were VERY difficult, although....

I think it made me resourceful, and I found various ways to make my own money as a teenager and really didn't want for much....I wore the same "name brand" clothing as my peers and had money to spend, but the difference was that I EARNED it...and that made me understand that opportunity was available, if you just look for it....something missed by so many today.....

I thank you for your comment, and I think the nation is the lucky one, for having a surplus of those like you in our history....hopefully those of us who try to carry the torch of gratitude and understanding of those efforts won't be overrun by those who think they're due something just for existing and that it's everyone else's responsibility and duty to provide it....

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 8 years ago

Why has the number of poor people increased so much in recent decades? You say it is because they have the wrong philosophy. Why would the philosophy of people have changed over the last fifty years?

[-] -1 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

because they have been told, over and over again that they have no chance.....in times past the children of those in difficult times were told to work hard and study, do your best and always make the most of what you have...so they became resourceful and learned how to rise above their circumstances....

Now it's all negativity and poor minded messages of lack of opportunity and insurmountable difficulty

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 8 years ago

It sounds like this is a philosophy intended to make excuses for the misbehavior of greedy people, by blaming it on their victims.

This sounds like typical blame the victim style denial. The mother of a daughter who claims to being abused by her father, may go through the same denial, telling the daughter that its all her own fault.

Another example would be for me to rip you off, and then blame you for not rising above it.

You do have a point though in that some people are convincing the poor that there is nothing they can do.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23316) 8 years ago

Wow. I am grateful for your response. I think I understand you much better. (Not that that matters. I don't know you and you don't know me.)

I can understand your resentment toward shirkers and malingerers. Do you know that there will always be some shirkers and malingerers? I once took a labor economics class and our professor made it very clear that there will always be an unemployable group in the economy. It is a small group, but they are always there. (He was, of course, a professor, and probably a lefty, and made it clear that society has to care for these people. Let's put that aside.) Disability, mental illness and yes, even, laziness. But, right now we have so many poor people that you just can't say they all fit into this description. What we have in this country is lots of poor people working back breaking jobs for very little pay. So little that they still need food stamps! Even middle income families can't afford their homes or to put their kids through college today. The opportunity just isn't there. You can work hard in America and get nowhere because there is nowhere to go. Our economy certainly can't handle 300 million entrepreneurs. Capitalists need the workers to do the work. There will always be workers. I'm just saying they should earn enough to support their families.

I was driving my car on the highway the other day in a sea of humanity and I thought, holy shit, 1 in 7 of these people are on food stamps. It's crazy.

You did well by working hard, but you are also fairly smart, and I imagine pretty aggressive. So, people who are not smart and who are maybe timid, but work hard, shouldn't earn enough to live a decent life? I am in no way saying they should make as much as you. I'm just saying they should earn enough to live on.


[-] -1 points by DiogenesTruth (108) 8 years ago

BW, you never get it. $26000 a year is $13 hour. Thats not a bad income for a low skilled worker. Would you pay $75 for a plain tshirt made in America, or $5 for one made in China? Of course you would buy the $5 t shirt.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23316) 8 years ago

Corporate profits are at an all time high. Where is that money which was earned on the backs of the American workers? Why must one-half of Americans live with such low pay. I get $12.50 an hour, not 13. It would be okay if maybe 10% or even 20% of workers earned that or less, but not 50%. That is the median income in this country right now.

[-] -1 points by DiogenesTruth (108) 8 years ago

What specific skills do you have? be specific.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23316) 8 years ago

This is the internet. I don't post personal stuff on the internet. You guys are always trying to see what "we bring to the table." What the hell are your skills? Be specific. LOL!

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 8 years ago

If I had the money I would ALWAYS buy the American made product first.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago


Claiming some else is using hyperbole?

You are at least 92% hyperbole.

You don't respond well to simple questions either.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

you don't ask simple questions, you ask biased, loaded questions....which I reject

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

Why are you here?

You have offered NOTHING in support of OWS.

Is that simple enough for you?

Please keep your response to less than 25 words.

[-] 0 points by BonTon (57) 8 years ago

Occupy the OWS forum, snooz. Why does everyone have to agree? Maybe you'll learn something if this is something other than an echo chamber for the like-minded. As D. Byrne put it, Pay attention! Pay attention!

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 8 years ago

We do not have to agree.In fact it is better not to.Only you must admit birds of a feather.

[-] 0 points by BonTon (57) 8 years ago

very true, bro. this place was a graveyard til Lara showed a little leg, if you get my drift

hey, how do you say it. Ka-PAAA!!??

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 8 years ago

The one on Face Book showed more than a little!!

[-] -1 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

I DON'T support OWS...I am cyber-occupying OWS

how do YOU fools like it?

[-] 1 points by TruthRightsFreedom (259) 8 years ago

Awesome! What do you define as functional activism?

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 8 years ago

You are wasting your time.Go do somthing usefull with your life.You sound educated but also very foolish.You offer nothing but vindictiveness.And only show what a heartless coward you are!

[-] -2 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

I cannot think of anything more useful that the attempt to save some of you from the worthless lives you now lead, to give you a realistic philosophy, based on effort, results, and reward, where you can create a life of abundance with which you can share with others and enable them to see similar success.

Instead of whining and moaning that others should support you and pay your way through life...THAT is the saddest form of human existence....even more sad than poverty

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 8 years ago

No one likes you. Go away.


[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

Most US citizens don't like OWS....why don't YOU go away!

when you leave us alone we will reciprocate...

[-] 1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 8 years ago

You're in OUR forum. We're not invading the FOX news forums and bothering people over there.

You provide nothing positive to this forum. Your mother must be so proud of you!

[-] -2 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

you're not gonna cry now, are you?

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 8 years ago

I am an American. I can't imagine living anywhere else. I love American culture, American music, American movies, American cities, American scenery, and most of all the American people. What I don't especially identify with is the American state. On the other hand I don't especially identify with any other existing state either, so that really doesn't leave me much of anywhere else to go.

[-] 1 points by proletarian (8) 8 years ago

Speaking of rights people have the right to speak out and protest in this country. Just because people don't like the current state of our government does not mean that they should have to leave.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

I guess that depends where and how you protest, if you effect my right of mobility, or association or personal property rights, you don't......

[-] 1 points by proletarian (8) 8 years ago

Of course, but you said "go find another country to protest in" not "don't block my transit" or "don't steal my property".

[-] -1 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

I was directly responding to the comment above that statement...using the same language as the poster of the comment......who was telling ME to go somewhere else, while, I guess, I was suppose to allow HIM his freedom to speak but censor my own......

If those at OWS want to protest, then expect those like myself to protest YOU as well......that is equality

[-] 3 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 8 years ago

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Thomas Jefferson wrote these monumental words in 1776, 15 years before the bill of rights was ratified. His right of free speech, as well as all people, exists from birth. Any denial of this fact is false!

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

actually the french philosopher that first printed those rights

thought that humans deserved a right to property

[-] 1 points by TruthRightsFreedom (259) 8 years ago

Agreed, entirely! Free speech is abridged and so is freedom of the press. We cannot defend the republic because we cannot share the truths.

[-] -2 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

these people don't understand this....and they extend the privilege of modern society to the level of "rights"

[-] 3 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 8 years ago

Rights are elastic. Once upon a time there was no right to free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press or freedom of assembly. There was no right for women to vote, or people under 21, or people without real property. People of color were largely considered property and as such had virtually no rights at all. I'd agree that whether collective bargaining is a right or a priviledge is ambiguous. It exists in law, but it is not embodied in the Constitution and as such might be considered priviledges rather than rights. But that is not the case with the other rights enumberated above, and they were not always rights. The notion of what rights people have changes over time, expecially with the expansion of democracy and with expanding definitions of democracy.

[-] -1 points by warbles (164) 8 years ago

Nope. Rights are universal. If you were on a desert island, you would still have the same rights you have now. If you were on a desert island with ten other people, you would still have the same rights you have now.

A right is freedom from interference in one's activities. You have the right to obtain a firearm, per the constitution, but you don't have the right TO a firearm. Would you support a law giving all people a free firearm? I hope not.

A right cannot require the effort of another person to fulfill, or else that is slavery. If a plantation owner had kept perfectly healthy slaves because he was in bad health and needed someone to care for him, would he be fulfilling his "right" to health care? Of course not.

If something is a right, it would still be a right if everyone else in the world was poorer than you. If a right requires the efforts of another person, it is slavery and theft.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 8 years ago

The desert island metaphor is cute, but it has little relationship to the way in which actual human beings relate to each other and that is the point.

We are not individual islands unrelated to each other. Rights only have meaning in a social context, in terms of our relationship to each other, leaving aside the utter absurdity of the desert island metaphor.

Who makes the law? Nixon once made the famous but absurd comment that we are a nation of laws and not men. But who makes the laws if it is not human beings?

Among other things, there is a mean spiritedness to your perspective to which I find it almost impossible to identify. I hesitate to comment further along those lines as that is about the kindest way I could put your way of thinking,

[-] -1 points by warbles (164) 8 years ago

I regret the fact that you lack the intellectual depth to understand advanced sociological concepts. Even if you could, your condescension of those you disagree with makes it a deplorable thought to carry on a conversation on such topics with you, so this will be my only response to your babblings. Your attempt to associate my opinions with "mean spiritedness" is indicative of your desire to disagree, rather than debate and discuss. Most people may not consider themselves individual islands, but such consideration is a right nonetheless, as people have a right to minimalize their relation to other people. Apparently you have lost all idea of what rights are, or you would know that rights relate to nonintervention in the activities of other people.

Have a wonderful day.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 8 years ago

Do you have any empathy for your fellow human beings, especially those who are completely different from you, say for example, convicted murderers, felons, rapists, terrorists, etc. Not to mention the poor, the unemployed, the homeless, etc.? If you do then I stand corrected regarding my impression of your mean spiritedness, if not then you are correct that there is very little for us to talk about since there is amost no point of contact between us either intellectually or ethically.

But I wouldn't cast aspersions on your intellect and I don't appreciate your stated attitude toward mine.

Whether or not people consider themselves islands, the object fact is we are not. People have a right to have all kinds of beliefs that do not correspond to reality. Were that not the case religion would not exist.

I don't believe that the 99% have a right to intervene in the activities of the 1%, but they do have a necessity to do so for the survival and extention of democracy, not to say the human race as a whole.

[-] 0 points by warbles (164) 8 years ago

Alright, truce. I feel pretty bad about saying this stuff to you earlier. I take back everything I said if you'll refrain from calling my analogies "cute" without discussing them, or saying that I'm mean spirited because you disagree. Fair enough?

