Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: We should strive to meet the basic needs of everyone, before the luxury needs of anyone.

Posted 1 year ago on June 19, 2012, 7:42 a.m. EST by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

People talk of taxes as if it were a confiscation of someone’s property. To some people of the world the concept of “owning” something that you did not make was odd indeed, how could you own land? You didn’t make it; you didn’t trade for it with someone who did make it. Yet today we have people who feel they own huge tracts of the world. Why? Because somebody with a gun will back some words on a piece of paper saying they do (for money). Well I say those words; WE get to write them, that’s democracy, and it has as much right as any words on a piece of paper.

274 Comments

274 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by friendlyopposition (574) 1 year ago

"People talk of taxes as if it were a confiscation of someone’s property."

How is taxation different from confiscation of property?

(don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to taxes. I understand that the government needs funding to do government stuff.)

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 1 year ago

they can print their own money to get the job done, instead they print money to pay private bankers. hmmmm

[+] -4 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

that's the truth

We could have lower taxes for all and end inflation while still funding social programs. But no one wants to tackle monetary policy seriously. They don't want to talk about how TRILLIONS are created out of nothing for the banks and corporations. It's time to end this debt based monetary policy and work toward the future.

HR 2990, The NEED Act is the first step toward the solution.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I guess I see what you mean, like you have no choice, sort of like work is slavery, I mean really if you are not born wealthy do you really have a choice to not work?

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

no we are commanded to work 6 days a week for our daily bread, rich or poor, but to withold the earth from our fellow man because we got in early of the economic pyramid, forcing the poor among us to forever rent, when they should be equal to us, and no man should rule another man, are some of the greatest problems in America. Like Abraham Lincoln said, Just as I would not be a slave, neither would I be a master!

[-] 0 points by friendlyopposition (574) 1 year ago

You always have a choice. As long as you don't want to eat, or have shelter or clothing, or anything else - you don't HAVE to work. You are free to live under a bridge and beg for money (though, I guess that could be considered work.) People throughout history have had to work to make food, build homes, knit clothing. People throughout history have had to work very hard just to survive. I believe you are of the opinion (feel free to correct me) that it isn't fair that you have to work to survive, but someone born into wealth does not.

Work does not equate to slavery. Maybe you should take a few minutes to educate yourself on what slavery was in the US, and continues to be in some countries - and then look at today's workplace. Do you not think the comparison would be insulting to someone who is suffering in real slavery? Just because you have to work, and work hard, to get by - does not make you a slave.

It used to be that people actually valued work.

[-] 2 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 1 year ago

The trouble is, work is not valued anymore; it is valued by those of us who perform it, but not by those who pay to have it done. Taxes are a form of payment by those who benefit from things provided by the organization called "government". Wages are payment for individual labor. The wages paid should be sufficient to feed, house and clothe the person providing the energy required to transform nothing into something -- whether it be a service or a tangible thing. When did it become okay for something to be bad just because it isn't as bad as it could be? Why can't we strive to be the best we can be, instead of less bad?

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 1 year ago

You always have a choice. As long as you don't want to eat, or have shelter or clothing, or anything else - you don't HAVE to work. You are free to live under a bridge and beg for money (though, I guess that could be considered work.)

True. And considering that 'under a bridge and begging' is a demeaning life to lead and a last ditch alternative to 'getting a job', it places me in an awkward and weak bargaining position for a decent wage with someone who owns capital and means of production. Easy pickings for low wages.

People throughout history have had to work to make food, build homes, knit clothing. People throughout history have had to work very hard just to survive.

Some harder than others.

I believe you are of the opinion (feel free to correct me) that it isn't fair that you have to work to survive, but someone born into wealth does not.

It is unfair by definition. unfair - not based on or behaving according to the principles of equality and justice.

Work does not equate to slavery.

(bondage) the state of being under the control of another person ----- who controls the workplace?.....the owner

Maybe you should take a few minutes to educate yourself on what slavery was in the US, and continues to be in some countries - and then look at today's workplace.

(slave) a person who is owned by someone

Do you not think the comparison would be insulting to someone who is suffering in real slavery? Just because you have to work, and work hard, to get by - does not make you a slave.

At best, what we have here is exploitation, but wage slave is not an unfit description. If there are any slaves reading this, please do not take offense at my telling the truth.

It used to be that people actually valued work.

Work will always have value, but that value is in the eye of the beholder. You value cheap labor and exploitation, I do not.

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 1 year ago

I still object to people equating all work with slavery. Just because an owner controls a workplace, does not mean he control the workers. You are free to quit your job. That is the difference - slaves CAN"T QUIT. You have options, even if the only other option is living under a bridge. You said yourself that a slave is a person that is owned by someone. Owned as in the literal sense. Owned as in property. There is a huge difference in the definition of slavery, and people who have to work to get out of debt or have to work to pay their bills.

"You value cheap labor and exploitation, I do not." Don't presume to know my values based on some internet forum posting.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 1 year ago

I don't equate all work with slavery either. Giving a person the option to consent to work for a cheap wage or starve is not really an option, no matter how kindly you put it. I did say a slave is a person who is owned by someone. But I also specifically used the word bondage to apply to consenting to work for an owner who controls the workplace, not slave. I also said what we have here is exploitation. So stop twisting what I said. Anybody who has to twist their opponent's words to make a point, does not have a good point.

Millions of people live at, near, or below the poverty level, so how can I not presume you place next to nothing on the value for labor, when you tell people if they don't like living in poverty, they can choose to go live under a bridge instead?

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 1 year ago

I didn't twist anything. You said a slave is owned by someone, I disputed that person under someone's control AT WORK is a slave. A slave is under someone's control all the time - not just while at work.

My statement that people can go live under a bridge is a fact. People have that option. I didn't say it was a great option, or one that people should choose. You are the one assigning value to my statements.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 1 year ago

You said, Work does not equate to slavery.

I said, (bondage) the state of being under the control of another person ----- who controls the workplace?.....the owner

Did I imply a person under someone's control AT WORK is a slave. NO, I used the definition of bondage to describe being under someone's control in the workplace. The definition fits.

You said, Maybe you should take a few minutes to educate yourself on what slavery was in the US, and continues to be in some countries - and then look at today's workplace.

I said, (slave) a person who is owned by someone

I did use slave here, but in direct response to your mentioning slavery.


You took my words and twisted them plain as day. You clearly don't have an honest argument to make, so you twist my words and use them out of context.

Stop making statements and I will quit evaluating them.

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 1 year ago

This is my point. A person who consents to work for a company is not a slave, nor is he or she in bondage to that company. If they don't like the way they are being treated they can quit. A person who is a slave, or a person who is in bondage does not have that option. If a slave or person in bondage quits or leaves they are (or would be) subject to punishment such as arrest or death.

I'm tired of hashing out the same thing over and over with you. I'm done. You can enjoy the last word with great self-satisfaction. I won't be reading it.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 1 year ago

Your point is people who don't like living in poverty can go live under a bridge. Got it.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

work is no more unfair than taxes, which aren't unfair at all as you point out,

as far as the choice if you're willing to do all that I guess you wouldn't have to pay taxes either,

maybe I should talk to some Jews about "confiscation" too

people have to pay taxes, if they're lucjky they're some who pays hard taxes

it used to be people were proud to be well paid and pay high taxes

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 1 year ago

I don't think expecting people to work is unfair, and I don't think expecting people to pay taxes is unfair. There is a limit to the amount of work you can expect a person to do, and there is a limit to the amount of taxes a person should pay.

I'm just glad you got off of comparing work to slavery.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

And I, that you no longer consider taxes a confiscation. Progress indeed.

As a far as what is too much at my work they often say "give a 110%" but I think that would be too high a tax rate, no matter the income.

[-] 0 points by friendlyopposition (574) 1 year ago

Progress eh? You mean my transformation from "(don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to taxes. I understand that the government needs funding to do government stuff.)" to "I don't think expecting people to work is unfair, and I don't think expecting people to pay taxes is unfair. "

Yes...you certainly opened my eyes between those two posts...

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

"4 points by friendlyopposition (502) 5 days ago

"People talk of taxes as if it were a confiscation of someone’s property."

How is taxation different from confiscation of property?

(don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to taxes. I understand that the government needs funding to do government stuff.)"

so you still believe taxes are confiscation and work is slavery? ok well we got to believe something

[-] -1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 1 year ago

I believe you are confused.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

am I how?

[-] 0 points by friendlyopposition (574) 1 year ago

I do believe that taxes are confiscation. By definition, confiscation means to appropriated by the government or seize to the public treasury. Whether you agree with taxation or not, it is a form of confiscation by definition.

Where you are confused is where you included "and work is slavery." Work is slavery was your statement, and I've been arguing against it since you spit it out several responses above.

[-] 1 points by EndGluttony (507) 1 year ago

What is a country without taxes? It's called a contribution. Some people are selfish and greedy and don't want to contribute to the collective, they want to reap the benefits of being part of the collective, but give nothing back. That's called a leach.

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 1 year ago

You don't have to scroll far up to find several responses where I voice my support of taxes. So, I'm not sure if this post is pointed at me, or just a general statement.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Look it's not that I don't get where you're coming from, it's just that you don't get that what you are saying leads to one place, Monarchy.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

by your own definition work is slavery being forced by hunger or other means to do what you otherwise would not do is slavery in the SAME way the taxes are confiscation, you can't have one without the other, too bad you're still stuck

[-] -1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 1 year ago

You're an idiot. People have to work to eat, and you call that slavery? I guess you consider moving the spoon from the bowl to your mouth slavery as well.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

And the definition of slavery is to be forced to do what you otherwise wouldn't, of course some might say inflammatory language like "confiscation" and "slavery" doesn't really help us arrive at good policy, but you seem to be stuck at about that level in your discussion. Too bad for a moment there I thought you had gotten pass such a simple and decisive position but I guess you haven’t.

