"OCCUPY WALL STREET"

Status
Not open for further replies.
coldvein said:
interesting. just wanted to check who had the most posts in the drunk thread. unsurprisingly, it is the king himself..
Unless triumph has become un-permabanned, there can be no king of the drunk thread.
 
Flying_Phoenix said:
Occupy Wallstreet should have this as their tagline focus:

"We want to stop Wallstreet from having so much power and influence over us. Because of them nothing that should get done, does get done. We want the nation to have people as once again its primary focus."

Spoken like someone who has never purchased stock or who doesn't have a 401k... I think you need to be directing your anger at lobbyists.

Flying_Phoenix said:
Demands:

- Redistribution of Wealth (tax these wealthy people)

- More regulation on these businesses (reinstate Glass-Stegal?)

- Stop cutting social programs (we, the people, are suffering here, some of us are on our last legs. Cutting the few things that help us, is unacceptable)


What's wrong with this?

What wrong with this? EVERYTHING...

For starters, as a country we need to make sure our corporations are competitive on the global economy - that is, if you're interested in growing the economy and creating more jobs. America ALREADY has some of the highest corporate tax rates in the world (see the CBO or Wikipedia). If anything, we need to simplify tax code, get rid of the loopholes, and lower taxes.

Second, the redistribution of wealth is an inherently unsavory notion in America where values like personal responsibility, self reliance, and self determination are still widely held. If the lowlifes down on Wall Street came out and actually said anything remotely like your demands above they would be getting even less attention than they are now.

***I'm about to give you one of the most valuable business tips ever in life: When you learn of a corporation making "obscene profits", don't decide to drop out, quit your job, and camp out in the street like a fucking bum. Instead,
INVEST IN THAT COMPANY
!!!

Honestly, I think you really need to be directing your anger at lobbyists... rather than siding with those filthy shitheads down in the gutter.
 
Kevitivity said:
Spoken like someone who has never purchased stock or who doesn't have a 401k... I think you need to be directing your anger at lobbyists.

I....wasn't?

Kevitivity said:
What wrong with this? EVERYTHING...


Oh boy.

Kevitivity said:
For starters, as a country we need to make sure our corporations are competitive on the global economy - that is, if you're interested in growing the economy and creating more jobs.

I argued against this? I'm against competitive capitalism? I'm not aware of a global economy? Have you even seen my posts here? Specifically have you seen my posts when it comes to topics of capitalism?

EDIT - Wait was this a point against regulation? Please tell me that it isn't a point against regulation.


Kevitivity said:
America ALREADY has some of the highest corporate tax rates in the world (see the CBO or Wikipedia). If anything, we need to simplify tax code, get rid of the loopholes, and lower taxes.

And this goes against my point...how?




Kevitivity said:
Second, the redistribution of wealth is an inherently unsavory notion in America where values like personal responsibility, self reliance, and self determination are still widely held.

The whole point of the protest is that the middle class and lower are being ignored so much to the point that relying on personal responsibility and self reliance and determination to move up for many is impossible.


Kevitivity said:
B]***[/B]I'm about to give you one of the most valuable business tips ever in life: When you learn of a corporation making "obscene profits", don't decide to drop out, quit your job, and camp out in the street like a fucking bum. Instead,
INVEST IN THAT COMPANY
!!!

What are you talking about? Are you honestly recommending people to become stock brokers to get out of poverty and hard times?


Kevitivity said:
Honestly, I think you really need to be directing your anger at lobbyists... rather than siding with those filthy shitheads down in the gutter.

Honestly, I think you need to calm down and actually read people's posts before making random accusations.

If you honestly think that this protest is about attacking stock brokers well then that says a lot about you.
 
Flying_Phoenix said:
I argued against this? I'm against competitive capitalism? I'm not aware of a global economy? Have you even seen my posts here? Specifically have you seen my posts when it comes to topics of capitalism?

EDIT - Wait was this a point against regulation? Please tell me that it isn't a point against regulation.

Your first demand from the Occupy Wall Street dolts was, "Redistribution of Wealth (tax these wealthy people)". It seems like you're saying the "protestors" should be calling for higher corporate taxes.... since they are "protesting" on Wall Street. I may have made a mental leap there.

Who or what are these morons on Wall Street angry at? Does it have anything to do with Wall Street?... Seems like we are falling victim to the fact that no one really knows.
 
Flying_Phoenix said:
If you honestly think that this protest is about attacking stock brokers well then that says a lot about you.


Its partially about going after rich people.

Kevitivity said:
Who or what are these morons on Wall Street angry at? Does it have anything to do with Wall Street?... Seems like we are falling victim to the fact that no one really knows.

Theyve been brain washed

t1larg.cain2_.sept17-550x309.jpg
 
bill gonorrhea said:
Its partially about going after rich people.

Rather than going after the rich, they should be trying to get rich. And Flying_Phoenix, you don't have to be a stock broker to invest in the market. I started investing before I was out of college with $200 I got from grandma.
 