[+] -5 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

"Rights" are not elastic....that is your incorrect assumption, "rights" can be expropriated but they aren't elastic as you claim......

free speech, religion, press (as in written word), assembly, etc..have no dependency, a person alone, naked, in the forest has those rights and they are independent of any participation of others....regardless of race, gender, orientation, or any other criteria. It is only when in the company of other men can "rights" be taken by force....but that does not make them elastic, the "right" remains beyond the tyranny or force...as it can be exercised even under such conditions under consequence of force..

voting is a privilege created by the creation of government, not a right. and the Constitution does not grant rights to people, it prohibits the infringement of individual rights by the government it establishes.....

Democracy does not define rights, it can only uphold or restrict natural rights....

[-] 3 points by UncomonSense (386) 8 years ago

Yo, Einstein, you should try reading The Bill of Rights sometime.

"the Constitution does not grant rights to people"

An immigrant preparing for a citizenship test knows more about the US than you. Hell, an illegal immigrant probably knows more than you.

[+] -4 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

maybe you should read the Bill of Rights before you make such a foolish statement.....the BOR is a prohibition of the government to create laws that infringe rights, not a grant of them

Thanks for demonstrating your ignorance though....good times

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 8 years ago

The legislature and the courts are the instruments granted the authority to create rights in the Constitution.

There are no natural rights. Rights are not universal. They are made by people. In this country they are made by elected officials representing the people, or created by the courts. Privileges are among the rights people grant each other through government:

privilege |ˈpriv(ə)lij|


a special right

[-] -2 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

rights are a grant of creation.....they are not "granted by authority" if rights are inalienable as described in the DOI, then they are NOT granted by courts or legislature......you need some US history tutoring.....you must be a product of the post Dept of Ed public school system

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 8 years ago

Nope. "creation" grant no rights, only abilities. A right is a specific legal/social construct. The law does not recognize an amorphous deistic mandate.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

when you understand the founding of this nation, get back to me....as of now you clearly have an incorrect knowledge base

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 8 years ago

Your knowledge of what a right is, of what law is, is entirely absent. There is no "Creator" in law. All rights, every single one, are the result of legislation or adjudication. All rights are legal entitlements, by definition.


[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

sorry...you are wrong

again, please visit a library and do some research on the founding of this country and the philosophy behind the idea's that were instrumental in it's creation...

Between the Declaration and the adopting of the Constitution there were no "laws" that established "rights"....the natural rights were assumed and accepted.....no one can legislate your ability to speak, or think, or associate, or believe in a higher power, or move about freely....

In the case of tyrannical government they can create punishments for doing so, but they cannot prevent you from exercising said rights, ro defending yourself against removal or obstruction of those rights

The Constitution prohibits the government from creating laws that inhibit the natural rights of man, those rights endowed by the creator...and if you deny that, you are ignorant on the creation of our nation and the conversation is pointless

Read a book

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 8 years ago

The constitution also says that it is the government's responsibility to promote the general welfare. That is, the government should try continuously to make things better for people.

I believe that means to create the conditions for better jobs, education, etc.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

no, it means the government should create an environment where people can do for themselves....not provide for the people what they require......

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 8 years ago

What about projects that are so big, that only the government can finance them, such as railroads, or energy systems? Having advanced infrastructure is a big part of what makes a country a first world nation.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 8 years ago

Read the Law. And read what I actually wrote. I never said the Constitution granted rights. I said it created the mechanism (legislation and courts) for doing so. I am also not talking about what the founders thought about when they referred to natural rights. I don't care, frankly. That some of them read Rousseau might be interesting, but has no bearing.

I am talking about the definition of what a right is. By definition, there is no such thing as a right that is not granted other than by social means. Those means are either unspoken social convention or, especially if that convention is challenged, by law.

No rights are absolute. Even the right to keep breathing is subject to law (the death penalty, for example). Rights have expanded and contracted over time, as the society's perception of what is just changes. Freedom was not a right automatically assumed at the time of the founding: slavery was maintained. It was only through new laws written and passed in the 19th century that freedom from slavery was granted.

The point is this: there is nowhere a right that is not granted by society, simply because rights and obligations exist only in relationship to other people. People negotiate what their freedoms and obligations are to each other; what they're entitled to and what they owe. They determine adjudication mechanisms to codify those agreements. The result of this social process is what we call "rights."

Rights are a legal/social construct, and nothing more. "Natural" rights are only natural insofar as people agree to them.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

I see now that you are one of those who are determined to remain wrong, and I am happy to allow you to do that.......you can believe that hog shit is ice cream if you like, but it doesn't make it so......natural rights supersede legislation and courts and are just as true on a Desert Island, on 50th and 5th in Manhattan, or in Space as they are anywhere else in the world...no society grants them...and other men can only attempt by force to obstruct them.......

Your assertion of slavery is incorrect there was a mechanism for freedom from slavery even before laws were written to demand it......in 1830 10% of the black population were freemen/women, and some former slaves owned slaves themselves.......and enjoyed the same natural rights as everyone else, but not the all privileges of citizenship until much later......and even in their enslaved state they could have exercised their natural rights....they likely may have been punished for doing so, but they had that choice nonetheless...

Your right to speak has no requirement of relationship to others...you can speak all you like completely alone, and move about as you wish alone, and worship as you please, alone....and so on and so forth....

You can play semantics and parse words all you like but hog shit is not ice cream, and you are wrong about the nature of rights and about the founding of this country based on those natural rights and there inalienable quality

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 8 years ago

There are no natural rights. It is a semantic construct.

Having a limited mechanism for freedom is not a right to freedom for everyone. It was NOT universal. That universal "natural" right was granted by law. Until the 14th amendment African Americans were, by law, granted 2/3 the "natural" rights of Whites.

You do not have the natural right to speech if alone. You have the right to do so by law and convention. In the unlikely event that right were removed by Constitutional amendment, that right would no longer exist. If, under those conditions, you were observed talking to yourself, all legal penalties would apply.

In terms of moving about as you wish, have you ever heard of prison? Your movement is regulated if you do something society doesn't like.

But let's say (for the sake of argument alone) that your right to talk to yourself, etc. is organic. Despite the fact that all activity can be regulated, what we are talking about here are rights that are NOT exercised in the vacuum of space, but in the midst of society.

Democracy's entire purpose is a mechanism by which those entitlements and obligations are arrived at. Its reason for coming into existence was to place the mechanism for determining rights be placed placed in the hands of the people effected by them instead of Monarchy. It is not a system initiated to affirm a creator, either deistic of natural.


[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

by your explanation, when one leaves the society of others there are no right....so when you are alone in a forest surrounded by only nature you have no rights....according to you....which is absolutely false...where there is no law there are still rights....

That is where you have the MOST "rights" as there is no one there to attempt to remove or obstruct them....the founders understood this and created a system of laws that prevented the government, and by extension, other men from infringing those natural rights......

What is your point of Democracy,.....we are not a democracy, we are a Republic.

You can continue to parrot your nonsense if you like....it is just an excuse for you and whatever ideology you hold to try and limit the rights of others while you extend the privileges for some at the expense of others......sorry....you're wrong, on both counts, both in ideology and in your defintion

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 8 years ago

When you are in the forest by yourself, there are no rights. "Rights" is a word that specifically refers to entitlements and obligations. The word "rights" is a word that describes social relations. Without society, the word is meaningless.

Btw, a republic IS a democracy, also by definition.

republic |riˈpəblik|


a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

Our Republic is not a democracy....and that is another point you are foolishly incorrect about, I am saddened by the education you have received in life, it has left you devoid of the understanding of our system, its founding, and its construction.......

Your words are meaningless, and foolish, as you think YOU can bestow rights upon others by your decree.....sorry pal, that is not the basis of this country.....this nation was the first based on the recognition of the natural rights of man to exist on his own, without the permission of the state, or others...

No wonder the country is decaying, if this nonsense you think is what is being taught......I suggest you read the many books about the ideals of the founders and what their perspective on rights were.....you are completely out of touch with the intention of the creation of this nation...

[-] 1 points by 1169 (204) 8 years ago

this country was founded on the freedom of religion, the RIGHT to worship as you want.


[-] 2 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 8 years ago

If voting is a priviledge rather than a right, what institution is it that grants that priviledge? If it is the state that grants the "priviledge" to vote, on what authority does the power of the state rest? In a democratic state presumably the power of the state rests with the people collectively and how are they to exercise that power except to vote? Ergo, voting in a democracy cannot be viewed as a priviledge, but a right, and it is an elastic right precisely because who can exercise that right has changed and generally expanded over time, including greater and greater categories. And among the things that a sovereign people vote on are the extension of rights including, but not limited to, speech, assembly, press, religion, due process and who exactly is entitled to individual sovereignty, which is to say, among other things, the right to vote, which is one of the ways in which sovereignty may be expressed.

[-] 2 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 8 years ago

Unless one goes back to prehistoric times, about which information is rather mirky, rights were not expropriated, they were won. I'm old enough to remember when 18 year olds did not have the "right" to vote. In fact I was one of them. I could not vote until I was 21. Fortunately my son and daughter were both able to vote at the age of 18, That is not a right that was at some point expropriated and later restored. At the time it became law it was an entirely new right. The same is true of the right of women to vote. Unless one goes back to some prehistoric matriarchy, which is very hard to substantiate in fact, the right of women to vote was a hard won right, not something that was at some point lost and then regained. There are numberous other examples of the elasticity of rights, which again are very linked to democracy. For that matter, the right of the people, all the people, to actively participate in the decision making process is itself relatively recent in historical terms. So called Greek democracy, after all, rested on a culture in which 90% of the population had no rights and never did within the context of that culture.
The same is true for people without real property in the United States itself before the so-called Jacksonian Revolution. Previous to that even free white men without real property were denied the right to vote. And again, this was not something which had at some historical point been expropiated only to be restored in the Jacksonian period. It was won then. Due process is yet another right that is relatively new, It was by no means automatic and for the most part is based on the 14th amendment, passed during Reconstruction. Prior to that due process was by no means automatic or even a "right." It had never at any point been expropriated only to be "restored" by the 14th ammendement. The amendement essentially established a new right, further evidence that rights are elastic and basically rooted in our changing and expanding notions of the meaning of democracy.

The notion of natural law is extremely compelling from a philosophical stand point, But it doesn't hold much water legally. Prior to the Enlightenment it is hard to find any evidence of the very notion of natural rights or natural law, which is to say that the very notion of natural rights and natural law themselves are historically determined and change as our culture changes and notions of the meaning of democracy change.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

the ability of other men to attempt to take away a persons natural rights does not suggest that the rights themselves do not exist.....