[-] -1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 1 year ago

I think you should spend some time learning about what real slavery is before you start using that word to describe work.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

No you're the idiot, people got to pay taxes to have a society and you call that confiscation? I suppose you want to go to shotgun shells and canned food.

[-] 0 points by friendlyopposition (574) 1 year ago

From my very first response on this thread : "(don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to taxes. I understand that the government needs funding to do government stuff.)"

If you would read more and type less you would see that I am not opposed to paying taxes. That doesn't change the fact that BY DEFINITION taxes are confiscation. I posted this yesterday "By definition, confiscation means to appropriated by the government or seize to the public treasury."

You are the one assigning negative connotation to the word, all I'm doing is defining it.

[-] -3 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

I have no problem paying for a small military, and the roads I use.

I dont want the gov determining my SS, and I dont want them using my money for their useless agencies that have proven time and again to be nothing but corporate fronts.

I have no problem helping those in need, but the other half that is ripping the system off, I dont want to be involved in that.

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 1 year ago

I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. There are a lot of things we NEED from the government. Things we should expect for them to provide - which includes assistance do the needy. However, there are a lot of special groups and committees and agencies and other wasteful crap that I don't want to spend money on.

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by linker (-241) 1 year ago

Genius - who's confiscating your property? Your money IS your property. It's not a matter of being against taxes - it's a matter of how much and what is the money being used for. Redistribution is unconstitutional in the first place. We've been living a lie since Lincoln destroyed the country & the idea of Liberty.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

"Lincoln destroyed the country"? What are you some kind of southern confederate sympathizer? Are you a racist?

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by darrenlobo (204) 1 year ago

Actually, Lincoln was a racist. His idea was to free the slaves & deport them.

The Evil Lincoln (snip) Lincoln the Racist

On this subject his own words condemn him. During the Lincoln-Douglas debates in Ottowa, Illinois on August 21, 1858 he said:

I have no disposition to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which in my judgment will probably forever forbid their living together on terms of respect, social and political equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there should be a superiority somewhere, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position;

He repeated the same idea at Charleston, Illinois on September 18, 1858:

I will say then, that I am not nor have ever been in favor of bringing about in any way, the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not, nor have I ever been in favor of making voters of the negroes, or jurors, or qualifying them to hold office, or having them to marry with white people...there must be the position of superior and inferior, that I as much as any other man am in favor of the superior position being assigned to the white man.

His idea of what to do with freed blacks was to have them leave the US. He stated so very plainly on August 14, 1862 in "Address on Colonization to a Committee of Colored Men, Washington, D.C." (snip) http://theinternationallibertarian.blogspot.com/2011/02/evil-lincoln.html

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Whatever 'isms Lincoln suffered with he still recognized that the Confederate states of America represented violent treasonous betrayal of the nation, and required that they be put them down like the dogs they were. He also issued the Emancipation, so that was a major step forward for the freedom of all human beings. Unfortunately, white racists perpetrated horrible crimes against African Americans (and other minorities) since President Lincolns great success at destroying the CSA and Emancipation. The criminal Klan, the Jim Crow laws, segregation, lynchings and other brutal terrorist actions against Americans. Even today we have to deal with unfair laws and arrests (drug laws) designed to continue the persecution. The poorest citizens have to deal with the worst condition schools. The most underserved neighborhoods are poor and minority. These days we also again have new efforts at voter suppression. We even have horrible racists on this site trying to denigrate our greatest President Lincoln with half truths and denials of the truth.

[-] 1 points by darrenlobo (204) 1 year ago

Perhaps you can show me where the Constitution says a state can't secede. What ever happened to the consent of the governed?

From Lysander Spooner's NO TREASON NO. VI. THE CONSTITUTION OF NO AUTHORITY:

The pretense that the "abolition of slavery" was either a motive or justification for the war, is a fraud of the same character with that of "maintaining the national honor." Who, but such usurpers, robbers, and murderers as they, ever established slavery? Or what government, except one resting upon [*57] the sword, like the one we now have, was ever capable of maintaining slavery? And why did these men abolish slavery? Not from any love of liberty in general --- not as an act of justice to the black man himself, but only "as a war measure," and because they wanted his assistance, and that of his friends, in carrying on the war they had undertaken for maintaining and intensifying that political, commercial, and industrial slavery, to which they have subjected the great body of the people, both black and white. And yet these imposters now cry out that they have abolished the chattel slavery of the black man --- although that was not the motive of the war --- as if they thought they could thereby conceal, atone for, or justify that other slavery which they were fighting to perpetuate, and to render more rigorous and inexorable than it ever was before. There was no difference of principle --- but only of degree --- between the slavery they boast they have abolished, and the slavery they were fighting to preserve; for all restraints upon men's natural liberty, not necessary for the simple maintenance of justice, are of the nature of slavery, and differ from each other only in degree. http://lysanderspooner.org/node/64

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

The United States of America destroyed the Confederate States of America when they attacked the US fort Sumpter. Period. As a result of that treason. The states that made up the CSA were no longer part of the USA by their own proclamation. As such the CSA was just another country that made the mistake of attacking a much larger more populous, and more powerful nation. So we kicked their sorry asses. Took their property,.Burned their cities and made them unconditionally surrender (remember US grant) and thats the way it always goes. Of course slavery is wrong. And I hope you don't think we should enslave anyone. Maybe we should have enslaved the morons in the CSA who clearly showed inferiority in attacking the great United States of America! What do you think?

[-] 1 points by darrenlobo (204) 1 year ago

So might makes right, is that it?

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

As the Great President Lincoln said "Right make Might".

[-] 1 points by darrenlobo (204) 1 year ago

Hail the dictator!

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Dictator? he didn't serve even 5 years. And was elected twice.

Perhaps you don't understand the definition of "dictator"?

Hail the great President Lincoln. Who created a "new birth of freedom" and ended the original sin of the USA.

[-] 1 points by darrenlobo (204) 1 year ago

Dictators can be elected. It's not about how they gain power but what they do in office. Lincoln waged aggressive war against the south while erecting a police state in the north.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

The Confederate States of America established themselves as the aggressor when they attacked the United States fort Sumter.

Remember.?

Northern Police state? Please. nothing like today. And we put everything right after a couple of years.

[-] 1 points by darrenlobo (204) 1 year ago

Lincoln deliberately provoked that attack by trying to resupply Ft Sumter. He then launch a war of aggression against people seeking to disengage from his govt, something everyone has a right to do. Too bad you don't think the consent of the governed matters:

The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals.

No principle, that is possible to be named, can be more self-evidently false than this; or more self-evidently fatal to all political freedom. Yet it triumphed in the field, and is now assumed to be established. If it really be established, the number of slaves, instead of having been diminished by the war, has been greatly increased; for a man, thus subjected to a government that he does not want, is a slave. And there is no difference, in principle --- but only in degree --- between political and chattel slavery. The former, no less than the latter, denies a man's ownership of himself and the products of his labor; and [*iv] asserts that other men may own him, and dispose of him and his property, for their uses, and at their pleasure. http://www.lysanderspooner.org/node/44

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Wow. That is pretty radical thinking. Resupplying our forts is not an act of aggression it is a normal course of business. the Aggression was the cannon fire on the fort. Can you understand that? Maybe the Confederates were trying to resupply the fort with cannon balls? LMFAO.

The vast majority of the people in the southern states absolutely did NOT want to secede or "disengage from the govt". Only the 1% slave owners who wanted to save their lazy, exploitive, midieval lifestyle, (and keep their slaves) wanted to go to war. Another rich mans war and a poor mans battle.

Only after years of brainwashing, & indoctrination were large numbers of southern people convinced that it was right to commit suicide and attack the far more powerful United States of America. Even today believe it or not there are ignorant people who believe those lies.

But the most ridiculous comment in your post "no difference ...but...degree... between political (people today) and chattel (southern slavery)"

LMFAO. but degree". yes we aren't whipped like animals, my boss doesn't keep me prisoner at work, my wife isn't raped by my boss and his family/friends, my family isn't torn apart & sold to other raping bosses, It isn't illegal for me to learn to read, I can vote, And many many more.

No body owns me!. There may be slavery apologist conspiracy theorists who own you! But no body owns me! LOL!

This you describe as simply "degree". Why? because we cannot secede from the greatest nation on earth.? No state has a majority of citizens who want to secede. None, Nada, Nyet!

We disagree! I think you are unstable if you believe these lies. Sorry. You don't have to respond. In fact please don't.

Good luck in all yout good efforts.

Peace, & Freedom

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

insults! Post something of substance instead of ignorant, childish nonsense.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Whoa! Horsey!. Take it easy. I am registered independent. I support a progressive agenda. I acknowledge that the repubs proudly trumpet the right wing policies that the 1% use to exploit the 99%. I know also the Dems betray their progressive principles when they cave in to the right and vote for those same right wing policies. I say vote out all right wing pro 1% pols (dems and repubs), elect progressives. You with me?

[Removed]

[Removed]

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

The sociopaths dream, if we could only have slavery back, then we would restore liberty? I mean, do you ever bother to listen to what drips out of your pie hole?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

"to provide for the common welfare"

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

God Bless President Lincoln, the forging of the Union, and the emancipation of slaves.

These issues were settled over 150 years ago. Get over it.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Blacks got to Vote only in 1964. As a result of people working hard, facing difficult times, abuse, arrest, etc. There was no benefitial 'nice' government that gave the right to vote to blacks in the USA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act

So just to correct you. IMHO blacks were on a delayed entry program in the US Citizenship. So, lets say 2012 - 1964 = 48 Years of Emancipation and Individual Rights for Blacks Maximum.

Or... you can disagree with me. I get that a lot.

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

In 1867 the 15th amendment was passed, allowing African-Americans to vote. In the South, that wasn't much appreciated so Jim Crow laws were passed to circumvent this amendment on the state level. So your calculations are indeed off.

Women, the other second class citizen gained the right to vote in 1919.

When looking at these two cases of abuse against American Citizens, one really doesn't come to the conclusion that the issue one of a benevolent government or not, but rather the issue is that of the 'ole boys network'. Rich white males who feared to relinquish power.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Good Points. The problem with government is politics, conflicts of interest, regulation capture, revolving door between government employees going over to work for Industry that they regulate, sweaky wheel complainers who end up getting some kind of action because they are a pain in the neck, propaganda, cover-ups, lack of transparency, bureaucratic layers, Lobbying, Corporate campaign contributions, PACs... etc.

We can sort of blame government. Life isn't fair. But somehow it seems we have the right to judge our government as perfoming poorly and for politics being 'evil'.

[-] 3 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

The problem is MONEY in politics.... thats what makes politics evil. Thats what gives special interests more power than my vote. Thats what allows for regulatory capture and revolving doors. We have to separate money and corporate interests from our government and politics.

[-] 2 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Agree, that is the best place to start.

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

I agree also.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 1 year ago

Hypothetical: I live in a big house with a big piece of property. You live in a small house on a small property. Both of our kids go to the public school. Our property taxes are used to fund the public school system. I'm paying $xx,xxx in real estate taxes. You pay $x,xxx in real estate taxes. Effectively I'm subsidizing your kid's education. That's redistribution right?

Oh thats right. You put your kid to work as a wage slave to compete with China. Since you're an anarcho-capitalist and voted to repeal all regulations on capitalism including the Fair Labor Standards Act. Because you believe in magic. The free market. Invisible hands. Magical free-market fairy dust sprinkled by neo-lib, libertarian and anarcho-capitalist pixie creatures across all the land.

Your kid's working as a wage slave. And you said I had poor parenting skills? Jeesh. So I guess I'm not subsidizing your kid's education. Nevermind.

[-] -2 points by linker (-241) 1 year ago

huh? put down the crack pipe and write something coherent.

[-] 3 points by April (3196) 1 year ago

What part didn't you get? You're the one that loves the free-market so much. Anarcho-capitalist loverboy.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/insist-on-a-living-wage-and-not-a-minimum-wage/#comment-768943

Do you not know that public schools are funded with property taxes based on assessed valuations?

Do you not know that right wing neo-lib, libertarian and anarcho-capitalist economics are all based on magical free-market fairy dust? They don't call it the invisible hand for nothing ya know. It's magical!! You believe in magic right? All good libertarian/anarcho-capitalists do. Jeesh. What's wrong with you? What kind of free-market anarcho-capitalist are you anyway?

And your wage slave kid is tired and hungry. He already made $6 working 50 hours this week. Give him the day off tomorrow, why don'tcha.

[+] -4 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Somewhere there has to be a middle ground between the invisible hand and this current system of Gov/corp pilaging.

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 1 year ago

Yeah. It's called classic capitalism. Unlike right wing neo-libs and libertarians, even Adam Smith knew the invisible hand had limitations. Adam Smith believed that government has a role in providing certain public goods for the benefit of society. Like schools, infrastructure, and social welfare. He supported progressive taxes, government provided education and government regulation.

"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations.

He believed in government intervention - ''especially when the object is to reduce poverty.''

He believed in regulation - ''When the regulation, therefore, is in support of the workman, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favour of the masters.''

It's only the right wing neo-libs that believe all taxes are bad. All social services are bad. All regulation is bad. They believe in free-market fairy dust. More supply side economics. Handouts and more government assistance to the wealthy job creators and corporations. Because surely they'll create more jobs if we give them more tax breaks. They're not suppliers. Dependent on demand. They're Job Creator God's. We must shower them with more riches. In the hopes that a little of that wealth might trickle down. Like someone pissing down his leg. The middle class should all vote Republican. So they can get pissed on some more.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 1 year ago

Good luck finding that sweet spot. There is little difference between the two ideas. One lets the chips fall where they may at the whims of an invisible hand, the other allows free reign to pillage in an unregulated market.

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

Unreulated for the multinationals, UBER regulated for those who want to provide better options....

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 1 year ago

I agree with that.

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

I can only imagine how many rich people want to offer cleaner, better fuels for the public, and make a fortune, but arent in the top .01% with the gov backing.

Oil cartel is very strong.

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

The energy game is soooooo.....rigged.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Green Tech. Sustainable and healthy. Profitable and exportable.

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

http://www.hopewellproject.org/

http://ecat.com/

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

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

You have got to watch this vid: The liquid Metal Battery - another piece to the puzzle.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/donald_sadoway_the_missing_link_to_renewable_energy.html

Additional Liquid Metal Battery links.

http://lmbcorporation.com/

http://lmbcorporation.com/files/flyerFinal.pdf

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

We all understand where we should be going. The cosumer would purchase it, if it was equal costs.

Its not. And no one is really pushing it.

Why not.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

It is not being pushed as it is not in line with the status-quo which is funded in large part by fossil fuel interests.

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 1 year ago

I agree.

[+] -4 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

I would say that Hoover's Income Tax and the Federal Reserve creation are pretty damaging too.

[-] -1 points by linker (-241) 1 year ago

How about Lincoln's Income tax?

[+] -4 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Im not too familiar with Lincoln.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

He was the 16TH President of the United States of America

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

ok do they make sense if I read them together?

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

If you're talking about what I think you are, I always thought the SS number fit the bill pretty good, but I don't look to old books for guidance as much as I once did.

I do think they have reconstructed thought around money and we need to bring a dose of reality to it.

[-] 1 points by atki4564 (1259) from Lake Placid, FL 1 year ago

Better to meet the luxury needs of everyone using the following new constitution instead.

We the peoples, in order to secure Freedom and Justice for All, do enact this Constitution for Strategic International Systems LLC (or SIS LLC) as summarized in the following Business Operations Forecast:

The customer value mission of SIS LLC is (1) to organize all customer-investors into 3,000 investment squad sites of 16 friends (or virtual specialties), and related internet investment legislatures of 50,000 friends (or virtual towns), requiring (2) a $20 weekly capital contribution for 1 year (or $1,000) to (3) create your investment club bank of 50,000 friends (or physical town) -- that is, having $50 million in initial assets -- which (4) due to the operation of today’s fractional banking system becomes (5) $500 million in new annual business loans (or $10,000 in new annual individual loans) from yourself as a new bank officer to yourself as a new business officer who (6) takes 75% employee business control as business officer-investors and 25% customer business control as bank officer-investors of (7) your specific 12 businesses (or investments) in your new bank investment account wherein (8) your investor voting power equals (9) your 1 of 12 levels of experience in (10) your 1 of 12 sectors in 1 of 50 industries in 1 of 200 occupations in 1 of 3,000 specialities in your internet investment legislature which (11) votes-upon your purchasing (or investment) orders as (12) proposed by your employee-elected chain of command.

This means you will have 75% employee business control over your workplace as business officers and, as bank officers, 25% customer business control over all 12 investments (or businesses) in your new bank investment account. In turn, with this 100% town-level business control of your 3,000 workplaces, you can decrease your 12 customer consumption expenses by 75% for services, vehicles, education, retail, food, construction, technology, manufacturing, wholesale, health, justice, and banking expenses; that is, over your first 12 years of SIS LLC membership using a 75% more effective and efficient town design, and related 3,000 workplace designs (herein). Furthermore, while creating your new town & workplace design as amended by this constitution, you will replace today’s communist big businesses, and related big governments, with your new small investment club banks, and related small businesses (or investments), as proposed, financed, and patronized by your 3,000 investment squad sites of 16 friends (or virtual specialties) in your internet investment legislature of 50,000 friends (or virtual town).

Why? First, because today’s executive business income (mostly from bank or financial asset income) is 33% of all income which is a huge amount of upper 1% income to split among yourselves as new bank officers having 25% customer business control, right? Second, because today’s executive business wealth is 42% of all wealth which is a huge amount of upper 1% wealth to split among yourselves as new business officers having 75% employee business control; that is, only after becoming new bank officers (above) first, right?

For example, this means if you earn $12/hour today, then you will earn $36/hour tomorrow after adding (1) your old wage income, plus (2) your 33% (more and new) interest income as a new bank officer, plus (3) your 42% (more and new) dividend & gain income as a new business officer. Together, these 4 sources of wealth & income from your specific 12 businesses (or investments) will double your net worth every 6-12 years (until retirement); that is, from the compound interest decline of today's upper 1% executives whom you will replace as the new bank & business investor-officers. So, with this power, let’s end today’s communist big businesses, and related big governments, okay? How? By helping to operate your own Business Operations Forecast (above) at http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/StrategicInternationalSystems/ ; so help us help you, today!

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 1 year ago

well said, this wisdom alone qualifies you for president in my book!

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

OMG can't stop laughing thinking about the "vetting" process....

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Glad I'm not a politician and don't have to be pinned down on why have a hard time choosing a tax policy. I have an idea for an income tax that I can paste here from previous posting.... But to your point:

Progress is how we like to describe our country. We often are told our progress is 'Linear' as in a line or a straight line. Many feel we should have progressive ideas, teach prgressive ideas, and have progressive programs that lift up the sick, weak, unfortunate, disabled, mentally challenged, ect. And the 'goodness' of the US is said to support progressive taxes.

This country has progressed up to 1970, the last peice of individual rights leglislations which was occupational health and safety act (Labor Safety). Since 911 'Rights' have been taken away.

1) Have rich people pay Social Security and Medicare like everyone, these programs are like insurance. Get everyone into a pool of participants so we can support the unfortunate.

2) As long as we have sales tax in some states, then the poor are paying some to help the government. And if the have houses then they pay property tax in most states (except delaware or vermont?)

3) I'd say as long as we know there are over 1 or over 1000 people earning income, but paying no federal taxes then we should have a progressive income tax where higher earnings get higher taxes.

4) If the rich have lobbies that prevent them some of them from having to pay any taxes (zero) then ... sure let's have higher tax rates for rich people.

5) Honestly, the solution is a Streamlined and Simplied Tax system written to the 6th grade level that allows all citizens to figure out their own taxes and understand how corporations and wealthy are being taxed and how much they pay (both in percent of income and in total dollars. A streamlined and simplified progressive tax would have a low rate of 14% and high rate of 32%, but would probably come down after the first year. (But I'm totally guessing at the numbers).

My Income Tax plan: Scrape the current federal income tax scheme in favor of a progressive tax that only allows 5 deductions, recognizes wages and earnings the same way, investment dividends and short and long term profits and loses are treated with an exclusion for the first $15K earned, then taxed at 24%, interest rates for two mortgages can only be deductible up to $100K per house, there would be no such thing as a lower tax rate for "carrying fees" earned through business. This tax plan will get Lawyers, Tax Lawyers, Accountants, Tax Accountants into other economic activities that could be helpful to the GDP and may have a multiplier effect on the economy (hopefully we can get more financial managers into manufacturing also). This may also reduce the number of IRS employees needed to review tax forms. Outlaw Deferred Wages since they erode tax base and obstruct visibility of Executive Wages Earned (nontransparent).

1) Progressive tax with few deductions from 14% ($1-$22K per year) 16% ($23K-30K per year) 18% ($31K-38K per year) 20% ($39K-$49K per year) 22% ($50K-$60K per year) 24% ($61K-70K per year) 26% ($71K-82K per year) 28% ($83-$95K per year) 30% ($96K-120K per year) 31% ($121K-$1.5M per year) 32% ($1.6M- infinity)
2) All wages, tips, carry fees, income treated the same
3) Rich people pay full Social Security and Medicare taxes
4) Allowed to own two houses and deduct up to $100K per year per house, additional houses are called investments and you can't deduct the interest paid from income taxes
5) Head of Household and those with dependents can deduct health insurance premiums (capped at $20K per person), copays, drug costs, and medical bills
6) Investments are encouraged, loses and gains are only calculated when actually sold stocks, bonds or other financial instruments.
7) Pensions are not taxed by the federal government unless they exceed $100K per year in which case they would be taxed at the lowest rate or 14%
8) Personal deduction allowed, plus deduction for dependents and spouse

[-] 1 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 1 year ago

Government is a social contract. Yup, that is right. Socialism. I got a dollar. My buddy gots a dollar. A six pack costs two dollars. Socialism. We can keep our 2nd amendment guns in the closet and go fight the boogey man or we an all pitch in and hire others to do it. Insurance is perfect. The ultimate risk pool. Everybody. The neighbor boy dives into a shallow spot and breaks his neck. We get him a wheel chair from the pool we all pitched into. But I sure would like an opt out option on my tax return. Homeland Security? I opt out. Let those who are afraid of terrorists, Washington DC and NYC, especially Bush and Cheney, buy their own protection.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Good Point. Actually Bush and Cheney have protection, Secret Service, but may have private protection as well. I assume many big bankers and Rich people have private protection.

Politicans need Homeland Security for 3 Reasons 1) They get to dole out Senior Level Appointments 2) Expanding Federal Government expands a power base of employees and indoctrinates additional federal employees that will support their jobs and the government 3) It was Propaganda to form the DHS, and tilt the focus on giving power, permissions, and dominance to the Military Industrial Complex.

Protect the Instituations: Third World Countries have to have Private Police. So now the USA is just like the 3rd World. We have shifted public Emergency Organizations to protect more "Instituations" rather than people or Main Street. For the same reason we don't prosecute Accounting Fraud and Banking Fraud.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

In reference to the opt out, I think if people knew what we spent to keep Exxon in oil we might at least make them pay some tax and maybe even have the shareholders pay the regular amount at least.

[-] 1 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 1 year ago

Oil subsidies? Actually welfare. Opt Out!

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Oil subsidies are like the part of the iceberg you can see, the smallest part, would we be in Iraq if Exxon didn't need the oil?

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 1 year ago

"Wherever there is great property, there is great inequality … Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all. (Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations)

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

All boats are lifted when inequality is reduced, in Japan the top 20% have avg 3.5 times as much as the bottom 20%, they get very good results overall same for Demark, Sweden, in the US it’s about 9 times as much at the top, so absolute equality is not needed to obtain a great deal of benefit. Here’s the link to UD’s post you may have seen it.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/sorry-republicans-these-are-the-facts/

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

Yes, I have commented on the post numerous times. I've also read the book by Wilkinson & Picket, and I think they really have built a strong case for structuring societies around greater equality. I think there still needs to be more study to build an even stronger case, but I liken it to the studies that first linked smoking to causing lung cancer. The best evidence suggests there is a strong link between increasing income inequality and risks of societal dysfunction.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Interesting comment, I'm all for learning stuff, but too often I hear the response of "we need more research” from those wishing only to delay action. The fact that the system is unstable is self evident; it has been possible to see this for thirty years. Reagan got the ball rolling really, he started the class war and the 1% have been kicking ass ever since. Like a successful cancer cell the concept that the rich can own everything has grown from the principles established by Reagan and carried forward by his followers ever since.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 1 year ago

Where exactly did I say we should not act?

[-] 1 points by ChemLady (576) 1 year ago

We should strive to do a lot of things. Unfortunately I believe we all are greedy, just some of us have a greater drive to possess things then others. Keep economic inequity as it is, if unemployment were to return to 5% few would care about the injustice. If unemployment increases you may get revolution but not necessarily improvement. Most people are only concerned with themselves and their families.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

if you didn't see this you should:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/sorry-republicans-these-are-the-facts/

there are tangible bennefits frome reduceing wealth inequality at all levels of income

[-] -1 points by ChemLady (576) 1 year ago

I've seen it, Wilkinson's talk leaves me with a lot of questions. He himself admits a basic scientific truth, that correlation doesn't mean causality. I wonder if he replaced using inequity with how homogeneous a nation's population is, or it's work ethic as a nation would yield similar relationships.

Making us more equal in monetary terms may or may not produce benefits. Making us feel socially equal, more like we're part of the same family, may be just as valid a hypothesis.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

yeah I know what you mean, it's "those" lazy people, damn you got some issues lady

[-] 0 points by ChemLady (576) 1 year ago

How did you get anything about lazy people out of what I said? I'm talking about the validity of Wilkinson's theory and conclusion. Establishing a more equitable society may be a goal we should seek for moral reasons. I simply doubt it's the magic bullet Wilkinson thinks it is.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I don't see Wilkinson referring to a magic bullet, like say the cons do when they talk about "free enterprise" I mean to hear them say it all you need is free enterprise, (let the rich do what they want) and everything is magically perfect, that's the "magic bullet" belief that got us in this mess.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 1 year ago

Should we allow inequality to rise to the point where those at the top see the ones at the bottom as nothing more than worthless forms of inferior humans, incapable of doing nothing but complaining of injustice and unfair treatment. Are we there yet?

[-] 1 points by ChemLady (576) 1 year ago

What you should or shouldn't allow is up to you. My original thought was that these movements get their drive from misery. At a low unemployment rate, there wouldn't be enough people to care about inequity, no matter what it was. Wilkinson's TED talk (factsrfun linked to it above) offers an interesting hypothesis, but it isn't proof of anything.

Occupy doesn't wish to organize and elect it's own representatives to change the system, so it's only hope for real change is to allow the system to crash. For that it needs more misery then we currently have. So to answer your question, no I don't think we're there yet. For change to happen you're going to need the majority feeling inferior, not the minority thinking they are inferior.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Like an apple falling from a tree, Wilkinson's observations, as with Newton's before him, prove nothing.

[-] 1 points by ChemLady (576) 1 year ago

They may be worth looking into but as even Wilkinson stated correlation doesn't mean causality.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Newton said that too, still true today no causal proof that mass causes gravity, but it does seem reliable, I guess wealth inequality lowering everyones standard of living is sort of like that, I mean we could all start floating off into space, but we probably won't.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 1 year ago

Way to dodge the question. I'll ask again. In your judgment, based on everything you know and feel and what evidence currently exists, which is the better course to pursue, should we be advocating greater inequality or greater equality?

[-] 1 points by ChemLady (576) 1 year ago

I don't see economic inequity as the main problem. It doesn't matter, to me, how much the rich have. What does matter is how little the poor and working poor have. I'd personally like to see that remedied. How would be a matter for national debate.

The problem with actually doing anything is what I was thinking of with my original comment. When people feel things are good for them, by whatever personal standard they have for "good", they cease to care about society in general.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

If you were to travel to the Moon, I don’t suppose you would see gravity as a problem either, it not being proven and all.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 1 year ago

Why does it matter what the poor have but not what the rich have? I don't know if there is a specific term for this, but it seems you are creating an unfairly biased standard here. It seems you are saying it is okay to speak to how much the poor have but it is not okay to speak to how much the rich have? Why is that?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

The problem with the rich being too damn rich, is not that it makes me jealous it’s that they use the money to buy the government and the next thing you know, we all have to wear magic underwear.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 1 year ago

Do I get a haze and a haircut too?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

might give you something to do, while the boss breaks in your new bride

[-] 1 points by ChemLady (576) 1 year ago

I start from the idea that my income meets my needs, I have enough and don't care that some celebrity gets millions to act in a movie or bounce a ball. The hundreds of millions a CEO might get doesn't effect me at all either. Their wealth isn't relevant.

Poverty on the other hand is a problem, for the poor themselves and for society in general. If you need to take from the rich to make life better for the poor fine, but just the fact that someone has 10, 20, or 100 times more then I do isn't, in and of itself, a concern to me.

I think it's okay to speak about how much the rich have or how much the poor don't have, but for myself, I'm not bothered by what the wealthy have. I may be too cynical, but I don't think inequity matters to very many people when they themselves are earning an adequate living.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I think starting from the ideal that any that has a job should be able to meet their needs is a good place to start. Now we should determine a living wage, for each state maybe, I would think at least $15 set that as the least, and start from there. Good ideal.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 1 year ago

"I start from the idea that my income meets my needs, I have enough and don't care that some celebrity gets millions to act in a movie or bounce a ball. The hundreds of millions a CEO might get doesn't effect me at all either. Their wealth isn't relevant."

You are making the same argument as stated previously, only worded in a different way. The rich and poor do not live in separate economies. They share the same one. The wealth of the rich and poor are both relevant to this discussion. You even acknowledge it in your next passage.

"Poverty on the other hand is a problem, for the poor themselves and for society in general. If you need to take from the rich to make life better for the poor fine, but just the fact that someone has 10, 20, or 100 times more then I do isn't, in and of itself, a concern to me."

I thought you said what the rich have is irrelevant. If their wealth is irrelevant to the bigger picture of society, why does what they have effect the poor. Funny how you echo Wilkinson's findings, and actually, you do a pretty good job yourself of making a case that inequity is the problem and reducing the gap would be a good solution.

"I think it's okay to speak about how much the rich have or how much the poor don't have, but for myself, I'm not bothered by what the wealthy have. I may be too cynical, but I don't think inequity matters to very many people when they themselves are earning an adequate living.:

You might be understating that a bit.

[-] 1 points by ChemLady (576) 1 year ago

I wasn't trying to make an argument, just explain my opinion better. There is no research to it, I just believe when people feel their life is good enough they don't protest or care about the wealth of others.

[-] 0 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 1 year ago

I wasn't trying to make an argument, just explain my opinion better

Your opinion doubted the validity of Wilkinson's opinion. Yet, when pressed, you actually agree with him. Fascinating.

There is no research to it, I just believe when people feel their life is good enough they don't protest or care about the wealth of others.

Wilkinson's opinion is based on research.

[-] -1 points by ChemLady (576) 1 year ago

I don't see a problem in working to assist the poor, if that removes some of the inequity fine. I disagree with the causality suggested by Wilkinson's graphs. Work to improve all those quality of life issues for the poor if you want, but simply removing inequity may or may not do it.

The research isn't conclusive. Wilkinson himself correctly states at some point in the video that correlation doesn't mean causation. If there is a different cause for Japan and the Scandinavian countries to appear better in so many categories it's something Wilkinson hasn't thought of or studied.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by marvelpym (-184) 1 year ago

In the time between when you first made this post and now, how much of your own money has gone towards your luxury needs and how much to help the basic needs of others?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Ah the mirror, yes indeed, as I have said before, I am no saint.

I could pollute the site with my daily deeds, but what of that?

If they mattered I could not say, if they don't why brother?

[-] 1 points by marvelpym (-184) 1 year ago

You're just so generous with other people's money, I was curious how you spent your own.

Instead of just talking, go to a website like Operation Smile and put your money where your mouth is. Anybody here who considers themselves a kind hearted, caring and generous Liberal and does not give at least ten bucks a month to help those kids should be ashamed of themselves.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Other peoples money? What aren't we all Americans? Here I was mostly talking about American money, but I see your point we are the world, we should work together. Let's demand more funding for food than war in every country I love that you got some great ideals.

[-] 1 points by marvelpym (-184) 1 year ago

Talk is cheap and it gets frustrating. Living in NYC, I know so many people who will go on about greedy Republicans and how terrible it is that we have such poverty, and then they tip the poor delivery guy a quarter. If you're going to talk the talk, walk the walk.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

It's a wonder you can pay your water bill each month with all you give, God bless you, now getting back to policy, it's clear we agree,

pull the bombs from the planes and fill them with food

for the sake of our souls and all that is good

before the devil finds our heart to seize

and makes it as cold as that of Romney.

[-] 1 points by marvelpym (-184) 1 year ago

“Everybody wants to save the world but nobody wants to help mom with the dishes.” ― P.J. O'Rourke

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I know what you mean it's like trying to find a politician willing to raise taxes, sure everybody wants to cut them, but when you got to send soldiers around the world (to not get Bin Laden) well somehow the bill must be paid, try to find a politician willing to tell people there's a bill due, well maybe a few of the Democrats but hell none of the Republicans will tell you the truth.

[-] 1 points by marvelpym (-184) 1 year ago

Not really what it means. Here's the full quote to help:

"Fretting makes us important. Say you're an adult male and you're skipping down the street whistling "Last Train to Clarksville." People willl call you a fool. But lean over to the person next to you on a subway and say, "How can you smile while innocents are dying in Tibet?" You'll acquire a reputation for great seriousness and also more room to sit down. ...

And worrying is less work than doing something to fix the worry. This is especially true if we're careful to pick the biggest possible problems to worry about. Everybody wants to save the earth; nobody wants to help Mom do the dishes."

intead of posting about how important basics needs are, go out and help those who need so that their basic needs are met. physically, monetarily, something besides just words.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

no reason you can't do both, the story does remind me of how many worry about the debt but don't seem to remember when they were cutting taxes and starting wars," the debt problem being so large what possible good would a tax increase do anyway" we hear that all the time as if actually doing something like paying for the bills you pass seems so hard when really it should be as simple as washing dishes.

[-] 1 points by marvelpym (-184) 1 year ago

you can do both, but I know which one has the most impact. post online and give yourself the warm and fuzzy feelings, but go out this weekend and volunteer or donate something to help meet the basic needs of others before enjoying your luxury needs. I challenge you to.

http://www.phoenixvolunteers.org/

http://www.handsonphoenix.org/

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I hope that this Nov you remember which ones were willing to wash the dishes and which ones want to leave them for the kids to do, if you fight the war, you must raise the tax...I challenge you to..

[-] 1 points by marvelpym (-184) 1 year ago

Sure, that's easy. No problem. Easier than helping clean up a community garden like I'm doing this weekend. That's work.

So to answer my original question, I'm guessing all of your money and time has gone to your own luxury, unless you consider time spent posting online making the world better. You're just another one of those people in love with the sound of their own voice, blah, blah,blah, never put their money where their mouth is. People like you are the reason I have issues with the Democratic party.

Fortunately there are a lot of other people who actually do instead of just talkng. People from both sides of the political fences. How many Republicans will be out volunterring and helping others this weekend? Lots and lots, while you do nothing but talk about people's needs.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

you should remove the log from your eye first

and you have pointed out nothing, you have only failed to engage me in a bragging contest

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Did you confuse the forum for your diary?

This is where we suggest public policy positions to help one and all, your diary is where you brag about your time in service.

[-] 0 points by marvelpym (-184) 1 year ago

and point out your lack thereoff. i was just trying to see if you were the real deal or a BS'er. i got my answer.

now go get those evil Republicans!

[-] -1 points by salta (-1104) 1 year ago

"You cannot strengthen the weak by by weakening the strong. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class warfare. You cannot build character and courage by taking away initiative and independence. You cannot help people permantently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves."

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Cute quotes but no credit.

I think you make a good case for outlawing inherence altogether, only the strong should survive good point. Your children should do well enough inheriting your genes no need for money, that could go back into society like our bodies to the worms, to be used by the next strong generation.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by salta (-1104) 1 year ago

What i posted was written by john henry boetcker

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

There has been class war through out all human history. Currently the middle class is losing. I suppose you disagree?

[-] -2 points by salta (-1104) 1 year ago

the reason the middle income families are losing ground is because of the obama administration. nothing surprising about that. its their plan. make the them all dependent on the govt. is there anything in the original quote that you disagree with?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

thats sounds like conspiracy theory. I think Pres Obama wants to create private sector jobs (as he has for almost 30 months). I think he has cut the size of govt and the number of fed workers to levels not seen in decades.

The jobs plan/policies he wants to imlement relies on private sector growth in greentech and infrastructure. President Obama is making a priority of insourcing and has policy (waiting for repub approval) to reward insourcing.

We disagree you and I.

Peace

[-] -2 points by salta (-1104) 1 year ago

green tech is not only a failure, its a scam, payed for by the taxpyers. green company after green company ( funded by taxpayers) going bankrupt. obama has grown the size of govt. obamacare call for the the hiring of 16,000 new irs workers.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

The fed govt is smaller than it has been in decades. pres Obama has added less to the anual deficit than any Pres since the 60's.

Greentech is the future. stop the fossil fuel subsidies, give them to greentech and watch the jobs grow. We must corner this tech because China and Germany are increasing their investments and they will take the lead.

Peace

[-] -2 points by salta (-1104) 1 year ago

obama has added more to the deficit in his 3 1/2 years than ALL the past presidents COMBINED.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

the Fed govt has added almost 4 trillion and that is enormous but that is mostly what your boy Bush left us with his annual deficit of almost a trillion.

Dems left bush a surplus. Bush left the country almost 1 trillion annual deficit. Pres Obama has cut fed spending but Repubs won't let him fix the annual Bush deficit. As soon as we get rid of the fiscally irresponsible repubs from office and elect more fiscally responsible dems all the deficit/debt problems will be resolved.

Peace

[-] -1 points by salta (-1104) 1 year ago

obama has cut federal spending? your nose must rival pinochios.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Remove the cost of two wars remove the cost of the economic meltdown = not so much New shit added to the deficit after that or do you have something else?

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

The 2001 tax cut cost more than all that combined, the wars and bank(ruptcy) were because of lack of oversight and action after the Cole attack, proof and plans were turned over to the new (Bush) administration, but he wanted to focus on getting his tax cut through,. The morning after the "Bin Laden" memo he was on the golf course joking with reporters about his tax plan. He was far more concerned with repealing regs rather than enforcing them.

It's all about running up debt so the bankers can dictate to the government who can and who cannot have healthcare and such.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

I agree - the comment you responded to - was to an idiot that is trying to blame the woes of the world on the current administration.

Another would-be revisionist of reality.

Thanks for the comment though.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

yeah I knew you were, but I get bored with the stupid back and forth with the trolls, though I know we got to do it sometimes, But I just want to share some general thoughts on wheere we're at, I've been watching this stuff for a bit now, and it seems there are people on this forum that see things clearer than all the talking heads put together,the only real hope the 1% has is to cloud the message with crap, which they are hard at doing, but people know the difference, when they get a chance to see it, you and a few others on here do that, I think it means more than we can know

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

GoodMornin frf - thanks for the compliment. Those who can see are those who are attacked by the shills because of that very thing - sharing awareness with others - you know that - you get attacked. That is why I always say take it as a compliment and Keep-on Keeping-ON.

Did you see my latest letter to government?

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I did read one a week or so ago, will look. I have sent three, each time a little more harsh in tone. If we don't stop appeasing these GOP/TEA party radicals and give them 10 times the spending cuts, which means more hunger, more homeless, more sick for a dollar in taxes, when we had a balanced budget, paying down debt, before we cut taxes, now yes the Bush tax cuts must expire, and the GOP will make sure they all do, in order to hurt the Ds, if they are renewed, millions will die in poverty.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

But this is just the point. It is OK to be upset with and chastise the current President and the seated government when you see them fucking-up. Let others draw their own conclusions and if they ask you about your disrespectful letters you can have the opportunity to do some one on one education on the need to tell our government when it is wrong.


[-] 1 points by factsrfun (5592) from Phoenix, AZ 2 hours ago

Maybe so in my letters I am quite crital of the President, and I would not want anyone to misintrupt my disappointment in him, with insanity and think that I don't support him over Romney, damn shame Hiliary isn't in there but life's tough sometimes you have to make do. None of this would hve happened if Nader had supported Gore. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I hear what your saying, but I lived through Bush, when we could of had Gore, if people who knew better, had had their heads in the game.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

I posted a petition yesterday to require the raising of taxes on the wealthy and the corpoRATs while leaving the needy tax cuts in place.

You should post your letters here and then twitter the post so that these letters go into circulation for the public to read and consider.

I am trying to encourage everyone to do the same - flood the government with mail from the public while sharing views with others.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Maybe so in my letters I am quite crital of the President, and I would not want anyone to misintrupt my disappointment in him, with insanity and think that I don't support him over Romney, damn shame Hiliary isn't in there but life's tough sometimes you have to make do. None of this would hve happened if Nader had supported Gore.

[-] 1 points by know1 (210) 1 year ago

what was it spent on

[-] -1 points by linker (-241) 1 year ago

we already pay taxes. It's only a matter of how much. How much do you want to give the govt so they can give free stuff to their loyal constituents? Get real !

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

in the fifties it was 90% and we had a lot more jobs

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by Misaki (893) 1 year ago

The way to do this is via the accelerated work week. Job creation without higher government spending, inflation, or trade barriers: http://jobcreationplan.blogspot.com/

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

increasing the value of labor is a good thing

[-] 0 points by Misaki (893) 1 year ago

http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/slack-attack/

Lower unemployment = higher value of labor. The accelerated work week = lower unemployment.

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

End the Fed! We need a monetary system that works for the people, not the banks!

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I think we should end money's monopoly on power

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

how?

[-] 5 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

It is a multilayered approach:

Establish reasonable regulation that acknowledges that you can’t just let the guys holding the piggy bank take what they want out.

Reintroduce the concept that we are in this together. There are dangers here, typically this is done with national pride, which then becomes a tool to convince the masses to defend the interest of the wealthy at gunpoint.

Break the relationship in people’s mind that money equals freedom remind people that they live their lives a day at a time and how do they really want to spend those days? It may require us to rethink what it is to win. Even as a country, after all what do we give up so we can have the richest people and biggest companies?

In the the end here let me add that I actually am smart enough to know there’s more, the whole superhero ideal is a little overdone, got to figure out a way to get along to get stuff done.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Touché’

Thank goodness there are Superheroes, which we can cheer on even if, we ourselves, are earthbound.

[-] -2 points by slizzo (-96) 1 year ago

Not everyone has the digital device you used to post this drivel.

And you didn't make it either, so when someone takes it from you, be sure to stfu.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

"own" THIS!!

[-] -1 points by slizzo (-96) 1 year ago

sorry, I don't collect miniatures.

<rimshot>

sucks when the stupid point in your stupid post can be leveled with one stupid example, huh?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

oh you thought you said something? no where am I saying equal outcomes, but the shit can go too far, I like ice cream too, but shit people is fat today

[-] -1 points by slizzo (-96) 1 year ago

if I didn't say something, what are you responding to?

publicly masturbating again?

you're like a fish in a barrel.

[-] -2 points by shadzworth (-394) 1 year ago

it's okay cause you're good enough you're smart enough and doggone it, people like you

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

let me expound on the point above, a little bit of ice cream is good for the soul make you feel like you’ve accomplished something, but too much ice cream and you’re heading to the ER, same is true of wealth inequality a little bit is good, makes people feel good about themselves but too much and you’re just killing your country……bitch

[+] -6 points by shadzworth (-394) 1 year ago

Wealth inequality is Leftist code and Leftist justification for stealing other peoples property.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

It’s only stealing if it’s against the law, when reason fails you, then you cry foul, but god forbid someone should suggest that collective capital be REQUIRED to deal with collective labor so at least people might have half a chance.

[-] -1 points by shadzworth (-394) 1 year ago

At least you admit you want to steal other peoples property and money.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

and you want to steal people's lives

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I see you have no interest in a fair system. didn't think so.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

In the same way that your empoyer "steals" what you've earned, I guess so if that the way you look at it, work is slavery and the bosses cut is theft, but I think there are other ways to consider it, being a part of a company or country means chipping in and doing your part, it's not stealing, it's not stealing when the boss say you got to put that twenty in the cash regerster, it's not your money, same with taxes

[-] -2 points by shadzworth (-394) 1 year ago

You go beyond basic taxation and fundamentals. You believe in stealing money from other people that they have earned beyond the basic local tax's. You believe in huge profit redistribution's from successful people to other people that are not successful and you call that a "fair system". This is Govt. theft regardless of any Democrat law imposed by Obama....theft is theft no matter how you like to redefine. You are a thief that want's to empower the Govt. to do your dirty work for you.

Sorry,but if you might remember we already fought a King with a war of Independence to never have to live like that again.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I got it any tax you disagree with is "theft" odd belief, but I do run into it amoung Republicans quite a bit. Eisenhower had a top rate of 90%, what would you say about him, admittedly a well know commie.

[-] -2 points by Growup5 (-84) 1 year ago

You should strive to meet my needs. If you won't, I'll make you. LOL

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I suspect your needs would be easily met

[-] -2 points by Growup5 (-84) 1 year ago

Not once I start living off of you. Then, my needs will just keep growing until you have nothing left.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I thought you were already one of the 1% living off the labor of others.

[-] -2 points by Growup5 (-84) 1 year ago

No, I'm a .25%-er living off of the labor of myself. I get paid because I do. Having no idea how it's done, it's no wonder you haven't been able to make it.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Sorry to hear that, you should try it sometime, it feels great.

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

What you are describing is not democracy, it is the tyranny of the majority. If you let them take people's land because they are rich then what? Take their shops because they are Jewish? Take their liberty because they are gay? Take their lives because they are educated?

All of these thing shave happened in history because of the tyranny of the majority.

[-] 6 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

or take their homes because they are poor, I see what you mean....

[-] -2 points by salta (-1104) 1 year ago

Your are 100% correct.

[-] -3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

We should start by ending the bombings in foreign countries.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Really? I would think taxing the shit out the rich would get us there faster.

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

obviously you are unaware that 60% of federal discretionary spending is "defense" spending

also a 3 or 4% tax hike is nothing. If they're going to raise taxes on the mega rich it should be higher. Like Pre-Reagan

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

How about a 99% death tax after the first 5 million directed toward paying down debt, so that they don't have an excuss to cut retirement later, do you think that's a good ideal?

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

lol I love how my comments are getting down voted by you and your cronies

so do you disagree with my comment or what's your deal? Why the down votes? -2 is a lot

It is a fact that defense spending is that high. It is a fact that our tax dollars are being wasted on wars even to this day. It is a fact that we could have put trillions into our economy if we weren't wasting them on wars.

It is a fact that a 4% tax hike on the mega rich is not a big enough to get out out of this mess. A bigger tax hike on the mega rich is needed.

So what part of that do you disagree with so much you and your cronies are downvoting? I'm just curious.

Also we could pay off the debt with a restructure of monetary policy including dropping almost 2 trillion immediately by ending our debt to the federal reserve of which we're supposed to be in control of anyway.

Monetary policy could be changed and we could put money into the economy through job creation and city building instead of through debt by loaning it to the banks which prop up 1% policies.

[-] 3 points by ZenDog (20529) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I'm with shooz

[-] 3 points by shooz (26709) 1 year ago

I agree with you more often than you know, and you are correct in this, so I'll toss you some votes......:)

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

these guys will always walk it away from the tough answer of raising taxes on the rich, they find some other means, smoke and mirrors, meanwhile they reform the last of the taxes away on the wealthy and leave the working saps to pay the bills, i do go back a forth with this guy, but in the end I don't see how he could buy so much of hchc's crap and still work a keyboard, so there I am...

[-] 2 points by shooz (26709) 1 year ago

The thing I agree with here facts, is that 4% is not enough.

It should be much higher..........::)

"Defense" spending is way too high too, but until we do what Matt says and "end the wars" it will remain so.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

not anymore it isn't, if we had stayed the course back when we were paying down the debt, but if wishes were horses oh well, of course we spend outrageous amounts on defense, it is so the would be kings that run this place can throw their weight around, if we solve the wealth problem we solve the war problem as well, if you know me you know I support a 99% death tax after the first five million so we can mostly all run the race from the starting line (or at least a lot closer)

[-] 2 points by shooz (26709) 1 year ago

If wishes were horses, we would have serious issues tossing them in the wishing well................................:)

Get the money out is still the place to start.

Repeal CU, and create a way to follow the money that still gets in.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

there is a working group with a great amendment, I hope we can get support behind this:

http://www.nycga.net/groups/political-and-electoral-reform/docs/amendment-28-status-of-created-entities

[-] 2 points by shooz (26709) 1 year ago

Sounds great.

Unfortunately, there is false fear of getting involved.

[-] -3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Thanks dude.

And I think Factsrfun, VQ, and Rpc agrees with me most of the time as well. There is only one issue we disagree on and for that I often get negative responses and downvotes from them. It's okay. I'm just curious as to why they take that route instead of embracing what we have in common.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26709) 1 year ago

I guess some days we come here just to bark at each other......:)

Sometimes we feel pushed into a corner and just bark that much louder.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

It is good to vent as long as our friends don't bear the brunt - I prefer to vent on the attackers of OWS Occupy the movements for positive healthy growth and change. Slam the shills trolls quislings corpoRATist's defeatist's. After you ( I, We ) refute some of their BS prior to them going on their chase their tail BS routine.

[-] 3 points by shooz (26709) 1 year ago

Sometimes, I think the trolls back folks into a corner and lashing out is the response.

I can take a joke, and I don't expect everyone to agree with everything I say either.

We should however lighten up on our fellow supporters.............:)

Even though it's sometimes difficult to know who they are.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

TRUTH.

I try to rememberize good content and who delivered it and then also the bad content that may have been provided and see if there is a trend or pattern.

Unity in common cause. {:-])

Down with sneaky bastards that try to hide their attacks with seemingly good contributions.

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

i think the international banks may be that centralized government the pundents warned us about

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

You attack things i didn't say, which mark you as a troll, I suppose there are people who vote on the true you at all times, i have always called for a 99% death tax after 5 million so where you get 3 or 4 % i don't know, expect maybe because that's all it took in the down direction to kill us is that what you mean?

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

the 3 or 4% increase is the current democrat idea. While a tax increase on the rich is a good idea... I'm just pointing out it's not enough.

that's why I brought it up.

What part of my previous comment did you disagree with so much that you had to down vote it?

Also I didn't attack anything. I just said originally "We should start by ending the bombings in foreign countries."

You downvoted that comment.

Do you think ending the wars is a good idea? It would save us trillions as time goes on. Or do you think bombing foreign countries is a good idea? If so, what problems is it solving?

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I notice how you avoid any comment on how the Bush tax cut caused our current debt problem, OWS had people talking about wealth inequality for a while now they seem to spend much time on wars that are either over or winding down, and we no longer discuss the huge problem we have with wealth, so I guess I see your attempt at co-opting insulting to people, in any case unless we get rid of more Republicans we can hardly hope to reduce our aggression overseas, any body who can read knows that, so given your reluctance to address the Republican problem I suppose there are people who find you to be rather false.

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

wars are the tool of the 1%

one day you will realize that.

Murder for oil is the ultimate atrocity committed by the mega 1% including the murderous Bush family.

The elite are making a killing on these wars. Halliburton, Raytheon, Boeing, and all those oil companies. Even after evidence of human trafficking KBR is still getting contracts.

Wars are the ultimate evil brought to you by the 1%

Wealth inequality is a huge explanation for those who are in the wars. Why do you think Mittens wasn't in vitenam even though he supported it?

Don't let the atrocities of the wars go unnoticed. Plus when you speak against the wars you get to call GWB a murderer.

End the wars NOW and use the tax dollars to create jobs.

[-] 1 points by FreedomReigns (72) 1 year ago

I just love you TM ! You're miles ahead of the masses. I know from experience it can be a lonely place...but never stop talking....you're very good at it.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Really? this punk fools you? are you another GOP plant too?

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Thanks for the compliment.

[-] -2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I see you continue your attempt to co-opt OWS but I don't care, people can decide for themselves listen to your crap, again you avoid any criticism of Bush, You are becoming transparent TM, careful the few still fooled by you may catch on, I think you like war or you would speak up about what a great job Obama diod ending the Iraq War, but haters,(and 1% supporters) like you would rather cut out your tongue than tell the truth. .

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

listen to my crap? Speaking out against wars is crap? listen to you? What happened to you? Also click on my name and view just about all my posts. I've linked them there.

"co-opt co-opt co-opt, you support bush, you're a republican, you support bush, you're a republican, co-opt, everything is Nader's fault, war is okay when Obama does it, killing Americans without due process or evidence is okay when Obama does it, you're a republican, you're the reason Bush happened, co-opt."

Do you have any other arguments? You're like a broken record.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

We can be against decisions Pres Obama has made regarding NDAA, Drone attacks, While still recognizing that republicans would be far and away much, much worse. There's no magic switch. It will take years. We've made progress in the face of the most powerful resistance from the1% plutocrats and your republicans.

Your attacks on Pres Obama ignores that fact and so you appear to be serving the republicans.

But you know this. Your childish post shows your lack of arguments.not FrF's.

Pres Obama and the dems will undo all the conservative legislation if we maintain pressure as a growing progressive movement.

Elect progressives, Republicans are the problem.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

If Obama wants to undo the conservative legislation tell him to stop voting for it

Republican Jobs Act that repealed regulations put in place after the ENRON fraud - DONE

Patriot Act extensions and FISA bills that are used to spy on American citizens - DONE

TARP bailouts for fraudulent banks - DONE

Bombing 6 countries in 3 years - DONE

Increase War in Afghanistan when he first took office - DONE

Claim another country is trying to make nuclear weapons to justify a potential attack - DONE

Obama has done some good... I'd just rather see a real democrat in office. Not one backed by Goldman Sachs. Also I'm a registered democrat.

I don't believe in blind support. Vote for Obama all you want... but call him out where he's wrong and get him to change his ways.

And I agree with you, republicans blow. They have written some of the most bigoted pieces of legislation. Do not confuse my speaking out against wars co-sponsored by republicans as the same as liking republicans.

Speaking out against wars and fraud have nothing to do with liking the republican party.

Also my most recent post calls Mitt Romney a warmonger because he plans to start a war right away if he were to win - http://occupywallst.org/forum/warmongers-everywhere-us-would-give-israel-unilate/

But go ahead and disregard all my posts where I call out republicans like Romney and the repubs in congress. That way it fits your agenda more.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Obviously you serve democrats/Obama when you attack republicans/Romney. I don't have to confirm that. You already know that. I have seen your comments (which I agree with) recounting how we are stuck with the political duopoly of binary D&R.

I didn't make that up!. You acknowledge that. For us it is one or the other. Lesser of 2 evils. yes we still get evil.

But until we get the change we need, until the new system emerges from the ground up, horizontally, with real direct democracy. We MUST keep the most evil (republicans) out!. So please do not serve the repubs by attacking the only people making any progress (Dems).

"if you can't be with the one you love babe, Love the one your with" CSN&Y

Peace. I know you can't agree, and won't change. Please refrain from personal attacks. Lets be tolerant of our differences and treat each other as if we must work together for years to come.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

How can a new system emerge if no one wants to stray from the status quo?

[-] 0 points by HailBushBamNey (0) 1 year ago

Bush-Bam-Ney! Bush-Bam-Ney! Jart! Jart! Jart! Bush-Bam-Ney!

Bush-Bam-Ney! Bush-Bam-Ney! Jart! Jart! Jart! Bush-Bam-Ney! We cant thank you enough for your tireless day-in, day-out efforts in praise of our glorious leader! So what if he's corporate-funded like Mittens? Who isn't? So what if he demands the same power to make Americans disappear that Bush-Che-Ney had? Who wouldn't? Black or White, Might is Right, right? And that whole drone thing has been blown WAY out of proportion. We mean the technology, targeting and triggermen are getting better all the time, right? Cant deliver Democracy without SOME form of Death from Above, right? And so what if Obamacare sets the precedent for government to tell us what to buy and penalize us if we dont. Its all for the greater good, right! Bush-Bam-Ney! Bush-Bam-Ney! Join in, Jart! Bush-Bam-Ney!

Jart DKAtoday Factsrfun VQkag2 bensdad ??? = GUILTY

shooz = INNOCENT by reason of Ignorance

ZenDog = INNOCENT by reason of Insanity

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I may vote for Jilly. I voted for Nader, and I was @MSG for his big rally. But I'm in NYC. And we are solidly blue. I do not believe it is smart to do anything to help the repub war mongerers. Like I would never attack the president during an election when I might help your republicans.

BAM! In your face republican shill!!

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Please, primaries are over. All you do is attack Dems.

Elect progressives. Republicans ARE the problem.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Please all you do is attack people who speak out against the wars.

Let me know when Obama ends the wars or at least bombs less than 3 countries in one year. Obama sounds like a repub when you bring up his war record.

Vote out ALL warmongers by electing real progressives. Tell me again why Jill Stein is so wrong? She's a great progressive. Oh you didn't actually mean vote for progressives. You just meant vote for Obama. LOL

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

"no one wants to stray". Please I ain't responsible for everyone not straying.

If your goal is to get people not to vote we are in disagreement. Thats all. OWS embraces all tactics. Not voting is one tactic. Voting to keep the right wing out of power is also a tactic.

A new system must emerge while we keep the most damaging policies (republican/conservative) from being passed.

There is an election. I won't abandone the ballot to the right wing. I don't have to stray to know we must create a new system.

Will you do nothing to create the new system unless we stray from the voting booth? What are you doing to create the new system? Anything.

Or do you just want to discourage the progressive OWS supporters from voting? Won't that serve the republicans and the 1%?

Peace

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

w'eve had this convo a bunch of times. At no point in time do I suggest to "not vote"

Voting is awesome. People just need to wake up and pay attention. In the primaries they always vote for who the money says and fail to research all the candidates in the primaries.

Every year a better option has run in the democrat primaries. For example in 2008 there was a democrat that actually tried to impeach Bush as well as voted NO on every single conservative policy.... Unlike Obama who did nothing to impeach Bush, voted Yes on the patriot act, voted Yes on the TARP bailouts, Yes on FISA bills, Yes on deregulating Wall Street, and etc...

Even this november there are more than 2 options for president on your ballot.

Also it's not all about the president. People need to pay attention to the senate and the house of reps. The majority of congress needs to be voted out. They have been failing for years now.

This has been my entire point. PAY ATTENTION

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

You serve the republicans when you attack the pres who has made real progress in reducing the massive killing that republicans began 22 years ago.

Peace

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

lol

do I serve democrats when I speak out against Romney then? Because I've definitely criticized Romney. You just never really comment on those posts.

edit: lol and I love the downvotes... VQ, RPC, FACTSRFUN = The Obama Support Group and Downvoting Trio

lol you Downvote the guy who has been speaking the truth? Please find one area where my criticism is not backed by fact and then realize you are downvoting facts

[-] -2 points by bearclaw (-152) 1 year ago

Look at the news lately?? GOP is slamming the dems in the polls. When Obummer gets kicked to the curb in the upcoming election then America can start going forward once again.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

republicans have kept the recovery from being strong because of their traitorous resistence to all dem jobs proposals.

Pres Obama is doing fine in the pols. If wecan eliminate all the GOP attempts at cheating/voter suppresion it should be an Obama win.

[-] -2 points by bearclaw (-152) 1 year ago

it should be an Obama win.!!!!!! "but it will not go down that way sorry"

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

lol don't be absurd republicans are a big part of the problem

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

now are you sure you didn't write what was in those " " you would be scared to death to actually quote me, it would reveal what a hack troll you are

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

lol

I should have included calling me a troll in one of your few arguments.

The only reason you don't like me is because I do not support Obama. I think that's hilarious. You and I used to get along on this site before I posted anti-war issues on Obama and the current bombings.

Now you just call me a republican, a bush supporter, a troll, or a co-opt, all because I've posted issues regarding the current situations in the wars. You completely disregard my post history as well. Click my name to see a majority of my posts.

Also if you look at my comment before I call Bush a murder

Here some good info

Defense Spending to be 60% federal discretionary spending - http://occupywallst.org/forum/defense-spending-is-expected-to-constitute-nearly-/

Austerity is counterproductive - http://occupywallst.org/forum/austerity-is-counterproductive-we-need-growth/

You're all getting screwed! Numbers don't lie. Bernie Sanders - http://www.upworthy.com/an-amazing-speech-from-one-of-the-last-good-men-in-politics?c=upw1

A billion dollars to buy democracy - http://occupywallst.org/forum/a-billion-dollars-to-buy-democracy/

16 trillion from fed to big banks. Over 1 trillion to Bank of America alone - http://occupywallst.org/forum/trillions-and-trillions/#comment-766748

Goldman Sachs 2012 - http://occupywallst.org/forum/disappointed-in-the-citizens-of-america/

New Government Weapon. --Notice the "peace not war activists" used to demo this. They also get called "enemy combatants." - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmuyLIrSjxI The Obama administration awarded Academi a $250 million contract to work for the U.S. State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency in Afghanistan. Reminds me of Bush when it comes to war and foreign policy. Obama hires Blackwater, again State Dept. becomes the latest Obama agency to hire the notorious firm, this time for part of $10 billion contract - The company won the contract under one of its many alternate names, “International Development Solutions.” The contract is to "protect embassies around the world."Remember all the protecting they did in Iraq... I mean murder of civilians. - http://www.salon.com/2010/10/01/obama_blackwater_again/

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

the truth needs few arguments, it is self evident,

Republicans are the cancer, perhaps someday you will see this

your work against Obama could be innocent nativity but you seem too smart for that....

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

yes trevor I know it's all about you and how your feelings got hurt, for some of us it's about the country and trying to make things better, that is a lot harder than feeling sorry for yourself

to below, if you are successful in bringing down Obama God help us because Romney will make Bush look like a saint, IMHO

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

I totally work against Obama. I never denied that. But I work against anyone who kills American citizens with evidence and without due process. I speak out against warmongers as I did back when the Bush administration was killing people in foreign countries.

That was just one very important line that Obama crossed. Along with a few others. I was a supporter until early 2011. I even voted for him in 2008. I feel like he betrayed my vote.

So he has joined my list of people I speak out against. Like I said, read my other posts. You highlight this single issue and disregard everything else. Congress deserve a ton of blame too lets not forget about them.

[+] -4 points by bearclaw (-152) 1 year ago

Those evil rich people, how dare they work their asses off to get where they got

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

What work? they sit behind desks enriching themselves off of other peoples hard work. Otherwise they create convoluted financial scams. Thats not hard work. thats empty wealth creation that benefits no body but themselves. We need old fashioned wealth generation that includes job creation.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Remember Romney made 40 million in two years for doing nothing, he didn't even call the guy that sat behind the desk, but the maybe that's why he only paid 14% in tax, if he had done something to earn the money he would have to have paid more.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

That's optimistic thinking. The elite 1% plutocrats have rigged the system to avoid all taxes. It's greedy & selfish.

90% tax rate on income over $1Mill, remove all deductions/shelters/scams for millionaires.

It's the only way.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I like that.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

yeah being born is hard work and messy too all that blood and stuff, like fightin' in a war, but different....

http://www.nytimes.com/pages/national/class/

[+] -4 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

One would think that is what medicaid, foodstamps and ssi are.....

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

so you think those meet "the basic needs"? have you heard of welfare reform?

[+] -5 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

yes, I think those are the raw basics. food, shelter and health, for those that are not physically able to provide it for themselves.

What else would you throw in there?

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

A living wage for any that work would be good for a start, and the programs you describe do not provide any of those things adequately and not at all after two years, welfare reform buddy, it's been around awhile now.

[+] -4 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

I know people that have been on medicaid, foodstamps and ssi for their entire lives, sorry.

We are talking about two different things here, I think. Im stating for those that cannot take care of themselves, there are programs to get it done for the most part. Its not going to be a middle class life.

A living wage is something that is whole other story.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

are you talking about disabled people? yeah it's disgusting how little we give them as well, but foodstamps are time limited, so maybe you know some lairs?

[+] -4 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Nope, food stamps are not unlimited if you have ssi.

Im not even talking about disabled people, because Ive known plenty of people who get disability checks who are more than capable of working. Im talking about people who simply cant seem to get it together. I would like to see everyone in the country have a comfortable lifestyle, and I think in relation to past history, most do.

I wouldnt say that getting an apartment, medicaid and food is a disgusting way to treat someone.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Oh I get it you're a skilled doctor and fraud detective, look why don't you take your right wing crap and peddle it somewhere else?

I’m just going to kick back here a bit lounging in my luxurious safety net.

[+] -7 points by shadzworth (-394) 1 year ago

Are you mentally challenged? Do you have problems with comprehension and understanding very simple concepts?

I think you must be,that's okay cause you're good enough. You're smart enough. And doggone it, people like you.

Now stop playing on the computer cause other people are in line behind you and take your meds and go to your room.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

were you talking to your mommy and forgot you were typing?

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

He does seem quite the "Norman Bates" type.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

but can he pull off the "old lady dress"?

it's tough to do but them that do, can be scary

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 1 year ago

I don't really want to imagine him pulling off his old lady dress...if you know what I mean.

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

gossip

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

blather

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

In Japan embarrassment keeps those that could twist their system as ours is from doing so, sure you’ve seen this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ7LzE3u7Bw&feature=youtube_gdata_player

from underdog

http://occupywallst.org/forum/sorry-republicans-these-are-the-facts/

I might be wrong but one of the strong emotions that is to play in why Japan has the least inequality of all the nations studied, is embarrassment, practicing and learning how to embarrass Republicans is a key tactic.

but still you make a good point,

[-] -2 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

LOL - He was listening to his mommy and his fingers decided to share his private embarrassment.

A Mothers love: And doggone it, people like you.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

now that is scary, a keyboard and shitworth's private thoughts

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Scary - yep - sad also. How does a person end up becoming walking talking filth.

[-] -3 points by shadzworth (-394) 1 year ago

Lame...

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I know but if you practice you will get better don't give up.

[-] 2 points by Kinetica (14) from Houston, TX 1 year ago

LOL