Occupy Wall Street protest in New-York

[WhoWee]

Ahh I see what he was trying to say, but I also assume he was aware that she was referring to current conditions.

Those situations were ACTUAL discrimination and action needed to be take the system really was imbalanced.

At what age should the "playing field" be level? Right now it is level at the moment of birth and in the eyes of the law and the courtroom for your entire life.
Should everyone be forced to do the exact same thing until they are 20? 18? 30? 6? nobody can read any extra books or work extra hard or choose not to work on learning math or practice drawing or run cause that might make it unfair.

When people say we need to evel the playing field I honestly do not know what on Earth they want. Anyone like to take a swing at this one?

label this IMO - although based on observations of people from third world countries in US cities.

I think we need an exchange program with a few third world countries. At the age of 18, we should offer all under-achieving high school graduates an opportunity to relocate to a third world country where they'll have an advantage over the local population, give them a little start-up capital $10,000(?), and surrender their US citizenship. They should be captains of industry in no time?

Accordingly, one citizen of that third world country (someone that has proven a desire to excel in the classroom) would be given a conditional US citizenship (must graduate and no welfare) and an opportunity to attend a state university in the US (student loan), live in a dorm and work a minimum wage job to pay expenses.

My guess is the exchange person wouldn't expect or need any additional motivation or barrier removal.

 

[WhoWee]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/13/occupy-wall-street-protests-college-campuses_n_1091503.html

"BERKELEY, Calif. — Goodbye, city park, hello, college green.

As city officials around the country move to disband Occupy Wall Street encampments amid growing concerns over health and public safety, protesters have begun to erect more tents on college campuses."

 

[czelaya]

label this IMO - although based on observations of people from third world countries in US cities.

I think we need an exchange program with a few third world countries. At the age of 18, we should offer all under-achieving high school graduates an opportunity to relocate to a third world country where they'll have an advantage over the local population, give them a little start-up capital $10,000(?), and surrender their US citizenship. They should be captains of industry in no time?

Accordingly, one citizen of that third world country (someone that has proven a desire to excel in the classroom) would be given a conditional US citizenship (must graduate and no welfare) and an opportunity to attend a state university in the US (student loan), live in a dorm and work a minimum wage job to pay expenses.

My guess is the exchange person wouldn't expect or need any additional motivation or barrier removal.

I believe this is the reason why my parents and all of my extended family (aunts and uncles) became so successful when they immigrated to the United States.

Successful, in the sense, they worked 70-80+ hours a week for years and saved. Sacrificing was an everyday event, and indoctrinated deeply within. McDonalds maybe once a month (it was real treat for us). My father, being a citizen for over 40 years, finally, bought his first new automobile. EVERYTHING was paid in cash. The only loan made was on our first home, which my parents got for a good price because it needed a new roof, some structural problems, and serious landscaping work. Luckily my father was a carpenter. The house was paid within 8 years. Then he bought another home and started the process 5 more times.

It's difficult for many people to understand that my family accomplished this with low wages and income(initially), without any governmental assistance. But hey, that's why it's called "sacrifice". Many people would call the events my parents went through some type of hardship but all my father/mother say is they still can't believe the opportunities living in the US have brought them.

All my aunts and uncles own multiple homes and one of my aunts is a millionaire.

I still remember the last time I went to Honduras and seeing extreme poverty. Believe me, it's more than enough reason to realize how well we have things in the US. There you can work as hard as you want and you will barely get ahead. So, I think your exchange program would be beneficial.:)

 

[WhoWee]

I believe this is the reason why my parents and all of my extended family (aunts and uncles) became so successful when they immigrated to the United States.

Successful, in the sense, they worked 70-80+ hours a week for years and saved. Sacrificing was an everyday event, and indoctrinated deeply within. McDonalds maybe once a month (it was real treat for us). My father, being a citizen for over 40 years, finally, bought his first new automobile. EVERYTHING was paid in cash. The only loan made was on our first home, which my parents got for a good price because it needed a new roof, some structural problems, and serious landscaping work. Luckily my father was a carpenter. The house was paid within 8 years. Then he bought another home and started the process 5 more times.

It's difficult for many people to understand that my family accomplished this with low wages and income(initially), without any governmental assistance. But hey, that's why it's called "sacrifice". Many people would call the events my parents went through some type of hardship but all my father/mother say is they still can't believe the opportunities living in the US have brought them.

All my aunts and uncles own multiple homes and one of my aunts is a millionaire.

I still remember the last time I went to Honduras and seeing extreme poverty. Believe me, it's more than enough reason to realize how well we have things in the US. There you can work as hard as you want and you will barely get ahead. So, I think your exchange program would be beneficial.:)

Do you think an 18 year old armed with a high school diploma and $10,000 would have a fair chance to succeed in Honduras?

 

[Evo]

I believe he is taking your position of "everyone has equal opportunity, quit your whining" literally and applying it to all contexts.

Rosa Parks should have just quit her whining and quietly filed a complaint from the back of the bus. After all, those white folks were just better at manipulating the system and working hard, she should just stop complaining and get a job!

Well, then that's a ridiculous thing to bring up since she didn't have basic human rights. Nothing at all to do with the topic in this thread. A bit of a red herring, no? Posts of this kind are against the rules.

 

[daveb]

When people say we need to evel the playing field I honestly do not know what on Earth they want. Anyone like to take a swing at this one?

Legally, yes, the laying field is level, which I think only a few people would disagree with (perhaps those that feel the Citizens United decision was wrong would disagree?)

I think the main focus of the OWS desire to "level the playing field" is more of a social one than a legal one. I don't think anyone would argue that the more money you have the more politcal influence you have since this gives you access, the ability to contribute heftily to a SuperPac, etc. In addition, the perception that the corporate world in general, and the financial sector specifically (because of the "too big to fail" attitude), is largely immune to the bad economy, is rampant. Whether this is true or not is irrelevant, since, as they say, in politics, perception is everything. And money is politics (and vice versa) nowadays. The fact that governmnetal conservatives absolutely refuse to raise a single tax but are only interested in spending cuts adds fuel to that perception. After all, if the poor and middle class (the ones who would largely be affected by the spending cuts) are the only ones affected, but the wealthy are not, then the perception is that the system is rigged for the wealthy.

 

[WhoWee]

The fact that governmnetal conservatives absolutely refuse to raise a single tax but are only interested in spending cuts adds fuel to that perception. After all, if the poor and middle class (the ones who would largely be affected by the spending cuts) are the only ones affected, but the wealthy are not, then the perception is that the system is rigged for the wealthy.

my bold

Is this a fact?

 

[czelaya]

Do you think an 18 year old armed with a high school diploma and $10,000 would have a fair chance to succeed in Honduras?

With $10,000 American currency-yes. However there would have to be some type of liaison. There's a lot of corruption, so you would need to know the total cost of doing any venture.

 

[WhoWee]

With $10,000 American currency-yes. However there would have to be some type of liaison. There's a lot of corruption, so you would need to know the total cost of doing any venture.

Perhaps a bank line of credit would keep transactions more accountable?

 

[Oltz]

Legally, yes, the laying field is level, which I think only a few people would disagree with (perhaps those that feel the Citizens United decision was wrong would disagree?)

I think the main focus of the OWS desire to "level the playing field" is more of a social one than a legal one. I don't think anyone would argue that the more money you have the more politcal influence you have since this gives you access, the ability to contribute heftily to a SuperPac, etc. In addition, the perception that the corporate world in general, and the financial sector specifically (because of the "too big to fail" attitude), is largely immune to the bad economy, is rampant. Whether this is true or not is irrelevant, since, as they say, in politics, perception is everything. And money is politics (and vice versa) nowadays. The fact that governmnetal conservatives absolutely refuse to raise a single tax but are only interested in spending cuts adds fuel to that perception. After all, if the poor and middle class (the ones who would largely be affected by the spending cuts) are the only ones affected, but the wealthy are not, then the perception is that the system is rigged for the wealthy.