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 8 years ago

Taking away rights suggests that they existed in the first place, which is not the case when people were never previously in a position to exercise them or in fact lacking of any consciousness that they actually existed at all. Your position seems more religious than natural or rational. The existence of rights, like any other human construct, is a product of the human imagination. They can't exist prior to consciousness of their existence, which necessarily also preceeds their existence in actual human practice. The kindest thing I can say is that our values do not correspond at all. Your values do seem mean spirited to me, but of course that is just my opinion.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

"mean spirited" is always the term that you apologists use against those who expect more out of people......those of us who know that people are capable of far more than being wards and pets of the state

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 8 years ago

"mean spirited" is always the term that you apologists use against those who expect more out of people......those of us who know that people are capable of far more than being wards and pets of the state

Pardon me, but to what does the term "horse shit" apply? Because that is what the above statement is about. It shows absolutely no understanding of what OWS is or what it is all about. On the home page of this very web site it says specifically that we don't need Wall Street and we don't need politicians to build a better world. What we need is each other and solidarity against those who would resist our challenge to the status quo. Certainly we do not oppose the anti-statism of those who oppose us. What we oppose is their lack of empathy and solidarity.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

then go do it and get out of our parks and streets......and stop trying to change the system for those who don't want it changed....

You do want a nanny state and hope to get a portion of the plunder for yourselves.....or else you would be out there creating enterprises and products that make life easier and better...instead of shaking signs, hypno-chant Mic Checking, and yelling about the things you expect others to do for you....

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 8 years ago

We are a tiny tiny movement. Our first step is to organize and to build our movement. That involves mobilizing people and taking both symbolic and concrete actions to organize people. Part of that is taking back the commons, fighting against the increased privatization and comonditization of virtually everything. An important part of taking back the commons is the expression of the right to peaceably assemble.

To say that we are mic checking about things we expect others to do for us suggests that you have never been to a GA. I don't know of a single GA that has ever been about what others can do for us. They are always about self governance.

To a considerable degree at this point our activities are largely symbolic, but they can be viewed as a dress rehersal for a direct challenge to the state itself.

[-] 1 points by 1169 (204) 8 years ago

wars were fought so we could preserve our RIGHT to vote, its not a privilage.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

it's a right of citizenship of the USA, citizenship is a privilege DEPENDENT on place of birth or meeting criteria of naturalization....

It is a privilege...

[-] 2 points by Judi49 (10) from Silverstreet, SC 8 years ago

It is a shame that on this site that we seem to be reduced to personal attacks and name calling to all that don't agree with us 100%. What does this accomplish-nothing. As usual there is truth on both sides. The long range solution to our problem is simple. The so called '99%' controls the purse strings in this country. We have the power we simply have to take it back. We control where our money goes and what we spend it on. I know some of you are saying right now that the 99% won't work together to effect this change. Really? It was just a few short months ago that Bank of America announced that it was going to charge a fee for it members to use their debit cards. There was an uproar from across the country. People took their money out or threatened to. Within a few short weeks they changed their minds. We can take our money out of these big banks and support our local credit unions. We do have the power we just need to take it back. You can write or talk all day, but what are YOU actually doing?

I have a headache and I need a change.

[-] 2 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 8 years ago

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks...will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." - Thomas Jefferson

The current banking and Wall Street crisis is a direct result of a private central bank system.

We are cursed with the deliberately mis-named “Federal” Reserve which is no more than a privatized and exclusive debt-money creation system devoid of public ownership. In this so-called “independent” institution there is no public interest or power within its privately-owned, profit-seeking, system.

When the power to create our money and credit is in private hands, and based on an exclusive franchise for debt-money creation and sale of bonds at interest - as opposed to direct Treasury financing - then the entire economic and social system is set up for private profit, and debt ruin, at public expense. As history has proven, this structure is virtually guaranteed to result in endless predation, corruption, and eventual collapse at immense public expense.



[-] -2 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

I'm no fan of the Fed....but, it has been in place almost 100 years, so the current situation cannot be directly linked exclusively to the Fed...

Too many American's have lost the purpose, will, and desire to EARN for a reason...now it's all about "what's in it for me" and doing as little as possible living for leisure, diversion, and entertainment

[-] 2 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 8 years ago

The economy tanked when banks stopped making loans after their capitol base was destroyed by risky speculation.

All of our money originates as a bank loan, except for coins which comprise less than one thousandth of a percent of our currency.

Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman is known now as one of the most influential economists of the 20th century.

Let us listen to Milton Friedman on the single cause of severe economic depressions:

“I know of no severe depression, in any country or any time, that was not accompanied by a sharp decline in the stock of money, and equally of no sharp decline in the stock of money that was not accompanied by a severe depression.”


Wall Street Isn't Winning – It's Cheating

FREE MONEY. Ordinary people have to borrow their money at market rates. Lloyd Blankfein and Jamie Dimon get billions of dollars for free, from the Federal Reserve. They borrow at zero and lend the same money back to the government at two or three percent, a valuable public service otherwise known as "standing in the middle and taking a gigantic cut when the government decides to lend money to itself."

Or the banks borrow billions at zero and lend mortgages to us at four percent, or credit cards at twenty or twenty-five percent. This is essentially an official government license to be rich, handed out at the expense of prudent ordinary citizens, who now no longer receive much interest on their CDs or other saved income. It is virtually impossible to not make money in banking when you have unlimited access to free money, especially when the government keeps buying its own cash back from you at market rates.

Your average chimpanzee couldn't fuck up that business plan, which makes it all the more incredible that most of the too-big-to-fail banks are nonetheless still functionally insolvent, and dependent upon bailouts and phony accounting to stay above water. Where do the protesters go to sign up for their interest-free billion-dollar loans?

CREDIT AMNESTY. If you or I miss a $7 payment on a Gap card or, heaven forbid, a mortgage payment, you can forget about the great computer in the sky ever overlooking your mistake. But serial financial fuckups like Citigroup and Bank of America overextended themselves by the hundreds of billions and pumped trillions of dollars of deadly leverage into the system -- and got rewarded with things like the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program, an FDIC plan that allowed irresponsible banks to borrow against the government's credit rating.

This is equivalent to a trust fund teenager who trashes six consecutive off-campus apartments and gets rewarded by having Daddy co-sign his next lease. The banks needed programs like TLGP because without them, the market rightly would have started charging more to lend to these idiots. Apparently, though, we can’t trust the free market when it comes to Bank of America, Goldman, Sachs, Citigroup, etc.

In a larger sense, the TBTF banks all have the implicit guarantee of the federal government, so investors know it's relatively safe to lend to them -- which means it's now cheaper for them to borrow money than it is for, say, a responsible regional bank that didn't jack its debt-to-equity levels above 35-1 before the crash and didn't dabble in toxic mortgages. In other words, the TBTF banks got better credit for being less responsible. Click on freecreditscore.com to see if you got the same deal.

STUPIDITY INSURANCE. Defenders of the banks like to talk a lot about how we shouldn't feel sorry for people who've been foreclosed upon, because it's their own fault for borrowing more than they can pay back, buying more house than they can afford, etc. And critics of OWS have assailed protesters for complaining about things like foreclosure by claiming these folks want “something for nothing.”

This is ironic because, as one of the Rolling Stone editors put it last week, “something for nothing is Wall Street’s official policy." In fact, getting bailed out for bad investment decisions has been de rigeur on Wall Street not just since 2008, but for decades.

Time after time, when big banks screw up and make irresponsible bets that blow up in their faces, they've scored bailouts. It doesn't matter whether it was the Mexican currency bailout of 1994 (when the state bailed out speculators who gambled on the peso) or the IMF/World Bank bailout of Russia in 1998 (a bailout of speculators in the "emerging markets") or the Long-Term Capital Management Bailout of the same year (in which the rescue of investors in a harebrained hedge-fund trading scheme was deemed a matter of international urgency by the Federal Reserve), Wall Street has long grown accustomed to getting bailed out for its mistakes.

The 2008 crash, of course, birthed a whole generation of new bailout schemes. Banks placed billions in bets with AIG and should have lost their shirts when the firm went under -- AIG went under, after all, in large part because of all the huge mortgage bets the banks laid with the firm -- but instead got the state to pony up $180 billion or so to rescue the banks from their own bad decisions.

This sort of thing seems to happen every time the banks do something dumb with their money. Just recently, the French and Belgian authorities cooked up a massive bailout of the French bank Dexia, whose biggest trading partners included, surprise, surprise, Goldman, Sachs and Morgan Stanley. Here's how the New York Times explained the bailout:

To limit damage from Dexia’s collapse, the bailout fashioned by the French and Belgian governments may make these banks and other creditors whole — that is, paid in full for potentially tens of billions of euros they are owed. This would enable Dexia’s creditors and trading partners to avoid losses they might otherwise suffer...

When was the last time the government stepped into help you "avoid losses you might otherwise suffer?" But that's the reality we live in. When Joe Homeowner bought too much house, essentially betting that home prices would go up, and losing his bet when they dropped, he was an irresponsible putz who shouldn’t whine about being put on the street.

But when banks bet billions on a firm like AIG that was heavily invested in mortgages, they were making the same bet that Joe Homeowner made, leaving themselves hugely exposed to a sudden drop in home prices. But instead of being asked to "suck it in and cope" when that bet failed, the banks instead went straight to Washington for a bailout -- and got it.

UNGRADUATED TAXES. I've already gone off on this more than once, but it bears repeating. Bankers on Wall Street pay lower tax rates than most car mechanics. When Warren Buffet released his tax information, we learned that with taxable income of $39 million, he paid $6.9 million in taxes last year, a tax rate of about 17.4%.

Most of Buffet’s income, it seems, was taxed as either "carried interest" (i.e. hedge-fund income) or long-term capital gains, both of which carry 15% tax rates, half of what many of the Zucotti park protesters will pay.

As for the banks, as companies, we've all heard the stories. Goldman, Sachs in 2008 – this was the same year the bank reported $2.9 billion in profits, and paid out over $10 billion in compensation -- paid just $14 million in taxes, a 1% tax rate.

Bank of America last year paid not a single dollar in taxes -- in fact, it received a "tax credit" of $1 billion. There are a slew of troubled companies that will not be paying taxes for years, including Citigroup and CIT.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/owss-beef-wall-street-isnt-winning-its-cheating-20111025#ixzz1ki3uk8d7

[-] -1 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

don't parrot, if you have things to say, say them....use your own words don't be a mindless echo.....

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 8 years ago

The answer to your question cannot be found in a three minute sound byte.

I have directed you to several well written articles.

Historical statements:

If congress has the right under the Constitution to issue paper money, it was given them to use themselves, not to be delegated to individuals or corporations. -Andrew Jackson

The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credits needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of consumers. By the adoption of these principles, the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity. -Abraham Lincoln

Issue of currency should be lodged with the government and be protected from domination by Wall Street. We are opposed to…provisions [which] would place our currency and credit system in private hands. – Theodore Roosevelt

[-] -1 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

thank Woodrow Wilson...the progressives hero....

I know about the Fed..I don't need a Rolling Stone article to explain it...thanks, But...as I said, we've been under the reserve system for almost a hundred years....

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 8 years ago

The Repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act in the last year of the Clinton administration and the deregulation of derivative trades and several other banking regulations during the George W. Bush administration made all the difference.

The Glass-Steagall Act was depression era legislation which separated commercial banking (IE: checking accounts, savings accounts, consumer lending accounts) from investment banking. With the Glass-Steagall Act out of their way, now banks can create money out of thin air (aka fractional reserve lending). to purchase investments.

"Griftopia" by Matt Taibbi was recommended in a book review by Paul Craig Roberts, a former editor of the Wall Street Journal and Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury under Ronald Reagan and G.W. Bush. See excerpt.

"For the first 65 pages Taibbi entertains the reader with the inability of the public and politicians to focus on any reality. The financial story begins on page 65 with Fed chairman Alan Greenspan undermining the Glass-Steagall Act leading to its repeal by three political stooges, Gramm-Leach-Bliley. This set the stage for the banksters to leverage debt upon debt until the house of cards collapsed. When Brooksley Born, head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, attempted to do her regulatory job and regulate derivatives, the Federal Reserve, Treasury, and Securities and Exchange Commission got her bounced out of office. To make certain that no other regulator could protect the financial system and its participants from what was coming, Congress deregulated the derivatives markets by passing the Commodity Futures Modernization Act."



[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

The Glass-Steagall Act did much more than merely separate the banking/investment sectors....and, had the provision for the community reinvestment act criteria for mortgages not been included in the financial modernization act PL 106-102, the subprime mortgages would not have been so prevalent, nor would the need to offset the risks with derivatives and swaps.....and, before you place blame on the Bush43 administration don't forget that they sponsored and supported legislation to reign in the growing mortgage situation on three separate occasions beginning in 2003 and as lare as 2007....

Assume I know what your talking about without the need for biased web page sources....

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 8 years ago

Since the quotation above was from a Ph.D. Economist and former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under 2 Republican administrations, I don't understand your reference to biased web pages.

Neither party is representing the American people.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

if you add leadership to that last statement, as in "Neither party 'leadership" is representing the American people......I might tend to agree.....but, the "typical" american isn't representative of the ideal of being American in many ways, either.....

We have a disparity in contribution, effort, and participation that far exceeds any disparity in income that might exist...

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 8 years ago

The only thing that matters are the votes cast by our elected representatives. Neither party is voting for the American people.

".....but, the "typical" american isn't representative of the ideal of being American in many ways, either....."

Absolutely, we couldn't have arrived at this tragic state were it otherwise.

Six corporations own the main stream media including all the newspapers, radio stations, magazines, music companies and book publishers. This is well documented.

Charlotte Iserbyte served as Senior Policy Advisor in the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), U.S. Department of Education, during the first Reagan Administration, where she first blew the whistle on a major technology initiative which would control curriculum in America's classrooms.


Our food and water are more and more contaminated.

The wealth of our nation and the entire world is consolidating into fewer and fewer hands. The game has been gamed my friend and it is time for the people to stand and reclaim our inailienable rights.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

now you've lost me.....wealth is consolidating due to a lack of participation in the system and a drastic increase in those who consume in relation to those who produce

in whatever sense it is "consolidating, which isn't much, as most "wealth" is contained in equities that are dependent upon the holder of the "wealth" exercising control over the entity which is the basis for the wealth itself....as an example.....I wouldn't mind holding a few hundred shares of Berkshire Hathaway....however..upon Buffett's death, or retirement it will not hold the same value, as HE is the reason for the value of the stock....If Buffett or Zuckerberg, or Gates were to try and dump large equity positions into the open market we would soon see how much of a hoax the idea of the consolidated wealth really is.....

Our rights are being usurped, not by millionaires and billionaires, but by those who seek power and will reward those who vote for them with support payments and sustenance for those votes.....over 60% and rising of our annual government spending is the transfer of funds from those who earn them to those who do not.....THAT is the problem, not the chimera of "The rich"

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 8 years ago

.....over 60% and rising of our annual government spending is the transfer of funds from those who earn them to those who do not.....

When Ronald Reagan took office he commissioned a report on the Federal Government, commonly known s the Grace Commission. In the cover letter Peter Grace stated that most of the money collected by the Federal Government is spent to pay interest on the national debt before one good or service is provided for the American people.

Who receives that interest payment?

The Federal Reserve receives that interest payment. for money that the private banks create out of thin air.

“something for nothing is Wall Street’s official policy." Getting bailed out for bad investment decisions has been de rigeur on Wall Street not just since 2008, but for decades.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

if you are going to completely disregard my responses I will stop posting them....thanks for the time...

we have marginal agreement on the Fed as bad business, and that is about all.....

[-] 2 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 8 years ago

So, who has the "right" to declare that privileges are not due all citizens, all nations, all persons, all women and children? And when those in power create such a definition, who in actuality benefits from this definition or decision? This is just a bit unbalanced since it puts the creation of these so-called privileges on the backs of those who have made those privileges available.. the working class and those who have worked without due reimbursements!!

[-] -3 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

privileges are earned.....THAT is what "declares" them not due to those who don't earn them.....

your philosophy of WHO is responsible for modern advances is simply incorrect...nothing is created "on the backs" of anyone, in this country....people are compensated for their contribution

[-] 3 points by nucleus (3291) 8 years ago

Like the slaves were? Who decides what is fair compensation?

[-] -3 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

it's a mutual agreement, if either side doesn't like the terms they are free to seek employment, or employees in other locations

[-] 3 points by nucleus (3291) 8 years ago

The guy with the money decides the rate of compensation. When unemployment is high, the employer sets the rate because of supply and demand.

As there has been high unemployment, the result of a long string of jobless recoveries, wages have steadily declined and are continuing to do so. Lack of choice is not necessarily "mutual agreement".

[+] -4 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

it is mutual agreement....you can say "no"....if your lifestyle choices put you in a position where you feel trapped into accepting work that is under-compensated, in your opinion, please reference the nearest mirror for the cause and assignment of blame.....thanks

Life is a series of choices, and some choices eliminate other choices....if you don't like that you'll have to protest to a higher power than you'll find on this earth...good luck with that....

You fools think a life without consequences can exist......a Utopia where no choice creates difficulty and where someone will always save you from your own mistakes...no matter how many, or how often you make them.....

[-] 2 points by nucleus (3291) 8 years ago

Of course it is a mutual agreement. You can take the only job available for the slave wages offered or you can starve. The choice is yours ... if you don't take it, the next guy will. Especially when real unemployment is around 23%.

[-] -3 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

All the choices are yours, like not having emergency funds available, or remaining on unemployment for 99 weeks without retraining...

There are plenty of jobs available, just not those people feel like doing....truck driving jobs are plentiful (and require only a few weeks training) There are also warehousing jobs listed in the paper every week...it's hard work, but it pay pretty well and many offer benefits....

Those who don't work don't WANT to work, they have jobs they like to have, and would take, but they won't do jobs they feel beneath them....and sometimes lifestyle adjustments are necessary...I personally went from $80K a year to living out of my car and showering at the Gym for a year to save up for a rebound when things turned bad because of poor personal choices....now I don't have to worry about such things....

attitude is everything, there are things people need to have done, and they will pay someone to do them....those things are where you find opportunities....if you wait around all your life for other people to hand you or provide you with things, you don't get much out of life.....

[-] 3 points by nucleus (3291) 8 years ago

Being in a recession / depression is not a choice. Being poor is not a choice.

Go channel Rush Limbaugh somewhere else you retard.

[-] -2 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

being poor is absolutely a choice.....if it's not then tell me why and how neighbors, siblings, friends and relatives who come from EXACTLY the same backgrounds exhibit polar opposite results in life.....they have exactly the same environment and yet produce dissimilar results.....

Of course it's a choice, it's a choice every moment of every day.....a choice of action, behavior, and philosophy.....

I've been poor, I know the words and excuses they use (many like those YOU are using here) I know how they spend their time, what their conversations involve, what they use their resources for....I know this things absolutely and unequivocally, as I have experienced them first hand...it's not an argument of notions or perceptions....I've been there....

Obviously YOU have not

[-] 1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 8 years ago

For example?

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

every example.....with few exceptions

[-] 1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 8 years ago

Get real!! Don't make me come down off this mountain!! Stop trying to condone what has been done to individuals and is still being done to individuals under the auspices of 'privilege' .. You sound like the "Afrikaners" over in Soweto. Fake privilige undermines the integrity of a nation of people created FOR THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE. My question to you is...was that referring to a particular type of PEOPLE??? Boy, you sure are stickin up for your cronies aren't ya???

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

No...I'm sticking up for human excellence...that very same thing that provided everything you see around you right now.....it wasn't entitlement or demand for inequitable compensation that did it....

[-] 1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 8 years ago

There is no such thing as "human excellence", otherwise this world would be in a better position than what it is now, this forum would have no reason to exist and neither would the need for you to defend the BS of "alleged" privilege. Human excellence would be the norm and no one would ever have to suffer or go without or OCCUPY WALLSTREET!! GUESS WHAT....Reality hits different people in different ways, some who always live it, and some who deny it. For you, the latter is true since you are too quick to defend, but slow to understand that you can never ever, demonstrate how the theory of "privilege" has ever helped HUMANITY or ever participated in the "human excellence" of moral conduct!!

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

Oh so naive and deluded.....Human excellence does exist, it is what creates marathon runners, microscopic surgeons, scientists, soldiers, and anyone driven to be a "Cut above".....the reason it's not the "norm" is that it requires difficult and consistent effort, and the will to overcome failure after failure....those who triumph in their chosen fields aren't different than others in the beginning...they become different through effort over time....while most just quit, whine and complain that life isn't fair.....

Reality is reality.....it's effect is a choice, not a prescribed outcome....

and that IS humanity.....being kept, or supported, as wards of the state or pets of the government, is NOT humanity, it is vile and detestable, anyone who tells another human being that they don't have what it takes to survive, or to provide for themselves and that they must submit to the whims of the collective "others" steals the humanity of that person and reduces them to something bestial and sub-human......