Kevitivity said:
Rather than going after the rich, they should be trying to get rich. And Flying_Phoenix, you don't have to be a stock broker to invest in the market. I started investing before I was out of college with $200 I got from grandma.

holy shit, brilliant idea!
 
we can all agree that rich people are generally assholes, right? of course there are exceptions.. bill gates, good guy. but IN GENERAL.
 
Oh shit of course! How could I have not seen this before? It's so clear now!

In order to get rich,all you have to do is try to get rich!
 
Kevitivity said:
Rather than going after the rich, they should be trying to get rich. And Flying_Phoenix, you don't have to be a stock broker to invest in the market. I started investing before I was out of college with $200 I got from grandma.
You started investing with $200? How did commission fees not eat you alive?
 
Obama has a message for all you kids who need the Government to wipe your ass for you...

"I mean, there are a lot of things we can do," Obama said. "The way I think about it is, you know, this is a great, great country that had gotten a little soft and, you know, we didn't have that same competitive edge that we needed over the last couple of decades. We need to get back on track."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-americas-gone-soft_594623.html
 
Kevitivity said:
Rather than going after the rich, they should be trying to get rich. And Flying_Phoenix, you don't have to be a stock broker to invest in the market. I started investing before I was out of college with $200 I got from grandma.

So what are you going to do with your $150?
 
My anger is more towards the rich having so many loop holes with taxes and big corporations having so much power over our government and laws.

I mean, the corporate person hood thing plus taking the caps off of donations to politicians is the biggest thing I'm pissed about.
 
Slavik81 said:
Yes. If corporations were not legal entities themselves, you'd have to sue their composite shareholders or managers directly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood#Legislation

1) it's not like it would be more difficult to sue, and the legislation is not there to make it easier to sue, it's there to protect shareholders from losing more than the stake they've put into the enterprise.

2) It's perfectly possible to have corporate legal entities without granting them all the constitutional rights that should only apply to actual human beings.
 
Eteric Rice said:
My anger is more towards the rich having so many loop holes with taxes and big corporations having so much power over our government and laws.

I mean, the corporate person hood thing plus taking the caps off of donations to politicians is the biggest thing I'm pissed about.


your day will come.
 
jorma said:
1) it's not like it would be more difficult to sue, and the legislation is not there to make it easier to sue, it's there to protect shareholders from losing more than the stake they've put into the enterprise.

2) It's perfectly possible to have corporate legal entities without granting them all the constitutional rights that should only apply to actual human beings.
I do think it would be more difficult to sue, but I think the real issue is with your second point. Corporate personhood doesn't grant corporations all the rights of a real person. It only grants rights that courts think make sense to extend to them. For example, privacy rights are not extended to corporations, nor is the right to decline self-incrimination.

Your complaint is really that you disagree with the courts over what rights are reasonable to extend to corporations. Specifically enumerating the specifics of that disagreement is important.

Corporate personhood generally encompass both things that reformers want to keep and things that reformers want to throw away. Hence why I feel that simply demanding an end corporate personhood is meaningless, and I think it betrays a lack of understanding of the issue.

I doubt you'd be happy if they were no longer considered persons, but were afforded exactly the same rights as they are now. The objections you'd then raise are the real problems that need voicing.
 
Eteric Rice said:
My anger is more towards the rich having so many loop holes with taxes and big corporations having so much power over our government and laws.

I mean, the corporate person hood thing plus taking the caps off of donations to politicians is the biggest thing I'm pissed about.

If you notice a corporation doing well and expanding, why not buy a few shares rather than complaining? After all, a corporation is basically it's share holders.

Wait, are you familiar with US economics?
 
Kevitivity said:
If you notice a corporation doing well and expanding, why not buy a few shares rather than complaining? After all, a corporation is basically it's share holders.

Wait, are you familiar with US economics?

lol what?

Why would someone buy shares in a corporation that is already too powerful and is affecting laws unfairly through lobbying?
 
G.O.O. said:
Kevitivity, you seem to live in a nice fantasy world.

It's not a fantasy. It took a lot of hard work, determination, and self reliance - yes, those are dirty words to the left these days. That wasn't always the case... Remember JFK's call to not "ask what your government can do for you..."?
 
Kevitivity said:
It's not a fantasy. It took a lot of hard work, determination, and self reliance - yes, those are dirty words to the left these days. That wasn't always the case... Remember JFK's call to not "ask what your government can do for you..."?

This isn't a problem with working hard. The problem is the middle class is disappearing and many Americans today can't afford good education, healthcare, etc even when they work damn hard. The wealth gap in America right now is greater than it was around the great depression. When corporations are in control and the American economy and workforce is in such poor condition perhaps corporations are not a representation of hard working Americans trying to make a living and improve society, but instead are internationally owned and don't care if they lay off more employees first before taking some sacrifice and slashing their multi million dollar bonuses.
 
Slavik81 said:
I do think it would be more difficult to sue, but I think the real issue is with your second point. Corporate personhood doesn't grant corporations all the rights of a real person. It only grants rights that courts think make sense to extend to them. For example, privacy rights are not extended to corporations, nor is the right to decline self-incrimination.

Your complaint is really that you disagree with the courts over what rights are reasonable to extend to corporations. Specifically enumerating the specifics of that disagreement is important.