So again how do you level it? what do you level ?at what point should it be level?

Does the government take every child to ensure all are raised the same so its "fair" nobody knows who their family is so no benefits can be accorded to relatives and no "inheritance" exists. If people truelly want a "level" playing field how else can they have one?

They still want to "play" so at some point inequality is ok what point is that? when you finish mandatory college? At what point do you allow some to excel and others to fail?

The top 10% already pay ~40% of the federal budget of course it isn't fair and the majority has power to vote themselves more benefits and lesser burden.

If corp. stop contributing unions need to as well I would be fine with that.

By the way in a Fair system each decile would pay the same proportion of tax as the wealth it controls i.e. the top 10% have 25% of the wealth they should pay 25% of the total burden so right now it really is not fair at all...IMO

Again the entire thing makes no sense to me will somebody who supports this "leveling" please provide an opinion/plan to achieve it so I have somewhere to start from to understand what on Earth these people really want.

 

[Oltz]

Alexander Tyler. Tyler was writing about the fall of the Athenian Republic.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."

Bold Mine

"In general the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to the other." --Voltaire

"Do we really think that a government-dominated education is going to produce citizens capable of dominating their government, as the education of a truly vigilant self-governing people requires?" (ALAN KEYES)

Freedom is essentially a condition of inequality, not equality. It recognizes as a fact of nature the structural differences inherent in man - in temperament, character, and capacity - and it respects those differences. We are not alike and no law can make us so. --Frank Chodorov

 

[daveb]

my bold

Is this a fact?

Um...how about the http://www.atr.org/taxpayer-protection-pledge" this pledge.

 

[WhoWee]

Um...how about the http://www.atr.org/taxpayer-protection-pledge" this pledge.

I think the pledge specifies no "new" taxes - not adjustments to current rates?

 

[ThomasT]

By the way in a Fair system each decile would pay the same proportion of tax as the wealth it controls i.e. the top 10% have 25% of the wealth they should pay 25% of the total burden so right now it really is not fair at all...IMO

Are you saying that this is the actual number, or just using it as a 'for instance'?

Afaik, the top 10% households control something closer to 75% of the wealth, and the top 25% between 85% and 90% of the wealth. If this is true, and I don't know that it is, then the taxes paid by the wealthiest Americans aren't even close to being commensurate with the wealth they control.

I'd guess that between 30% and 35% have no net wealth. Again, the actual percentage might be lower. But it seems to be increasing.

I don't think this a healthy state of affairs for the US. But I could be wrong about that.

We do have to keep in mind that even though a significant portion of the US population controls a rather tiny portion of the total wealth, it's still a fact that the bottom, say, 25% in the US have it better than most of the people in the rest of the world.

But is this how we should be looking at it? Or, can (should) the state of affairs in America be improved?

 

[John Creighto]

Well, then that's a ridiculous thing to bring up since she didn't have basic human rights. Nothing at all to do with the topic in this thread. A bit of a red herring, no? Posts of this kind are against the rules.

Does, the right to sit at the front of a bus trump: the right to free speech, the right to a reasonable expectation of privacy, the right to peacefully assemble and the right to be informed of the charges against you in a reasonable time?

 

[daveb]

I think the pledge specifies no "new" taxes - not adjustments to current rates?

Nope. From the site (my bold):

In the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, candidates and incumbents solemnly bind themselves to oppose any and all tax increases.

 

[WhoWee]

Are you saying that this is the actual number, or just using it as a 'for instance'?

Afaik, the top 10% households control something closer to 75% of the wealth, and the top 25% between 85% and 90% of the wealth. If this is true, and I don't know that it is, then the taxes paid by the wealthiest Americans aren't even close to being commensurate with the wealth they control.

I'd guess that between 30% and 35% have no net wealth. Again, the actual percentage might be lower. But it seems to be increasing.

I don't think this a healthy state of affairs for the US. But I could be wrong about that.

We do have to keep in mind that even though a significant portion of the US population controls a rather tiny portion of the total wealth, it's still a fact that the bottom, say, 25% in the US have it better than most of the people in the rest of the world.

But is this how we should be looking at it? Or, can (should) the state of affairs in America be improved?

There's a big difference between wealth and income. A young trader may have assets of less than $1 million and income of $10 million (an amount more than assets) - whether it's because they spend it, gamble it away, or park it off shore.

 

[WhoWee]

Nope. From the site (my bold):

From your link: my bold

"Politicians often run for office saying they won't raise taxes, but then quickly turn their backs on the taxpayer. The idea of the Pledge is simple enough: Make them put their no-new-taxes rhetoric in writing. "

 

[Char. Limit]

This thread is no longer about Occupy Wall Street anymore, it's devolved into what every thread in P&WA devolves into: an argument about taxes.

 

[WhoWee]

This thread is no longer about Occupy Wall Street anymore, it's devolved into what every thread in P&WA devolves into: an argument about taxes.

That's probably because the Occupiers never really organized their platform - did they?

 

[Char. Limit]

That's probably because the Occupiers never really organized their platform - did they?

So therefore, every post here is off-topic! Wonderful conclusion.

Except, yanno, I made a post a couple of pages back that actually was about Occupy Wall Street's policies. Seemed to have been ignored, though. Maybe it wasn't enough about taxes.

 

[WhoWee]

So therefore, every post here is off-topic! Wonderful conclusion.

Except, yanno, I made a post a couple of pages back that actually was about Occupy Wall Street's policies. Seemed to have been ignored, though. Maybe it wasn't enough about taxes.

Their policies(?) - care to re-post?

 

[daveb]

From your link: my bold

"Politicians often run for office saying they won't raise taxes, but then quickly turn their backs on the taxpayer. The idea of the Pledge is simple enough: Make them put their no-new-taxes rhetoric in writing. "

Ok, that's a bit disingenuous there WhoWee. It's much more restrictive to oppose any and all tax increases than just new taxes (which is also a tax increase).

 

[Char. Limit]

I promised myself I'd never post in this thread again, but I just had to report this:



http://feministing.com/2011/10/04/guest-post-my-hope-for-occupy-wall-street/

Do not want movement anymore, if it's going to be racially and gender discriminating.

Reposted! Occupy Wall Street's policies on who gets to speak first!

 

[WhoWee]

Ok, that's a bit disingenuous there WhoWee. It's much more restrictive to oppose any and all tax increases than just new taxes (which is also a tax increase).

Disingenuous(?) - you stated very clearly:my bold

"The fact that governmnetal conservatives absolutely refuse to raise a single tax but are only interested in spending cuts adds fuel to that perception."

I don't think you've provided adequate support for your statement.

 

[D H]

From your link: my bold

"Politicians often run for office saying they won't raise taxes, but then quickly turn their backs on the taxpayer. The idea of the Pledge is simple enough: Make them put their no-new-taxes rhetoric in writing. "

Follow the link a bit more and you will find the pledge. Here is the pledge for US representatives:

I, _______________, pledge to the taxpayers of the _____ district of the state of__________, and to the American people that I will:
ONE, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for individuals and/or businesses; and
TWO, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.​

The pledge for senators is similar; at the state level the pledge is to oppose any and all efforts to increase taxes. Creating a new tax is not an out.

 

[Evo]

This thread is no longer about Occupy Wall Street anymore, it's devolved into what every thread in P&WA devolves into: an argument about taxes.

This thread has been going nowhere for 40 pages.