Every person has a skill or talent that can be developed that exceeds that of all other persons living, and they need encouragement and motivation to discover those things, sometimes the motivation manifests as struggle, or failure, and when you remove those things you also remove the opportunity for people to find the best in themselves and reduce them to a marginal life of quiet desperation......exactly the sort of thing Thoreau was speaking of in Walden

Your so-called, "moral conduct" is just such an atrocious concept, where men are diminished in stature to be provided for so that you can feel charitable and good about yourself....that make you the most reprehensible sort of person.....

[-] 2 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 8 years ago

You don't know me...and if you did you would not believe the muddled HOLIER THAN THOU idealistic crap you are spewing on this forum. Are you trying to convince me or yourself? I have nothing to prove to you or anyone else for that matter...I know how this country began and I know how it will end. The point is....do you???

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

If you say so Nostradamus......

Your words paint a clear picture of you as an apologist excuse maker.....

[-] 1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 8 years ago

Why are you so angry? There is no excuse for the predicament of this nation...there is no excuse for your anger or your inability to take off your rose colored glasses, either!. Guess what?? Who do you think will save your ass when the S* really hits the fan...Corporate CEO's, the captain of the ship (LOL) or your own ingenuity? This is the reality we are living in my friend....The rich, the powerful, the greedy don't give a damn about you, me or mine and ours. I know who is gonna save my ass and my family....AND IT AIN'T YOU!!!

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

Angry? hardly...I live a happy and comfortable life...and I've earned it..

I am prepared for nearly any contingency.. and I AM very resourceful and ingenious....

It's funny you mention SHTF...where will your pets be then? who will support them? I assure you if you come for my property you won't leave with it.....

[-] 1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 8 years ago

Your property? Who gives a damn about your property except the big banks? That is who you should worry about. You have nothing I want, or anyone in my family would want or need...not even your train of thought gives me urges..... I don't own pets, and that should be addressed...get my drift.....the need to always own something living? Any who....if you live a happy comfortable life, what are you complaining about on here since it doesn't affect you? There are those out here who have had the same and it was all taken away from them in the blink of an eye, because of greed, fraud, etc.
So never say never my friend and don't raise yourself too high because no one is exempt from this fall...except ......that some of us have paid our dues beyond the allotted time....and now....time is up!!!

Look, you have your "right" to be bigoted, and I have my "right" to remain patient with your absurdities and molded idealism.

In the meantime, here's something I found that might help you realize... It's all fixed, out of your hands and the world...so.know that you don't rule anything....it rules you!!! That is why you and your kind are afraid of losing it!!


[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

I don't need a zodiac reading....thanks, what's next? Phrenology?

I'm not afraid of losing anything...or everything, been there done that........I know what it takes to recover, and it isn't excuse making or complaining....

[-] 1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 8 years ago

So what's your point big guy??

Obviously something is eating away at you since you ALWAYS HAVE TO HAVE THE LAST SAY SO!!!

Maybe it isn't a reading you need....maybe it's GOD!!!

Whew!! Either way....I'm glad I'm not in your shoes....they probably hurt!! So...on that note...I'm bored here....you don't offer any hope for anyone!!


[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

I'm good with God...thanks....and I learned from you guys on how to be aggressive in debate, I don't back down like most people who allow you fools to shout them down....

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

pets are those who your philosophy reduces to wards of the state.....they become subhuman and exist only to consume...they are "pets"

[-] 2 points by 99PercentFriendly (31) 8 years ago

People have natural rights and they also have legal rights, the government has certain responsibilities and obligations towards people which gives the people the legal right to be able to demand to have a certain standard and quality of life.

Children going to school hungry because they had no food at home, homeless people suffering in the streets because they never got help with their problems such as addiction, emotional and mental disorders, or simply lack of jobs, and countless number of people suffering or even dying because of lack of adequate and timely healthcare, and people being subjected to prejudices and discriminations that violate their basic human rights, these all mean that the government has failed in its responsibilities and obligations towards the people.

Most people can stand on their own feet and become successful and productive members of the society on their own, but for those who can’t it is the government’s responsibility and obligation to help them. That is adequate and timely assistance to get them back on their feet and to make sure that they can continue to live and function with dignity.

When the government says that it will not give any free handouts to people that is another way of saying that nothing is going to change and that the 99 percent are going to continue to suffer and die while the one percent lives in the lap of luxury and excesses.


[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

No, people have responsibilities to take care of themselves and not expect or demand others to submit their efforts in support of them....

as for children the one thing that you apologists never admit or face is that those without the resources to raise children shouldn't have them...but, since you advocate for this bad behavior we get more of it...those who cannot afford to raise their children in the long term should surrender those children to those who can and will via adoption....

Healthcare isn't a right, and your claim of suffering and dying is a red herring, no medical facility can refuse care to anyone....and those without insurance should take better care of themselves and not engage in risky or unhealthy behavior......it is not the responsibility of the government, and by extension, responsible citizens to support those who are irresponsible, we have programs in place to provide for those who cannot, in any way, provide for themselves...and they work, although the waste and fraud should be addressed, another thing you apologists refuse to acknowledge.....

People suffer the consequences of their own behaviors and actions, and those who behave and act responsibly don't......none of your nonsense will EVER change that...



[-] 2 points by ithink (761) from York, PA 8 years ago

Ah, I wish I had your simplistic, naive understanding of the world. I really really do. On some level, it does make sense. In a world where people's best interests are naturally (or artificially) protected, it makes sense. Only the wealthy should have these things. If you take a really hard look around, you will no doubt notice that he middle class is clearly unable to find a job, pay for their own health premiums, save money for retirement, purchase products and services, or have any money at all. Surely the most reasonable explanation is that the middle class did not earn these things, and therefore does not deserve them.

[-] -2 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

First of all....we don't have static "classes" in this country, that is a Marxist position, people in this country routinely exchange socio-economic hierarchical position many times over a lifetime, moving up and down the ladder in relation to their value and effort to the greater marketplace.....

You use the words "find a job" as if it is necessarily a hunt for something already in existence, it is not always such....creating a job by making an intelligent analysis of the greater marketplace, ascertaining areas of demand and providing for that demand is an as, or more of a, viable option as waiting for someone else to provide one for you...

The idea that anyone has the "right" for the tools of life be provided for them is the greatest harm human beings have done to their advancement......life itself is a privilege no one "owes" you the ability to live, once you have reach the capacity to do so independently, nor do they owe you the accoutrements to live your life......YOU have the responsibility to provide for those things for yourself....

this is not an argument about specific "classes", earning ones own way is not a class based idea....if you attempt to live beyond your means, as many in the Middle income levels and below often due.....your enemy resides in the nearest mirror....not in those who practice the correct and intelligent method of living...

[-] 2 points by ithink (761) from York, PA 8 years ago

I understand your view. But it is utopian. In a perfect world, yes. We would all have the same opportunities. We would all be rewarded for our hard work and intelligent decisions. Sadly, that is not how the real world works.

[-] -2 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

it is how it works if that is how YOU work.....

[-] 2 points by ithink (761) from York, PA 8 years ago

"people are stupid; we have a right to take advantage of them"

Yeah, this pretty much sums it up. Which is why we need to act. These people do not deserve the air they breathe let alone their bonuses.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago


Not a single word about the privileges of WallStreet.

Not a single word about their entitlements.

In their case, they just buy them and we paid for every one of their entitlements and privileges.

This OP is absolutely Orwellian.

If it were true.

Why are the (R)epelican'ts attacking the things I've earned?

[-] -2 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

Orwellian? I think you throw that word around with no understanding of what you are saying.....please qualify what you assert by calling my comment "Orwellian"?

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

Perhaps it's the stress put on certain propaganda terms.

Or the dark underpinnings of it's agenda.

Care to attempt an answer to my question?

[-] -2 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

you define your terms...what privileges of wall street are you referring to?

and what entitlements

and tell me how "we" paid for whatever these things you contend exist

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

WallStreet has the privilege of writing it's own laws

It has the privilege of access to the highest halls of power and government.

I truly have neither.

They have the entitlement to exorbitant profits, under the guise of cutting the small investor in on a small share of the vig.

They produce NOTHING of real value, so all of their "profits" are still rooted in those who do the actual production..............And that would be labor, not service workers.

We the tax payers and consumers pay for all of it.

All of it. Every single penny.

[+] -4 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

really? you don't think that labor union leadership isn't involved in the same sorts of things?

and let's clear up this amorphous term "Wall Street" once and for all.....there is no "Wall Street" conspiracy.....it is a spot on a map, the companies involved in banking and investment are in bitter competition with one another and not in collusion as you contend...so if you have a specific person or persons to accuse, feel free, but attempts to muddy the argument by using the term "wall street" is simple misdirection and a straw man argument...

Community organizers and Organized labor rabble rousers have access to the halls of power and government, as do personal friends and others....just because you, or I, are not one of those doesn't limit our power to vote.....

Do you understand how profits work? Profits are a very small (usually less than 1/3 of total revenue) so they add much more to the private economy than they create in profit, and that includes investing...which without we would not have ANY of the modern conveniences we now enjoy...those required investment to produce, market and sell to consumers......many of them freeing up time in the lives of the purchasers for which they can use for their own purposes instead of having to work.....

You have a very shallow understanding of how the economy actually works and what drives it...you should do a little reading and research before you make wild claims

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

Pretty good ignore everything I said.

It's you who need to improve reading comprehension.

Or was that a purposeful misdirection?

Your continued use of inflammatory, propagandized language is obvious.

You may be verbose, but it's you, who is shallow, at every turn.

It's you who claims the complete innocence of WallStreet and all other organizations like it.

It's you who claims how wonderful all corporations are, side steppinf and ignoring the lions share of their malfeasance.

It makes me wonder why you are even here.

You offer nothing in support of this movement, nor the people who came to this forum to support it.

You offer no solutions to anything at all.

You just attempt to smear and discount those who at least try.

It's your claims that are wild, at least as wild as any on FLAKESnews, and just as phony.

Just what are you slammer?

[-] -1 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

I didn't ignore anything

I reject your foolish perspective

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

You ignored everything in my original post and just did it again.

Then added an invective.

I do believe that would make you the fool.

A wordy one at that.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

yeah,,,,sorry, your BS isn't gonna work

I don't consider you or your idea's an authority

your judgment like your perspective hold no credibility with me....you can't insult someone who sees you as inferior....sorry

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

I knew a while ago that you were a true believer in your own BS

You do BS a whole lot.

At least 92% pure unadulterated BS.

A dishonest one at that.

I responded with honesty.

You did not.

[-] -2 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

whatever....your opinion is irrelevant...just like you and OWS

you're an interesting diversion....but nothing more

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

Just going for the Guinness world record on being a dick, through liberal use of lingual masturbation?

I hope you checked to see if it's an official category.

[-] 1 points by nickhowdy (1104) 8 years ago

Pickles are not carrots!. Look dopey...What you think are rights today become privileges tomorrow...You've got no fucking rights..You may as well start from that point..

[-] 1 points by nichole (525) 8 years ago

Those INDEPENDENT RIGHTS you speak of are being taken away. DEPENDENT PRIVILEGES, yeah, I am so privileged to provide healthcare, income, retirement, products, services, money, etc, etc, for those who do nothing other than invest. Cheers to them!!! Click of the mouse and you have ...just about everything that workers do not. I'll work my entire life in this society and "earn: nothing. FUCK YOU and everyone who thinks as you do!!!

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

see...that's the problem...you think it's THAT easy....if it is, then why don't YOU earn your money that way?

[-] 1 points by spike3194 (4) 8 years ago

people are good at wineing about this complete master and slave thing, but what would change a thing? the destruction of the fed? you see there really nothing we can do except assmble, and reinvent the american revolution, except without pitchforks.. :) and thats just my opinion on action, you cant reason with shark...

[-] 1 points by Quark (236) 8 years ago

Health is a Right. You don't earn it. If we had good healthcare in America we could help broken brains & hearts like slammersworldisback. Their black souls are contaminating the universal consciousness that we all share. Solidarity forever!

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

solidarity with fools is just foolish.....

you don't have the right to my efforts without compensating me in an amount I agree to receive....and that goes for healthcare workers as well...

Would you make them slaves?

[-] 1 points by EndGluttony (507) 8 years ago

I'd love to hear how you "earned" your privileges.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

I worked and evolved my skills and value to the marketplace....that's how

[-] 1 points by EndGluttony (507) 8 years ago

What "work?" What "skills?" All hellish bullshit you should be ashamed of, I suspect.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

yes..because work and skills are to be ashamed of.......

what a douche

[-] 1 points by Quark (236) 8 years ago

Health is a Right. It is a basic common sense right. Our forefathers didn't think it needed saying, but then again common sense is not so common especially in slammersworldisback.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

Health is not "Healthcare"....and health is dependent on your behavior, so just because YOU believe that the labor of medical professionals, laboratory techs, scientists, and inventors is your right to demand without compensation to the level THEY determine, doesn't make it so...

[-] 1 points by Quark (236) 8 years ago

Healthcare is a RIGHT!!!

It is THAT obvious. One can not pursue happiness if they are price gouged by the wealthy 1 percent doctors/insurance companies. The 1% have doctors for their wrinkles while the 99% lose their houses. It is time to DEMAND our RIGHTS with LOVE & SOLIDARITY!

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

It is NOT a right, as it requires someone else to administer.....if Healthcare is a right then medical professionals are slaves that do not have the right not to treat you..

[-] 1 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 8 years ago

Do you have wet dreams of a three-way with Milton Friedman and Grover Norquist? I just gotta know.

You have the right to starve to death in front of a supermarket. And you have the privilege to have an American address.

Bet you call yourself a christian, too. What would Jesus say?

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

there are no instances in the bible where Jesus fed or helped the SAME poor over and over again....and if you'll reference the parable of the Barren Fig Tree in Luke 13 6-9 you'll see what he says about idleness and non-production:

"Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why doth it also cumber the ground?"

"that if any would not work, neither should he eat. For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread."

What would Jesus say? and...he NEVER said take from this man and give to that man...not once...

Let me refresh you on this:

"Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work"

"Thou shalt not steal."

"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house,thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's."

Please don't bring Christianity into the discussion....

You have the right to engage in some form of productive work, and not complain and beg for others to support you as you feel entitled to be supported.....

Now, GO, and sin no more....

[-] 1 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 8 years ago

My poor, pious, fearful zombie. "You can be sure that no immoral, impure, or greedy person will inherit the Kingdom of Christ and of God. For a greedy person is an idolater, worshiping the things of this world." Jesus was a liberal community organizer, humanitarian, who couldn't be bothered with a job and preferred to live off handouts from others. Apparently he had a fondness for hookers and a lot of guys that didn't have girlfriends, but he scorned the wealthy for their lack of compassion for the poor. "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

And dude, check out The Bible Episode 17. He repeats that begging and handout shit over and over again. I think it makes you look good in the eyes of god and it gets you the express lane to heaven and stuff. "And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity."

The powerful use religion as a means to set people they control against people they do not control. Without the greed of the powerful, the world would be at peace. Without the power of the greedy, peace would be in the world.

God and religion are not the problem with the world. Greedy and paranoid people are the problem. Godlessness and atheism are not the problem with the world. Greedy and paranoid people are the problem.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 8 years ago

That is a powerful post and very seductive. But talking about labor disputes does not fall under his law. I don't want your ass and your wife, I wan't your hold on the labor market to be broken. The monopoly to dictate taxes and labor casts by a minority is what my grievance is all about, Oh yea, nothing in Jesus's words do I hear what to do with the money once the man is dead, the estate tax is what I'm getting at here.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

Proverbs 13:22 "A good man leaves an inheritance for his children’s children, but a sinner’s wealth is stored up for the righteous."

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 8 years ago

Is that inheritances non negotiable? We don't want to leave a landed aristocracy after all. You know that children of good men can be corrupted. Don't you?

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

usually the money left to idle heirs is recycled into the economy in a single generation...and those heirs who expand and increase their inheritances help the economy through expansion...one way for some "poor" to change their circumstances is through generational wealth. Remember "idle" wealth loses value over time...only that which is IN the market system grows

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 8 years ago

Do you know that the Waltons helped get the estate tax repealed? and that they are wealthy because of that reason and not their entrepreneurial skills. THat money could have went to at-least get us out of the whole we find ourselves in, or relieved middle class anxiety and working class desperation. I'd be happy with just the former. And idled wealth being slowing extinguished is an Idea i'm familiar with, that is if they don't buy political legislation.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23316) 8 years ago

Proverbs 21:13 "If a man shuts his ears to the cry of the poor, he too will cry out and not be answered."

Matthew 19:23-24 "Then Jesus said to his disciples, 'I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

the parable of the rich man was about the rich man, not about the poor.....


10:4 "Poor is he who works with a negligent hand, But the hand of the diligent makes rich,"

13.18 "Poverty and shame will come to him who neglects discipline, But he who regards reproof will be honored."

13:21 "Adversity pursues sinners, But the righteous will be rewarded with prosperity.

14:24 "The crown of the wise is their riches, But the folly of fools is foolishness."

20:4 The sluggard does not plow after the autumn, So he begs during the harvest and has nothing."

22:7 "The rich rules over the poor, And the borrower becomes the lender's slave."

All of the Proverbs about the poor encourage "helping" them...NOT supporting them......

As George Bernard Shaw (a proud socialist) said:

"The greatest evils and the worst of crimes is poverty; our first duty, a duty to which every other consideration should be sacrificed, is not to be poor."


"It is a sin to be poor"

Modern liberal theory encourages the poor to remain poor for a scrap of bread given to them by helpful and caring liberal...which they have stolen from other men without their permission

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23316) 8 years ago

I like my quotes better, but you are probably are more familiar with the Bible than I am, I'll grant you that.

You keep saying that we need to encourage the poor to work harder. I differ from you. I think many of the poor do work hard (except for the small percentage of malingerers, who, I admit do exist). When you state that people are poor because they don't work hard are you are referring to the one-half of the U.S. population that earns less than $26,000? It seems like you are to me and that seems very unfair.

Aren't you just giving them false hope if you simply "tell" them to work harder? What if they all worked even harder than they do, would good paying jobs suddenly show up? My point is that the economy has not provided them with opportunity.

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 8 years ago

if what you say is true, tha t"no one is responsible for another persons rights", then it should be also true,that no one can interfere with another persons rights, say to live on the earth, but we cant live unless we pay more money than we have, we cant own a chicken or a horse anywhere near the city unless its zoned for animal ownership which took away the rights of the people, when god made horses for transportation and chickens to produce food to feed us, the government might as well say we must all be vegetarians, since growing a garden is all the govenrment will let me own now.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

certainly people can interfere with other's rights, but...that doesn't make them stop being "rights"......this is what the founders of this country understood....the only thing governments can do is protect or obstruct natural rights of humanity...they cannot grant them....

You are muddying the concept with your description of money and livestock and such......as those things are privileges.....you can't own a chicken or horse where they don't exist either, but you still have the right to think, say, and do what you please, as long as it doesn't effect another person from doing the same..... then we have a conflict, as no man has the right to obstruct the rights of another....

all your examples, though not "rights' demonstrate how the founders distaste for powerful central government was reasonable.....governments can only defend and obstruct rights...and are mostly involved in obstruction them....

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 8 years ago

yes that i agree, as i should have seen some progress by now after working for these past 34 years, but yet i have nothing to show all i did was rent some land space from a greedy land hog, or pay the dmv my last thousand in savings so that I could drive a car to work. I shall not forget, I shall not forgive. As I have seen in other instances in my life, Justice always comes around full swing!

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

why did you not save? or live below your income?...what did you expect to happen if you didn't save some of your own resources over time? Who did you expect to rush in and save you from yourself....

The person to blame is in the nearest mirror.....I have been working now for almost 30 years in various roles and jobs.....I don't have a huge amount to show for it...but it's growing, and I live on less than I earn, debt is stupid, unless it's tied to tangible things like real estate....those who carry debt beyond that, or spend more than they earn have only themselves to blame.....

You are alive, and certainly have skills, and can acquire more....I suggest reversing your philosophy and finding a demand and filling it with your efforts....provide something people want and they will compensate you for it....it really is that simple...not easy, but simple...

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 8 years ago

again, when the 99 % suffer, its not their fault. think about it. the cost of living could have been lower, but we as a nation chose to voluntarily give our wealth to the banks. it may not be evident at first, but think about it and do the math. look at where the lion share of the money goes over 30 years, and how much of that mortgage payment is for interest 80%.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

you could have saved your money for 10-20 years while paying rent (for which you NEVER see any return value) and purchased a home outright....The banks enable you to purchase a home with very little up-front cost, compared to the price of the home.....that is a positive, in my book....and that money you pay goes (or it did before the rates were lowered by the fed) to pay interest on the deposits of your neighbors...

Why don't you calculate what you earned in your working life..so far, and then apply that to what you now have......you will probably feel some shame and disgust.....I did when I did the same exercise....the difference is, I don't blame anyone but myself.....and I modified my behavior after the exercise......perhaps you should, as well....instead of complaining about others.....

I am certain I could find, in my own circle of acquaintances someone who has earned less, but has more to show for it.....self-observation is often the worst accuser....

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 8 years ago

if i had the credit, which i dont, thanks to the bait and switch corporatism which i became a victim of of transwestern yellow pages, and wells fargo. again, teh poor suffer, and noone gives a shit, i tried to clear my name with credit reporting agencies, and they are in bed with wells fargo, i even sent my complaint to the consumer protection agency, who got $115 million in fines from wells fargo, but more money to gov, still doesnt help we the people. i can forward you my stuff in writing. our system is far closed than is apparant unless this stuff happens to you.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 8 years ago

If the distinction between a right and a priviledge is the power of the state to grant a priviledge whereas a right exists outside the power of the state, what is it that gives a state the power (or the right) to grant particular priviledges? What are states but a collection of living breathing human beings? Is it not those human beings that grant and withhold priviledges? So the question becomes, who are those human beings and how are they chosen.

Since it was human beings that conceptualized both the notion of rights and the notion of priviledges, why is the distinction important. One can say that rights are God given, but the conception of God is itself a human construct, so it would seem to me that to conceptualize rights as God given and priviledges as a human construct as a distinction without a difference or at least a philosophical distinction hopelessly corrupted by superstition.

[-] 1 points by louisrocc (74) 8 years ago

Our right that is in the greatest jeopardy is our right to representation. We have disproportionate representation in our nation because we have disproportionate wealth and privately sponsored campaigns. I have proposed the Zero Contributions Campaign Finance Amendment posted at www.campaignfinanceamendment.org as a real solution.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

representation is also a privilege...it requires your effort and the efforts of others......without those efforts you get something other than what you desire...hence, not a right...

[-] 1 points by louisrocc (74) 8 years ago

It is a privilege usurped by the 1%. Even though I vote and correspond with my elected officials, privately financed campaigns leads to disproportionate representation of the wealthy. I have proposed the Zero Contributions Campaign Finance Amendment posted at www.campaignfinanceamendment.org as a real solution.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

yeah...how will political campaigns function? through the biased popular media? you cannot put a dollar value on free speech

[-] 1 points by louisrocc (74) 8 years ago

Publicly sponsored debates, reputation and the internet are better than missinformation from negative TV ads.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

moderated by those on the left who bring up questions that have nothing to do with the issues for Republican candidates and ignore glaringly bad personal choices and associations by those in the Democrat party?

No thanks.....

The only reform I would like to see is a full accounting of all donations and sources of those donations...other than that, you are stacking the deck.....which is what the collectivists want...they want to be able to overcome the fact that most americans are pro-capitalism, pro-individual, and pro-commerce

[-] 1 points by louisrocc (74) 8 years ago

Publicly sponsored debates don't have to be moderated by persons on the left or right but by persons agreed to by all candidates. Candidates can edit their own web pages.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 8 years ago

We are human beings. No idea exists outside of the human conception of that idea. That includes both the idea of priviledges and the idea of rights. Rights do not exist outside of human beings that conceive of those rights, fight for those rights or grant those rights. The same is true of priviledges. The difference is that priviledges are exclusive and generally require some kind of reciprocating obligation such as expertese in a particular area of human knowledge (such as the ability to drive a car). A right may be demanded or granted outside of any particular skill to any group or citizens or residents as a whole (not to humanity as a whole as rights can only be granted by sovereign bodies such as states).

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

keep on parroting the same incorrect assertion, it won't make it right.....you can be stupid if you choose, no one will stop you....

another obstinate parrot on this forum.....how unusual ;-/

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 8 years ago

Is it or is it not true that all ideas are human constructs? That is not an assertion. It is a question. I happen to believe that they are human constructs. If someone disagrees with me about that we are in such fundamental disagreement there there is no point in any further discussion, but it says absolutely nothing about the relative intelligence or lack there of of the parties involved in the discussion. Nor is it a matter of parrotting assertions. It is a matter of trying to determine if there are any intellectual or ethical points of contacts and proceeding from those points of contact or acknowledging that differences are so fundamental that there is no point in any further discussion.

The notion that ideas exist outside of the human beings that express them seems to me metaphysical, religious and in that sense superstitious. That would be true, for example, of rights as an idea. The Declaration of Independence says that certain rights are God given (but only certain rights, implying that other rights otherwise exist or are otherwise granted), but the concept of God itself is a human construct, which is to say that ultimately all rights are essentially human constructs so that the distinction between a right and a priviledge cannot be that a right exists outside of the human construction of that right whereas a priviledge is a human construct.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 8 years ago

Priviledges are specific and typically require some kind of formal or informal licensing. For example, there is no Constitutional or inherent right to drive. It is a priviledge which requires a license to do legally. Rights are legally granted without any reciprocating obligations.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

they require the participation of others, and are DEPENDENT on that participation......that is a privilege

[-] 1 points by Quark (236) 8 years ago

Wrong! Health Care is without a doubt a RIGHT! Anyone who thinks different is an IDIOT! All the Rights you mention can not be attained unless Health is PRIMARY! Wake up you monkey brain and lizard heart and use some LOGIC & LOVE! Or at least get a clue. Virtue and Compassion are my religion and to express myself I need to help the sick and needy. You are treading on many of my RIGHTS with your idiot statements.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

someone must provide healthcare, if a thing is dependent upon the time and actions of others it's not a right, sorry...YOU don't have the right to the efforts of others......any more than others can force you to labor for them.

YOU are mistaking a wanton desire, and privilege, for a RIGHT...it's not a right at all, and can only be forcefully made into a mandated privilege by the enslavement of the labor of others......

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8708) 8 years ago

Rights are not privileges.

[-] 1 points by TruthRightsFreedom (259) 8 years ago

We share our rights and must defend them together to preserve them.

slammersworldisback Right's on the other hand are independent of others, no one is responsible for another persons "rights"

The Magna Carta was the peace treaty that ended a war and gained an agreement from the elite to be accountable and respect those rights. Government. We are responsible for each others rights, obviously.

If we do not fight together for them, we will have none. No one person can preserve them for themselves or everyone.

[-] 1 points by IslandActivist (191) from Keaau, HI 8 years ago

You are not born with rights. The dominant nation of a society gives you rights. If people want a society with different rights, then they'll make another society with those rights. You can look at Canada and say their universal healthcare is a privilege, but universal healthcare is a right to those citizens in Canada. You speak as if you are God dictating that people are born with certain rights and are granted additional privileges only after being enslaved to you. The only point you make is that privileges and rights are two different terms which I have to agree with. If the majority of Americans want certain actions to be rights, then society will distribute those rights. The Constitution does not state that the only way to add more rights is to 'earn' them or that certain actions are deemed 'privileges' and must be 'earned' as well.

Earn; Verb: Obtain privileges in return for labor or work which are not supplied

[-] 2 points by BonTon (57) 8 years ago

scary notions dude. "The dominant nation of a society gives you rights"? That would be a nice motto for Stalin's USSR or Mao's PRC.

[-] 1 points by IslandActivist (191) from Keaau, HI 8 years ago

I just wanted to be clear. Since every nation grants its citizens different rights, it depends on which type of society is adopted that determines which rights are given. 'The dominant culture' would be correct, but I found that phrase to be confusing in my argument.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

it is not a "right" it requires citizenship to enjoy...and that is a privilege of being a Canadian Citizen.....not a right, as it can be taken away....

[-] 1 points by IslandActivist (191) from Keaau, HI 8 years ago

Life can be taken away. Is life a right? The freedom to do anything you want can be taken away. Is liberty a right? Committing actions that make you happy can be taken away. Is the pursuit of happiness a right?

Edit: It was nice chatting with you :D

[-] -1 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

life is a privilege as well....it is dependent upon the actions of others to begin....

But when it becomes YOUR life, it is a right just as liberty, and pursuit of happiness are rights, but..your pursuit cannot infringe upon my rights, no one has the "right" to limit the rights of others

Life is given to use...and what you do with it is up to you......freedom can be taken away, but not liberty, you can maintain your liberty without freedom (read "Man's Search For Meaning" by Frankle to understand this further) and life can be ended....and those rights, MIGHT, in some places be the consequence for exercising your natural rights, but they are still your rights...

We are spoiled in this country...our natural rights, for the most part, are secure......so some, since there is no fight for them, about natural rights and because they are spoiled and entitled, want to be promised things they, by right, should have to work for.....and that is what OWS is about, expecting things as rights that should be produced and worked for by the person themselves..

[-] 1 points by IslandActivist (191) from Keaau, HI 8 years ago

You are showing your perspective. This country does not spoil us because our rights are constantly in risk. The notion of even having rights is hilarious. The Constitution claims that life is a right, not specifically your life in your perspective is a right. I understand what you are trying to say and I am afraid we are going to go in circles with this argument. From what I can see, you are going with what this country has become rather than the foundation of this country. Just to be clear, I was not referring to OWS. Your post didn't point to OWS, so I was giving my opinion.

[-] 1 points by freehorseman (267) from Miles City, Mt 8 years ago

You mean like the privileges that George Bush obtained from his ever so humble origens. How he progressed because he was far far above average. If no one is responsible for your rights ,why must we employ a multitude of people to protect them.why must I pay to see that your rights are proyected.Your idea of Independant rights vs dependant privileges is confusing.Perhaps because it is baseless and false.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

or perhaps because you lack the ability of critical thought or the understanding philosophical idea's....

Or, perhaps, because you, like many others just hate anyone with more than you...and have to use the rare examples of those who inherited their wealth as a disguise for your own feelings of inadequacy......it must suck for someone like you to realize that a man so horrible as GW Bush accomplished more than you ever will (despite his shortcomings, according to your opinion)

[-] 1 points by freehorseman (267) from Miles City, Mt 8 years ago

Large words small Man.

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 8 years ago

Seems to me a lot of self proclaimed christians could care less about any one or any thing.They belive in God. Guns OIL Drugs

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 8 years ago

FALSE Rights are indeed dependent on others. The Constitution recognizes that, and so does the Declaration of Independence.

We believe that with existence come certain unalienable rights. But these rights only exist by agreement, and with the defense of these by others. Thus we are indeed dependent on other for our rights. Without such agreement and protection you would have no rights at all.

Privileges, on the other hand, are thing you earn. It is a privilege to have a driver's license, and you have to earn it with training and testing. With privilege comes responsibility, and screw up your responsibility (drive drunk) and you will lose your privilege (right to operate a motor vehicle).

Financial wealth is a great privilege, yet is is entirely with responsibility.

As to what are rights and what are privileges, that is a matter for people to decide. Preferably not the tiny fraction of people who control the vast majority of the wealth.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

"We believe that with existence come certain unalienable rights. But these rights only exist by agreement, and with the defense of these by others".....you do realize that is a direct contradiction?

inalienable is inseparable and if they are inseparable their not created or based on agreement

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 8 years ago

Rights are imaginary if nobody agrees that you have them.

A belief is not a fact, it is a supposition.

[-] 1 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 8 years ago

For every right there is a responsibility.We as a people have the responsibility to see that ALL our people are taken care of.The mantra today is that there is no social responsibility,only profit.Wrong You are your brothers keeper.If you are to selfish to understand that then I guess it will be a revolution.

[-] 1 points by BonTon (57) 8 years ago

Hey cJessgo, you're making sense for a change. I guess since Lara's been MIA you've been able to focus.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

no, we are an individualist nation, the responsibility for life belongs with the individual....or those willing to help, not in support through force

[-] 1 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 8 years ago

This is the old fudal way of thinking.We are no longer going to stand by and watch as people suffer and die .So a group of misguided people can cling to a misguided sense of individualism.The same group that proclams individualism also support the largest military on the planet.As memory serves me NO individualism in the UNIFORM services.Feed the poor take care of the sick and stop your Wars

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

individualism is a feudalist idea?

yeah......you need to educate yourself before you chime into grown up discussions

[-] 1 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 8 years ago

You disguise Greed as individualism.Then when you are called on it the put downs come.You look at human suffering as an afliction that you are above,you will not be. Compassion is a four letter word to you.And kindness to you is for weaklings.You are a machine not a Human.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

I am not greedy, I don't expect anything more than what I have earned justly....can you say the same?

Weak compassion and weak kindness are for the weak, and drag everyone down.....

You don't know me, so your assumptions are based on what you read here....and I assure you, they are incorrect....I donate more time to the assistance of my troubled friends, acquaintances, and those I do not know...without compensation of any sort, than do ANY of my friends who share the collectivist notions forwarded by OWS

[-] 1 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 8 years ago

I know you by your words. And they are of Greed.In addition you now are starting to sound genocidal!

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

I don't desire anything I haven't earned myself....how about you?

[-] 1 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 8 years ago

I desire the young girl in the short red dress.But that is not greed.I only have what i have earned.Many today do not have the same opportunity that I did.Wages Down.Benifits Down.Pensions a thing of the past.Corporate profits up.Social Responsibility down.The list goes on and on.These people are not in the streets because they have nothing better to do.They are in the streets because of social injustice.Nothing to do with repub or demo.The system is sick and needs a good enema!

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

No, they are in the streets because they have been told there is no alternative and that they have no chance.....which is only a belief, not the truth...but believing a lie makes it true...for the person believing it....

[-] 1 points by dreamingforward (394) from Gothenburg, NE 8 years ago

How does property (that you didn't create) in land already filled with native people becomes a "right"?

Here's the thing, once land runs out, a new stage of "living together" must begin.


[-] -2 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

you are using property in only the "real estate" sense....it is a much more universal term.

and, in reference to your comment they had the "right" to defend their lands against conquer......but, we don't live in that world today, so discussing it with the reason and judgement of the modern day is an exercise in futility......

[-] 1 points by dreamingforward (394) from Gothenburg, NE 8 years ago

Re: property -- there cannot be a RIGHT to property if you did not create it (or exchange with one who did). Real estate just happens to be the most contentious issue in a constitutional government that did not anticipate what would/should happens when land runs out.

The solution, make property a privilege, granted in purpose to the common good.

But regarding the original people? They suffer to this day -- either one recognizes who God is, or pays respect to the Native people who were in some way holding the Tree of Life.


[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

how much ya paying

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 8 years ago

you got the part about private property wrong.. but what has this to do with corrupt corporations and politicians and bankers?

[+] -6 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

are you so simple-minded that you cannot separate your hatred for those more successful than you from a philosophical discussions?

[-] 3 points by UncomonSense (386) 8 years ago

What's the matter - is the imaginary foundation of your belief system crumbling? Better hold on tight!

[+] -4 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

nice projection.....

[-] 0 points by utahdebater (-72) 8 years ago


[-] 0 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 8 years ago

Call to Action!

Help Us Undo NDAA By Petitioning Your State Supreme Court For A Protective Writ of Habeus Corpus Like This One:


You do NOT have to be a lawyer to file this petition, but the aid of attorneys is welcome!

[-] 0 points by FreedomIn2012 (-36) from Hempstead, NY 8 years ago

Very well said. Rights by definition cannot impinge on others.

[-] 0 points by Galt01 (55) 8 years ago

I agree 100% Desires are not Rights !!!


[-] -2 points by America921 (161) 8 years ago

I have to agree for the most part. The only rights you and I have are Life, Liberty, Voting, Legal rights and so forth. A job is not a right. You have to work hard for a job if you don't then you simply don't get one. To those who work hard and still don't get a job then too bad, life is not fair nor will it ever. All you can do is pick yourself up and try, try again. My only problem with your idea is 'no one is responsible for another persons "rights"'. I have a duty to respect your rights just as you have a duty to my rights. Furthermore I have a responsibility to you and myself to do all in my power to protect your rights. Overall good post though, and look forward to hearing back from you.

[-] -2 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

yes, I agree....respecting each others rights is a given..

I was using that phrase to define the difference between rights and privilege

rights are not determined based on the inclusion or participation of others

[-] -3 points by BannedForTruth (233) from Christiana, TN 8 years ago

Good luck getting people to understand this.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

people are stupid

we have a right to take advantage of them

[-] 0 points by BannedForTruth (233) from Christiana, TN 8 years ago

You have no right to take advantage of anyone.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

bt contract and interest

[-] -1 points by BannedForTruth (233) from Christiana, TN 8 years ago

A contract is a mutual agreement between to party's. Also contract's get thrown out lot's of times if it is ruled one took advantage of another.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

I was just thinking about "under water houses"

where the price drops below what the house was valued at

so the borrower was payong more than the home was worth

but aren't they already with 30 year interest rate loans?

[-] 0 points by BannedForTruth (233) from Christiana, TN 8 years ago

Oh, i actually agree with you i think. Many, many homes were mortgaged in illegal fashions to get people into homes. It's is a long talk about how exactly it happened that i could have if you like. It goes from legislation to get people into homes to criminal banks, that took advantage through fraud.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

so poor people should be allowed to have property because they cannot afford it

[-] -1 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

um...yes, those who cannot afford property should not have it

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

unless they inherit it like kings

[-] -1 points by BannedForTruth (233) from Christiana, TN 8 years ago

Nope who are you gonna take it from? Reparations from crimes done by the big banks are in order. The government IMO should start opening up some of the 60% of the US land mass that has been "protected" and sell it cheap to the poor to start farms. But that is a whole other enchilada.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

reparations on big banks over their money issues

is a puppet show compared to changing wealth inequaloty

[-] -3 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

yeah, I know....

[-] 2 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

The reason people may not agree with you is because you are wrong about a couple of things.

Rights can be taken away and/or given by legislation and/or a court. This can happen gradually over time and is often referred to as erosion. Consider that the Founding Fathers never intended for Corporations to have the rights reserved for the individual in the Constitution. Corporations now have almost all the rights granted the individual by the Constitution and almost none of the responsibility that comes with those rights while the individual through legislation and the courts has lost many of those rights granted by the Constitution. All this while the document outlining these rights has changed very little in comparison to the change in rights.

Your rights are not what this is about. Corporate rights are what this is about.

[-] -2 points by BannedForTruth (233) from Christiana, TN 8 years ago

Maybe government grants you your rights but mine our god given and will fight to insure them. Actually that is what the Constitution says to, it is just expressing our rights we already have.

[-] 0 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

Sorry, I don't need any god to tell me what I can or cannot do anymore than I need a government to tell me what I can or cannot do.

The god fearing slave owning pieces of shit that drafted the Constitution screwed it up by their inept attempt to protect their own position and to protect their slaves from being free. These winners used vague language that is not misconstrued.

I am sorry you need god.

[-] 1 points by BannedForTruth (233) from Christiana, TN 8 years ago

God given has a different meaning with regards to this, look it up. http://www.yourdictionary.com/god-given

[-] 0 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

Since god doesn't exist god can't give me anything. It is like Christmas and Santa Claus. For me to believe Santa gave me a present requires me to believe in Santa first.

[-] 0 points by BannedForTruth (233) from Christiana, TN 8 years ago

OK tool remain ignorant

[-] 0 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

Hmmmm, you need to believe in god and are now offended because I don't believe in Santa Claus and I am the ignorant one. Your world must be great, can I come live there too?

[-] 0 points by BannedForTruth (233) from Christiana, TN 8 years ago

I am not offended and as i pointed out this conversation has nothing to do with GOD. It is you who keeps injecting that Santa crap

[-] 0 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

God never gave me any rights. My rights are inherent to the country I live in. If I lived in Iran, Pakistan or say a western country like England and Italy my inherent rights would be different.

In the EU you have a right to your privacy where here in the US you have no such right.

In the US you have an inherent right to free speech, in Iran, Pakistan, Italy you don't.

This is the way it is, shrug. Our rights are dictated by the government and it is a good thing we are the government. We just have to exercise our rights and kick out the corporations.

[-] 0 points by BannedForTruth (233) from Christiana, TN 8 years ago

Congrats you are a slave!!! Want a cookie slave boy, better beg from your local official, slave.

[-] 0 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

Reality is what it is, facts are what they are. These things are constant in they are what they are and it is only our perception of them that changes or is different.

Our individual rights are restricted by laws, laws are governed by the Constitution in this Country, the Constitution is interpreted by the Courts. Who tells you what you can and/or cannot do?

[-] 0 points by BannedForTruth (233) from Christiana, TN 8 years ago

YOU know how i know i am not a slave? Take my rights away and i will kill you, problem solved. Hum, that seems to be what this country is based on to. So do you think the founding fathers were terrorists?

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

The founding fathers almost all slave owners and real pieces of shit. They preached, like so many do today, I want my rights but fuck you if you want yours. I found that if I fight for those that have less than I do and if everybody adopted that attitude, eventually somebody would be fighting for me.

I find everybody fighting for their own small piece of the pot only to be disappointed when the actually get that small piece of the pot and see how small the piece given to them is. Why else would I involve myself in such a massive movement?

It isn't for me. We own a couple homes, married for 24 years, together for 29 years, not gay. What does this fight have to do with me?

That is my thoughts on that. I do PM if you want to discus the founding fathers and the history of the country. The future is still to be written.