Corporate personhood generally encompass both things that reformers want to keep and things that reformers want to throw away. Hence why I feel that simply demanding an end corporate personhood is meaningless, and I think it betrays a lack of understanding of the issue.

I doubt you'd be happy if they were no longer considered persons, but were afforded exactly the same rights as they are now. The objections you'd then raise are the real problems that need voicing.

It's pretty fair to assume that anyone who opposes "corporate personhood" means the constitutional rights granted beyond the internationally accepted rights to enter legally binding contracts, and be liable in a court of law. You know, all the stuff in your wiki link that is listed before the "controversial" rights.
Your assumption that a demand to end corporate personhood means demanding the end of corporate legal entities altogether is extremly hyperbolic in nature.
 
Karma Kramer said:
lol what?

Why would someone buy shares in a corporation that is already too powerful and is affecting laws unfairly through lobbying?

You Sir are a perfect candidate for the NeoGAF political thread! Be sure to mention "FOXnews" every other sentence for an extra 10 points per post.
 
Kevitivity said:
It's not a fantasy. It took a lot of hard work, determination, and self reliance - yes, those are dirty words to the left these days. That wasn't always the case... Remember JFK's call to not "ask what your government can do for you..."?
It's naive to believe that someone can succeed just by working hard. Some people have two jobs or more and still struggle to end their month.

It's also naive to believe that these people will just shut up while being robbed by people who don't work half as much as they do while living a hundred times better. But obviously, that's not your problem, is it ?

Also, believe it or not, you don't ask the government to be there when you come to life. And with the power it holds over our lives, he'd better do something for us.
 
Kevitivity said:
If you notice a corporation doing well and expanding, why not buy a few shares rather than complaining? After all, a corporation is basically it's share holders.

Wait, are you familiar with US economics?

I'd be very careful about investing money in the largest banks, Goldman & Sachs for example. These guys are getting rich by selling you dud shares. Remember the Dot com bubble? That was created by Goldman & Sachs breaking the law. It used to be you couldn't float a company until it was five years old and had been running at a profit for three. During the Dot Com bubble G&S completely broke that rule and sold shares in companies essentially created on a napkin to people who believed investing in the most succesful companies (G&S) was a good idea. It was a pyramid scheme that they have repeated over and over, remember the sub-prime mortgage crisis? Same rort, but selling debt instead.

The guys at the top made billions breaking the law and taking your money. They have infiltrated the highest levels of government, a quick background check on Obama's cabinet reveal a hive of major players from Goldman & Sachs and Chase. They also make up a large chunk of the SEC and Justice Department. It's essentially a club and no one takes responsibility.

If the law is followed, it actually works. We learnt a lot from the Great Depression and many laws were created that up until the last 15 years have worked pretty successfully. Unfortunately those laws are being broken with no fear of repercussion, the short term massive risk taking has been allowed to come back into Wall St and it's killing the economy.
 
Karma Kramer said:
lol what?

Why would someone buy shares in a corporation that is already too powerful and is affecting laws unfairly through lobbying?
The almighty dollar of course.

But hey, Kevitivity will keep on reinforcing his bullshit bootstraps mentality by all means and dismiss all of those without jobs or struggling to make a living for their family as simply lazy and unwilling to work hard. Can't afford healthcare because of rising costs? Lost your job because of outsourcing so your CEO can report to his shareholders profits are up and get that bigger bonus? Fuck you, got mine.
 
Kevitivity said:
It's not a fantasy. It took a lot of hard work, determination, and self reliance - yes, those are dirty words to the left these days. That wasn't always the case... Remember JFK's call to not "ask what your government can do for you..."?

hi, i'm coldvein, i don't believe we've met. i just wanted to say hi and to let you know that i consider myself to be very very far left politically. i live a lifestyle that is semi-comfortable, and is something that i created for myself. i work my ass off six days a week so that i can have a room to live in, food to eat, cigarettes, the occasional videogame, and beer to drink.

it's very cute and quaint that you think talking about "the left" as if it is some great hive mind or singularly focused organ is an actual legitimate form of discourse. work is not a dirty word for me whatsoever. as i said, i work hard, and i'm proud of the work that i do, and IM A LEFTIST!

and why even bring up JFK? dude is dead 100 years ago.

pardon my intrusion, i just saw you throwing some bullshit around and decided to comment.
 
Kevitivity said:
If you notice a corporation doing well and expanding, why not buy a few shares rather than complaining? After all, a corporation is basically it's share holders.

Wait, are you familiar with US economics?
So you're saying all I need to do to beat the market and achieve abnormal returns is buy stock in a corporation which is 'doing well'? Seriously?
 
Kevitivity said:
That why these morons "protesting" Wall Srteet look like such, well, morons. Because it really is that easy if you have what it takes.
Oh, you're one of those whose beliefs are based on the assumption that we have enough resources available so that everyone can become rich if they just try hard enough.

Either that, or you believe that whomever "has what it takes"(whatever the fuck that means) should rule over everyone who doesn't have what it takes, and there should be no complaint.

Sorry, dude, but you're not half as smart or clever as you think you are.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom