Thoughts. There's a surprising number of ones here I agree with. The last one makes #3 moot - wish they had thought of that.
I guess I'd better quit bathing, put on the old tye dye shirt and start chanting...
Published on October 3, 2011, 04:41PM
**Update-Post #1 was a proposed list from an OWS supporter in their forum. Below is a working proposed list of demands by Occupy Wall Street (OWS):
Below is a list of proposed "DEMANDS FOR CONGRESS":
"The Sovereign People's Movement, represented nationally through the people occupying the various Liberty Square locations across this great country, have laid out and democratically submitted and are currently voting on the list of following Demands to then be distilled into one Unified Common demand of the people."
"Participate in Democracy and Vote Here to Have Your Voice Heard"
LIST OF PROPOSED "DEMANDS FOR CONGRESS"CONGRESS PASS HR 1489 ("RETURN TO PRUDENT BANKING ACT" http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-1489 ). THIS REINSTATES MANY PROVISIONS OF THE GLASS-STEAGALL ACT. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass–Steagall_Act --- Wiki entry summary: The repeal of provisions of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933 by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act in 1999 effectively removed the separation that previously existed between investment banking which issued securities and commercial banks which accepted deposits. The deregulation also removed conflict of interest prohibitions between investment bankers serving as officers of commercial banks. Most economists believe this repeal directly contributed to the severity of the Financial crisis of 2007–2011 by allowing Wall Street investment banking firms to gamble with their depositors' money that was held in commercial banks owned or created by the investment firms. Here's detail on repeal in 1999 and how it happened: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass–Steagall_Act#Repeal . Vote Here #1
USE CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY AND OVERSIGHT TO ENSURE APPROPRIATE FEDERAL AGENCIES FULLY INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE THE WALL STREET CRIMINALS who clearly broke the law and helped cause the 2008 financial crisis in the following notable cases: (insert list of the most clear cut criminal actions). There is a pretty broad consensus that there is a clear group of people who got away with millions / billions illegally and haven't been brought to justice. Boy would this be long overdue and cathartic for millions of Americans. It would also be a shot across the bow for the financial industry. If you watch the solidly researched and awared winning documentary film "Inside Job" that was narrated by Matt Damon (pretty brave Matt!) and do other research, it wouldn't take long to develop the list. Vote Here #2
CONGRESS ENACT LEGISLATION TO PROTECT OUR DEMOCRACY BY REVERSING THE EFFECTS OF THE CITIZENS UNITED SUPREME COURT DECISION which essentially said corporations can spend as much as they want on elections. The result is that corporations can pretty much buy elections. Corporations should be highly limited in ability to contribute to political campaigns no matter what the election and no matter what the form of media. This legislation should also RE-ESTABLISH THE PUBLIC AIRWAVES IN THE U.S. SO THAT POLITICAL CANDIDATES ARE GIVEN EQUAL TIME FOR FREE AT REASONABLE INTERVALS IN DAILY PROGRAMMING DURING CAMPAIGN SEASON. The same should extend to other media. Vote Here #3
CONGRESS PASS THE BUFFETT RULE ON FAIR TAXATION SO THE RICH AND CORPORATIONS PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE & CLOSE CORPORATE TAX LOOP HOLES AND ENACT A PROHIBITION ON HIDING FUNDS OFF SHORE. No more GE paying zero or negative taxes. Pass the Buffet Rule on fair taxation so the rich pay their fair share. (If we have a really had a good negotiating position and have the place surrounded, we could actually dial up taxes on millionaires, billionaires and corporations even higher...back to what they once were in the 50's and 60's.Vote Here #4
CONGRESS COMPLETELY REVAMP THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION and staff it at all levels with proven professionals who get the job done protecting the integrity of the marketplace so citizens and investors are both protected. This agency needs a large staff and needs to be well-funded. It's currently has a joke of a budget and is run by Wall St. insiders who often leave for high ticket cushy jobs with the corporations they were just regulating. Hmmm. Vote Here #5
CONGRESS PASS SPECIFIC AND EFFECTIVE LAWS LIMITING THE INFLUENCE OF LOBBYISTS AND ELIMINATING THE PRACTICE OF LOBBYISTS WRITING LEGISLATION THAT ENDS UP ON THE FLOOR OF CONGRESS. Vote Here #6
CONGRESS PASSING "Revolving Door Legislation" LEGISLATION ELIMINATING THE ABILITY OF FORMER GOVERNMENT REGULATORS GOING TO WORK FOR CORPORATIONS THAT THEY ONCE REGULATED. So, you don't get to work at the FDA for five years playing softball with Pfizer and then go to work for Pfizer making $195,000 a year. While they're at it, Congress should pass specific and effective laws to enforce strict judicial standards of conduct in matters concerning conflicts of interest. So long as judges are culled from the ranks of corporate attorneys the 1% will retain control. Vote Here #7
ELIMINATE "PERSONHOOD" LEGAL STATUS FOR CORPORATIONS. The film "The Corporation" has a great section on how corporations won "personhood status". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SuUzmqBewg . Fast-forward to 2:20. It'll blow your mind. The 14th amendment was supposed to give equal rights to African Americans. It said you "can't deprive a person of life, liberty or property without due process of law". Corporation lawyers wanted corporations to have more power so they basically said "corporations are people." Amazingly, between 1890 and 1910 there were 307 cases brought before the court under the 14th amendment. 288 of these brought by corporations and only 19 by African Americans. 600,000 people were killed to get rights for people and then judges applied those rights to capital and property while stripping them from people. It's time to set this straight. Vote Here #8
Automatically Appended Next Post: Addendum, from the first post of the original site links to a supposed website.
Most of these can be boiled down to: give me money so I can buy my pot.
Demand 7 directly contradicts demand 5. Demand 1 is listed tweice effectively. They are real serious about getting more money for working at Starbucks. Interesting in that I actually agree with demand 1 in a big way, except for the $20 an hour part. Thats just funny. Thats $41,600 a year or more than my dad made for most of his income producing life.
Proposed List Of Demands For Occupy Wall St Movement!
Posted 9 days ago by LloydJHart (Vineyard Haven, MA)
Demand one: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending "Freetrade" by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.
Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.
Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.
Demand four: Free college education.
Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.
Demand six: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.
Demand seven: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America's nuclear power plants.
Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.
Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.
Demand ten: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.
Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the "Books." World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the "Books." And I don't mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.
Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.
Demand thirteen: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.
These demands will create so many jobs it will be completely impossible to fill them without an open borders policy.
Ahtman wrote:Are those two lists from the same organization.
I think the concept of "organization" is a bit fluid in this instance. The first set, posted to the Washington Times, is almost coherent. The second set on an actual site (below) is just fun crazy happy fun time that sounds like Code Pink and Cheech and Chong got together to have a plan.
I tend not to take seriously anyone who cites Wikipedia or uses the words "pretty much" in a policy proposal.
I'm also not sure how they got to $20 per hour, unless it's just a nice round number. While I'm sure you could live on $20/hour, it would still be a pretty lower-middle class standard. They should raise it to $50/hour. Or better yet, $100/hour.
20/hour would be ~40k a year for a 40 hour workweek.
This doesn't count vacations or holidays obviously.
Certainly it'd be better tahn the current minimum which results in ~12.5k a year. Most people who earn that work multiple jobs just to make ends meet in my experience.
biccat wrote:I tend not to take seriously anyone who cites Wikipedia or uses the words "pretty much" in a policy proposal.
I'm also not sure how they got to $20 per hour, unless it's just a nice round number. While I'm sure you could live on $20/hour, it would still be a pretty lower-middle class standard. They should raise it to $50/hour. Or better yet, $100/hour.
Thats $41M a year. For a large portioin of the US, thats not bad. Two people, thats living swell.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:20/hour would be ~40k a year for a 40 hour workweek.
This doesn't count vacations or holidays obviously.
Certainly it'd be better tahn the current minimum which results in ~12.5k a year. Most people who earn that work multiple jobs just to make ends meet in my experience.
Yes it would be a lot better. It also would mean there would be 50% unemployment.
You think McD is going to pay $20 an hour? You like paying $30 for a hamburger?
Frazzled wrote:Yes it would be a lot better. It also would mean there would be 50% unemployment.
Yes, overly simplified exaggeration works so well.
Frazzled wrote:You think McD is going to pay $20 an hour? You like paying $30 for a hamburger?
I wouldn't pay thirty cents for a McD gakburger.
its not an exagerration, its basic math. A $20 an hour minimum wage is higher than most manufacturing, retail, and even government jobs. Thats Sr. Manager level pay for government jobs in Texas, almost Director level. For a starting salary? its just absofreakinglootely crazy talk.
Of course, with the open borders noted as an additional demand, a minium wage is moot.
Frazzled wrote:its not an exagerration, its basic math.
Then show your math.
The fact that workers are currently underpaid while big businesses reap huge profits that they subsequently turn around and sit on doesn't exactly lend credence to your argument.
At $20 an hour, you wouldn't have the option.
So you're going to pay $20 an hour for:
*busboys?
*gardeners?
*the Starbucks dude?
*cartguys at the grocery?
*tollbooth attendants?
*every employee in every fast food restaurant?
*every employee in every mall?
*every farmworker
*every person in a plant?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:
Frazzled wrote:its not an exagerration, its basic math.
Then show your math.
The fact that workers are currently underpaid while big businesses reap huge profits that they subsequently turn around and sit on doesn't exactly lend credence to your argument.
Oh wow we have a protester now. Are you going to be one of the people I intend to throw a banana peel at Thursday?
$41M is more than most college educated employees. Disagree, look up some jobs and see what they are paying. Then imagine all those jobs gone.
No restaurant will be in existence.
No retailer will be in existence.
No manufacturer with an assembly line will have employees outside of a few engineers.
Frazzled wrote:At $20 an hour, you wouldn't have the option.
Yes I would. I don't go to McD. I wouldn't. Ever.
Frazzled wrote:*busboys? *gardeners? *the Starbucks dude? *cartguys at the grocery? *tollbooth attendants? *every employee in every fast food restaurant? *every employee in every mall? *every farmworker *every person in a plant?
When people have to work eighty hours a week or something similar just to try to pay rent, they're underpaid. This is not uncommon. I very much recall people I worked with talking about doing exactly that-- after they get off one job's shift they go directly to the next one's shift. Because they had family to support, family they only ever got to see on the weekends because they worked so much. Even fellow students often go off to work after class / go to class after their shift in work-- because they can't afford to be a full time student, even with government assistance they need to work.
And this is Texas, where the price of living is relatively low.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:$41M
41k. Not million. Learn math.
College graduates earn on average ~51k a year right now. *
*Male college graduates. Female college graduates earn roughly 40k a year right now on average.
Frazzled wrote:At $20 an hour, you wouldn't have the option.
Yes I would. I don't go to McD. I wouldn't. Ever.
When you refuse to patronize a business, such as McDonalds, the company sells less of their products. By selling fewer products, they hire less workers.
Do you want people who work at McDonalds to lose their jobs Mel? Sure $7.50/hour isn't great, but it's better than not having a job.
When people have to work eighty hours a week or something similar just to try to pay rent, they're underpaid.
***Then they need to get a cheaper place and/or some room mates. That’s $400 a week. Where the hell are they renting? River Oaks?
This is not uncommon. I very much recall people I worked with talking about doing exactly that-- after they get off one job's shift they go directly to the next one's shift.
***So? I‘ve done that. Life sucks then you die.
Because they had family to support, family they only ever got to see on the weekends
***Cry me a river. Better yet let them die a horrible screaming death. I’ve done that for more than 12 years to take care of my family.
because they worked so much. Even fellow students often go off to work after class / go to class after their shift in work
***That’s how its supposed to be. Everyone I knew did that. Seriously if people are whining because have to work to go to school they can suck my balls. My neighbor and his family crossed a desert/forded a small stream and evaded the local authorities to work here. So did the family behind me, and the family in front of me. Good people and they didn’t whine about it. But then again they’re not pathetic losers.
-- because they can't afford to be a full time student, even with government assistance they need to work.
***THAT’S WHAT I DID. Again, welcome to planet suck my balls. Its called picking yourself up by your bootstraps. They will do and be proud when they are done. Their children won’t have to.
And this is Texas, where the price of living is relatively low.
***At $20 an hour it won’t be.
Frazzled wrote:Thats $41M a year. For a large portioin of the US, thats not bad. Two people, thats living swell.
Yes, but think about how much better they would be if they were making $100,000/year. Better yet, $200,000/year. They wouldn't have to work long hours and could afford all sorts of wonderful luxuries.
I want to know why your arguing against Frazz's point though. Weather his math is bang on or way off, he has a VERY valid point. $20/hr for minimum wage is just ludicrous. Everything would more then double in price. While you wouldnt be paying 10 bucks for a dollar hamburger, youd be paying something like $3.30 cents for that same burger. $10 bucks for the CHEAP bag of bread at a grocery store? How about $45 for a car wash?
Not to mention in doing that, the value of our dollar will drop by leaps and bounds as well. I agreed with some of the stuff they demanded but that point really stuck out to me. They really think that in asking THAT MUCH for minimum wage, nothing will change in price? Cmon really?
KingCracker wrote:They really think that in asking THAT MUCH for minimum wage, nothing will change in price? Cmon really?
I'm sure they'll stick to their principles and demand the 'Minimum Wage Hounds' who destroyed the US economy be prosecuted. It would be hypocritical to suggest otherwise
Honestly....anymore when I try to think about who really is to blame on the current situation.... I think everything the Government has done in the last 10-15 years is to blame. I dont care how relative it is to the problem, Im just blaming everything on it. Can we drop a nuke on Parliament yet and just start over?
Frazzled wrote:M is a basic notation for 1000 in finance. When discussing finance its best to learn nomenclature before you reveal ignorance.
Oh look you can google a term, good for you.
You still haven't shown any actual math.
Google a term? I live it.
Just as a simple example as they don't seem to teach 4th grade math any more.
I'm a GW store. I make $5,000 a month.
I pay $2,000 in product cost all in. That leave $3,000.
A pay $1,500 a month for lease, lease payments related to sales, and utilities.
Thats $1,500 left. I pay labor costs for 200 manhours of part time labor thats $1,000 ($5 an hour not including SSI etc.). I net $500 a month.
If my labor costs are suddenly $20 an hour that means that I am now paying $4,000 or LOSING $2,500 a month. Those employees are now unemployed and that store is closed.
Now you'll probably argue - just raise your prices! The problem with that argument of course, is that if I could have charged higher prices I already would have.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Thats $41M a year. For a large portioin of the US, thats not bad. Two people, thats living swell.
Yes, but think about how much better they would be if they were making $100,000/year. Better yet, $200,000/year. They wouldn't have to work long hours and could afford all sorts of wonderful luxuries.
true that. Plus they could drive cars powered by hopes and dreams and fairy dust and Bastrop wouldn't again be on fire.
Frazzled wrote:Then they need to get a cheaper place and/or some room mates. That’s $400 a week. Where the hell are they renting? River Oaks?
And paying for gas (which fluctuates wildly, but is still far higher than it used to be), and paying for food for multiple people (not everyone is a single non-parent), and paying for insurance (car insurance is mandatory, but home and life insurance are also important depending on the person...), and paying for their car (which itself is usually a cheap piece of crap, but the payments add up anyway), and paying for electricity (this is Texas, you don't go without air conditioning, you know that), and so on and so forth.
The rest of your post isn't worth responding to, so I won't
Frazzled wrote: Google a term? I live it.
I'm sure you do. Don't worry, I believe you. Yes.
As for what was below this-- thank you for providing actual math to support your argument instead of saying "OMG MATH MATH MATH" as if I have reason to believe you actually did any math without you even trying to show even a speck of your supposed work.
biccat wrote:Do you want people who work at McDonalds to lose their jobs Mel?
When you work at McDonald's, the job sucks the life out of you. Do you really want to condemn people to a soulless life of working at McDonald's?
The very thought of it makes me shudder in fear.
So now you're deciding who gets to employ people whats a worthy job? You don't go around calling yourself "steel" do you? have a strange desire to stand in a pavilion while watching tanks and artillery pieces roll past?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:
The rest of your post isn't worth responding to, so I won't
Because you can't. Seriously, thats the problem right there. You want everything now. You want a high standard of living without the discipline and rigor of having to work for it.
I went to college for nine years and still had to go through 3 post grad jobs before I reached the level of earning the income you're talk about as a minimal level. The least you can do is put some effort into it.
What is the perspective of the people who wrote this manifesto?
Where do they live? What do they do?
Of the former, there are big differences to living in New York (where I assume the demands primarily came from) versus Texas.
In NYC alone, mortgages go for $400,000 or more. Cost of living is significantly higher than in other places. Hell, a hundred mile difference between where I live and NYC, costs go up 10 or even 20 percent above what a person should be making.
So it is no small wonder a person who makes $8 in NYC is complaining about rate of pay.
I could, but given the amount of rabid vitriol you spewed into that post, I'm still not gonna bother to respond regardless of your attempts to goad.
Frazzled wrote:So now you're deciding who gets to employ people whats a worthy job? You don't go around calling yourself "steel" do you? have a strange desire to stand in a pavilion while watching tanks and artillery pieces roll past?
Frazzled wrote:Thats $41M a year. For a large portioin of the US, thats not bad. Two people, thats living swell.
Yes, but think about how much better they would be if they were making $100,000/year. Better yet, $200,000/year. They wouldn't have to work long hours and could afford all sorts of wonderful luxuries.
true that. Plus they could drive cars powered by hopes and dreams and fairy dust and Bastrop wouldn't again be on fire.
Well, the Texas wildfires are because people drive cars. The President said so.
Melissia wrote:When you work at McDonald's, the job sucks the life out of you. Do you really want to condemn people to a soulless life of working at McDonald's?
The very thought of it makes me shudder in fear.
Most people don't work at McDonald's for very long. My morning pass through the drive-through has demonstrated that amply. Because the thing about minimum wage jobs is that people tend to leave them as soon as something better comes along.
But, no, I don't want to condemn people to working at McDonalds. I think they should have a choice where they choose to work, or not work.
KingCracker wrote:I want to know why your arguing against Frazz's point though.
I wouldn't necessarily even say I really am, so much as I'm playing devil's advocate and trying to force him to actually show the math he supposedly did...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:But, no, I don't want to condemn people to working at McDonalds. I think they should have a choice where they choose to work, or not work.
And I have a choice on where I want to eat.
McDonald's isn't on that list. I like to eat GOOD food. Not McDonald's.
Apparently only big businesses are allowed to practice capitalism.
biccat wrote:But, no, I don't want to condemn people to working at McDonalds. I think they should have a choice where they choose to work, or not work.
Perhaps that is the problem and we are approaching it wrongly.
Maybe instead of glorifying doctors and lawyers as necessary jobs and ones that bring prestige in money, we should align our core societal values to revere and reach for that McDonald's job; make it something worth attaining rather than disdaining.
Making a minimum wage job $20 an hour would be a great step in that direction.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:McDonald's isn't on that list. I like to eat GOOD food. Not McDonald's.
Again...perhaps that is society's fault for McDonald's poor reputation.
Force all fast food restaurants to have a minimum 30 minute waiting period between service and eating.
The company is forced to cook half-way decent food for you.
And then the $20 an hour salary might actually be worth it.
biccat wrote:But, no, I don't want to condemn people to working at McDonalds. I think they should have a choice where they choose to work, or not work.
Perhaps that is the problem and we are approaching it wrongly.
Maybe instead of glorifying doctors and lawyers as necessary jobs and ones that bring prestige in money, we should align our core societal values to revere and reach for that McDonald's job; make it something worth attaining rather than disdaining.
Making a minimum wage job $20 an hour would be a great step in that direction.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:McDonald's isn't on that list. I like to eat GOOD food. Not McDonald's.
Again...perhaps that is society's fault for McDonald's poor reputation.
Force all fast food restaurants to have a minimum 30 minute waiting period between service and eating.
The company is forced to cook half-way decent food for you.
And then the $20 an hour salary might actually be worth it.
Frazzled wrote:We have those. They are called restaurants.
And even many of those restaurants do not give $20 an hour for their regular workers.
Restaurants offer a fabulous insight into the way the capitalist system operates.
Waitors and waitresses earn a very minimum amount of money for their services on an hourly basis. This is supplemented by a discretionary pay held hostage by the free market system (the customer) who values the whole experience at the end with the tip- an amount of money that values monetarily the services rendered.
These restaurants pay little directly for their tipped employees*; rather it is the market that sets their wages.
*Tipped employees must still earn a minimum wage, which if not covered in tips, is forked over by the restaurant. But at that point, the employee is probably not a good waitor/waitress in the first place.
You think unemployment is bad now, businesses everywhere would go bankrupt if minimum wage was that high.
Not quiiite, but it's still really dumb. It's just manual inflation.
Costs would go up, prices would go up, salaries would go up. 20 would become the new 8 and basically nothing would change except your savings is now worth less. It's an inflation button.
WarOne wrote:
Maybe instead of glorifying doctors and lawyers as necessary jobs and ones that bring prestige in money, we should align our core societal values to revere and reach for that McDonald's job; make it something worth attaining rather than disdaining.
I agree partially with this sentiment but for completely different reasons.... Jobs that pay minimum wage, in my opinion are for those people who have no work experience. That means that 16 year old high school student who is trying to learn responsibility, etc. The brand new immigrant who needs to better their English skills and move on to another job. Minimum wage is not for those who failed to graduate high school because they were too busy doing drugs, or didn't wish to study and basically failed all their classes. Minimum wage is also not supposed to give someone a "comfortable" living.. so that means a person being paid this should not have 500 channels of TV, they shouldnt be buying an XBox, Playstation, expensive gaming computers, hell even a car. There are other, better means of transport than a car, especially for those of little income.
The "prestige" of a McDonald's job, is not for those who basically have failed at life, but those looking to enter it. It's one of those things that parents like to brag about to their fellow parents, or the Aunts and Uncles and extended family.
WarOne wrote:
Maybe instead of glorifying doctors and lawyers as necessary jobs and ones that bring prestige in money, we should align our core societal values to revere and reach for that McDonald's job; make it something worth attaining rather than disdaining.
I agree partially with this sentiment but for completely different reasons.... Jobs that pay minimum wage, in my opinion are for those people who have no work experience.
The "prestige" of a McDonald's job, is not for those who basically have failed at life, but those looking to enter it. It's one of those things that parents like to brag about to their fellow parents, or the Aunts and Uncles and extended family.
McDonalds is one of those jobs people like to boast about that started their whole working life. "I worked as a guy cleaning the grill after the fry cook finished his shift" is the typical starting story for a hard working (one who doesn't mind gettin their hands dirty and start small but dream big) American. Some of those people never get very high on the pay scale further in life, but it is the start point where future doctors and lawyers may of once been.
The problem is is that there is a reason a lawyer and doctor get paid 6 plus figure digits for their services, and none of it is easy to explain or cover within one short post of a thread. Suffice to say, a McDonald's employee, without experience or skills, is valued at the low end of the pay spectrum because their job is not considered specialized nor highly sought out.
And trying to force the government to make the lower end job worth more for labour is a disasterous road to take. It will force many companies to reduce their staffs or close their business outright, or force the economy to readjust the value of what goods they produce.
I've also heard of a minimum wage pay scale; the older one gets, the more they are paid. The other variant is the longer one works at a place, the more their minimum wage should be by law. This raises complications that already exist in the free market. School districts with teacher contracts tend to hire the least experienced or least qualified workers because contracts with unions typically pay more for a teacher with higher degrees, more college credits/courses, and/or experience. Thus a person overqualified for the job would almost never be hired under regular, non-nepotic circumstances. Further, unless protected by the federal government, works who age or progress longer with the company may get laid off because of the age wage scale. The market would simply react with what it could do, and that is save on costs and make as much profit as possible.
KingCracker wrote:I want to know why your arguing against Frazz's point though. Weather his math is bang on or way off, he has a VERY valid point. $20/hr for minimum wage is just ludicrous. Everything would more then double in price. While you wouldnt be paying 10 bucks for a dollar hamburger, youd be paying something like $3.30 cents for that same burger. $10 bucks for the CHEAP bag of bread at a grocery store? How about $45 for a car wash?
Not to mention in doing that, the value of our dollar will drop by leaps and bounds as well. I agreed with some of the stuff they demanded but that point really stuck out to me. They really think that in asking THAT MUCH for minimum wage, nothing will change in price? Cmon really?
Yes KC, because pinkos are so staggeringly naive they don't think things through properly. If it was 40 bucks for a car wash, a haircut and a burger, nobody would ever use a car wash/barber/Mcdonalds again.
And that's pretty much that.
I had an argument with a hippy who wanted to ban horse racing after a horse died in the grand national. She seems to think that people would still pay 2 grand a month if food and stabling fees and veterinary bills if they couldn't make money off said animal. If they banned horse racing, you know where most the horses in Britain and Ireland would wind up?
The fething kebab factory.
I think that story is the perfect analogy to the "hate the rich" class warrior types that make up the majority of the labour party in the UK, and all of these narrow minded fools marching in NY.
Im working class, but Im a staunch Tory, because I know what we can and cannot achieve. Its alright hating the rich, but you cant get labour without getting slack on immigration, wellfare and crime. So feth it, I side with the rich.
I might not have a trust fund, but Id rather live in a country with a line in the sand.
The exact same thing goes for these fethers. Life sucks, it ain't fair, the rich will always be rich and the poor will always have to work hard. So fething what? These poorly thought out quick fixes do jack gak. Its the same when they demand that workers in the third world get a fair wage, they wont get a fair wage, they will get fired because the hippies demanded too much, the owner will go "feth it" and sell his factory, and then the poor people that worked 12 hour shifts to feed their kids much to the chagrin of the hippies who live in nice countries and have no idea what they are talking about, will then become the unemployed people that starve to death.
Reality check hippies. Your plan wont work, and there will always be an underclass, live with it.
mattyrm wrote: Its the same when they demand that workers in the third world get a fair wage,
Actually, I would find it reasonable to demand of third world workers to try and leverage their power to make their labour cost more.
But that requires risks. They have to fight the regime, conventional wisdom (i.e. do I feed my family or die from hailstorm of bullets?), powerful third party interests (the Western company that owns the factory you work in, or contracted the factory you work in to make the goods for a Western market), and upset the social order in order to get it done.
Quite simply, a labour president in America asking foreign workers to join a united international labour union is insane (this happened back when the car companies in Detroit were in peril. One of the presidents of the unions gave a speech to this effect). It disregards borders and cultures like no one's business and shows how ignorant a person can be with regard to the real work situations that make such a demand high impractical if not impossible.
Frazzled wrote:We have those. They are called restaurants.
The problem with WarOne's post is that since he hit all the right buzzwords and tone, it is easy to take him seriously. See Poe's Law.
Interestingly, a group of like-minded yahoos have decided to spread their idiocy to the midwest. They are now protesting outside of my building. I had a good laugh at their expense on my way to the wonderful capitalist enclave of the local Chinese Restaurant*. They've managed a crowd of upwards of 30 people, requiring a single police cruiser.
Interestingly, their racial mix didn't exactly mesh with the local demographic. They're either an oppressed majority-minority or (more likely) drove in from the suburbs and are paying $3-4 an hour for the privilege of protesting downtown. I'm guessing the latter.
*They've updated their buffet to include pot stickers, I'm going back.
biccat wrote:The problem with WarOne's post is that since he hit all the right buzzwords and tone, it is easy to take him seriously. See Poe's Law.
Hard to convey sarcasm over the internet when one does not know the intent or the typical posting style of the poster in question.
But also look at the person responding.
But yes, the original post was a sort of condescending affirmation of valuing a frycook over a life saver. They both occupy different niches in the societal framework of roles and both require wildly different skill sets and experiences.
biccat wrote:Do you want people who work at McDonalds to lose their jobs Mel?
When you work at McDonald's, the job sucks the life out of you. Do you really want to condemn people to a soulless life of working at McDonald's?
The very thought of it makes me shudder in fear.
Full stop.
Remove your head from your ass.
My wife works at McDonalds. Here in Houston. Went from dropping fries to store manager to supervising several stores to management in the Corporate training department. All without a degree. She makes more than I do and I'm a chemical engineer for a fortune 500 company (which is fine by me, by the way). All from the opportunity that McDonald's gave her.
She is not alone. The "souless people" that she works with enjoy their jobs and appreciate the opportunity it gives them. The job allows them to support their families and provides the opportunity for those that want it to go up the management trail. The guys that work in the kitchen for 15 years and don't want management jobs? They choose to do it for a variety of reasons. But they're getting paid.
I'd seen you talk out of your ass before, Melissa. I just rolled my eyes and chalked it up to teenage angst + fight the system + a few other things.
Now, I know you're just an ignorant person. You have no idea what you are talking about. None. Welcome to ignore.
Frazzled wrote:We have those. They are called restaurants.
The problem with WarOne's post is that since he hit all the right buzzwords and tone, it is easy to take him seriously. See Poe's Law.
Interestingly, a group of like-minded yahoos have decided to spread their idiocy to the midwest. They are now protesting outside of my building. I had a good laugh at their expense on my way to the wonderful capitalist enclave of the local Chinese Restaurant*. They've managed a crowd of upwards of 30 people, requiring a single police cruiser.
Interestingly, their racial mix didn't exactly mesh with the local demographic. They're either an oppressed majority-minority or (more likely) drove in from the suburbs and are paying $3-4 an hour for the privilege of protesting downtown. I'm guessing the latter.
*They've updated their buffet to include pot stickers, I'm going back.
We've been informed there will be protests in Houston Thusday winding by my building. I intend to throw some banana peels at them, or at worst point and laugh. I'm betting this massive crowd won't make it to 50 people. It will be funny to see the homeless hit them up for change...
kronk wrote:My wife works at McDonalds. Here in Houston. Went from dropping fries to store manager to supervising several stores to management in the Corporate training department. All without a degree. She makes more than I do and I'm a chemical engineer for a fortune 500 company (which is fine by me, by the way). All from the opportunity that McDonald's gave her.
Circumventing the rest of kronk's post, this is the point to which a person, who enters the workforce at McDonald's, is now a veteran and experienced worker as well as a leader in the same company she started in.
This person through experience and perserverence now has earned the right to be a higher paid worker, and as such the company she works at values her accordingly.
I think raising the minimum wage to $20/hr is totally achievable. You just need to quadruple prices on everything. And, to compensate for added cost of living, you just need to quadruple everyone else's salary.
Grakmar wrote:I think raising the minimum wage to $20/hr is totally achievable. You just need to quadruple prices on everything. And, to compensate for added cost of living, you just need to quadruple everyone else's salary.
Problem solved!
We should do this, but then to avoid devaluing investments, deflate the dollar by 75%.
Frazzled wrote:We have those. They are called restaurants.
The problem with WarOne's post is that since he hit all the right buzzwords and tone, it is easy to take him seriously. See Poe's Law.
Interestingly, a group of like-minded yahoos have decided to spread their idiocy to the midwest. They are now protesting outside of my building. I had a good laugh at their expense on my way to the wonderful capitalist enclave of the local Chinese Restaurant*. They've managed a crowd of upwards of 30 people, requiring a single police cruiser.
Interestingly, their racial mix didn't exactly mesh with the local demographic. They're either an oppressed majority-minority or (more likely) drove in from the suburbs and are paying $3-4 an hour for the privilege of protesting downtown. I'm guessing the latter.
*They've updated their buffet to include pot stickers, I'm going back.
We've been informed there will be protests in Houston Thusday winding by my building. I intend to throw some banana peels at them, or at worst point and laugh. I'm betting this massive crowd won't make it to 50 people. It will be funny to see the homeless hit them up for change...
Might be worth a laugh to inform as many homeless and panhandlers as possible of their imminent arrival. Just tell them that there is a group of people that want to make the world a better place and reduce unemployment/homelessness. If you're lucky there could be a 1:1 ratio of hippy to homeless and the sound of their protest drowned out by the rattling of "donation cups."
biccat wrote:Do you want people who work at McDonalds to lose their jobs Mel?
When you work at McDonald's, the job sucks the life out of you. Do you really want to condemn people to a soulless life of working at McDonald's?
The very thought of it makes me shudder in fear.
Full stop.
Remove your head from your ass.
My wife works at McDonalds. Here in Houston. Went from dropping fries to store manager to supervising several stores to management in the Corporate training department. All without a degree. She makes more than I do and I'm a chemical engineer for a fortune 500 company (which is fine by me, by the way). All from the opportunity that McDonald's gave her.
She is not alone. The "souless people" that she works with enjoy their jobs and appreciate the opportunity it gives them. The job allows them to support their families and provides the opportunity for those that want it to go up the management trail. The guys that work in the kitchen for 15 years and don't want management jobs? They choose to do it for a variety of reasons. But they're getting paid.
I'd seen you talk out of your ass before, Melissa. I just rolled my eyes and chalked it up to teenage angst + fight the system + a few other things.
Now, I know you're just an ignorant person. You have no idea what you are talking about. None. Welcome to ignore.
McDonalds makes excellent coffee and sausage biscuits. If I leave a $20 could a case fall off the back of the truck and end up in my trunk?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Infreak wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
biccat wrote:
Frazzled wrote:We have those. They are called restaurants.
The problem with WarOne's post is that since he hit all the right buzzwords and tone, it is easy to take him seriously. See Poe's Law.
Interestingly, a group of like-minded yahoos have decided to spread their idiocy to the midwest. They are now protesting outside of my building. I had a good laugh at their expense on my way to the wonderful capitalist enclave of the local Chinese Restaurant*. They've managed a crowd of upwards of 30 people, requiring a single police cruiser.
Interestingly, their racial mix didn't exactly mesh with the local demographic. They're either an oppressed majority-minority or (more likely) drove in from the suburbs and are paying $3-4 an hour for the privilege of protesting downtown. I'm guessing the latter.
*They've updated their buffet to include pot stickers, I'm going back.
We've been informed there will be protests in Houston Thusday winding by my building. I intend to throw some banana peels at them, or at worst point and laugh. I'm betting this massive crowd won't make it to 50 people. It will be funny to see the homeless hit them up for change...
Might be worth a laugh to inform as many homeless and panhandlers as possible of their imminent arrival. Just tell them that there is a group of people that want to make the world a better place and reduce unemployment/homelessness. If you're lucky there could be a 1:1 ratio of hippy to homeless and the sound of their protest drowned out by the rattling of "donation cups."
Alternatively the homeless might think the hippies are homeless trying to horn in on their hard won territory. Out come the shanks and shivs. Again, fun to watch for the whole family.
Frazzled wrote:McDonalds makes excellent coffee and sausage biscuits. If I leave a $20 could a case fall off the back of the truck and end up in my trunk?
Unfortunately, we both would like for her to remain employed. Perhaps I can get some managers coupons for you...
Frazzled wrote:McDonalds makes excellent coffee and sausage biscuits. If I leave a $20 could a case fall off the back of the truck and end up in my trunk?
Unfortunately, we both would like for her to remain employed. Perhaps I can get some managers coupons for you...
biccat wrote:Do you want people who work at McDonalds to lose their jobs Mel?
When you work at McDonald's, the job sucks the life out of you. Do you really want to condemn people to a soulless life of working at McDonald's?
The very thought of it makes me shudder in fear.
Full stop.
Remove your head from your ass.
My wife works at McDonalds. Here in Houston. Went from dropping fries to store manager to supervising several stores to management in the Corporate training department. All without a degree. She makes more than I do and I'm a chemical engineer for a fortune 500 company (which is fine by me, by the way). All from the opportunity that McDonald's gave her.
She is not alone. The "souless people" that she works with enjoy their jobs and appreciate the opportunity it gives them. The job allows them to support their families and provides the opportunity for those that want it to go up the management trail. The guys that work in the kitchen for 15 years and don't want management jobs? They choose to do it for a variety of reasons. But they're getting paid.
I'd seen you talk out of your ass before, Melissa. I just rolled my eyes and chalked it up to teenage angst + fight the system + a few other things.
Now, I know you're just an ignorant person. You have no idea what you are talking about. None. Welcome to ignore.
Zing!
Ive always hated how arrogant middle class arseholes look down on people with gak jobs.
In the UK they are far more generous with social programmes than in the US, you can live on the dole. Im talking 30 years without a job, its not hard to do. They pay your council tax and your rent and give you money, sure your not gonna be wadded, but its comfortable enough. Thats why so many fething people do it.
For that reason, I dont merely appreciate people with gakky jobs, I really fething respect them. People look at a street sweeper and think they guy has no self respect, its the exact fething opposite.
If your a bus driver or a street sweeper or a toilet cleaner, you get your ass out of bed on a morning to do a job you don't enjoy, and you do it BECAUSE you have too much self respect to sit on your ass and live off fething wellfare like so many parasites do.
I will bro fist a toilet cleaner.
I will chainfist a pretentious English literature student who wears a beret.
Frazzled wrote:McDonalds makes excellent coffee and sausage biscuits. If I leave a $20 could a case fall off the back of the truck and end up in my trunk?
Unfortunately, we both would like for her to remain employed. Perhaps I can get some managers coupons for you...
coffee really is excellent.
PM me. I'll see if I can hook you up with something...
Do the liberals have their own teaparty now? Nah, this things still more coherent then that pack of crap.
Most people don't work at McDonald's for very long. My morning pass through the drive-through has demonstrated that amply. Because the thing about minimum wage jobs is that people tend to leave them as soon as something better comes along.
You should look at minimum wage jobs that don't have such high attrition rates then. Fast food has an immense amount of churn at everything below multi store manager level. It's awful and difficult work that is draining and depressing in the extreme.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
WarOne wrote:
kronk wrote:My wife works at McDonalds. Here in Houston. Went from dropping fries to store manager to supervising several stores to management in the Corporate training department. All without a degree. She makes more than I do and I'm a chemical engineer for a fortune 500 company (which is fine by me, by the way). All from the opportunity that McDonald's gave her.
Circumventing the rest of kronk's post, this is the point to which a person, who enters the workforce at McDonald's, is now a veteran and experienced worker as well as a leader in the same company she started in.
This person through experience and perserverence now has earned the right to be a higher paid worker, and as such the company she works at values her accordingly.
And how many hundreds work under her can not be afforded the same opportunity until she leaves? Growth in wealth can't exist solely through promotion, not everyone can be the manager and our population isn't rising a fifth as fast as would be needed for that to make sense. Acting like mcdonalds isn't a corporation that heavily exploits its ability to pay low for unskilled gak labor is like pretending the sky doesn't exist. It's right there. Look at it. It's ugly. One can not support themselves in anything but strict poverty working there. Below an upper management position (macdonalds managers don't make much at a store level).
It also doesn't help that there are very few corporations left that will allow a worker to move to upper management without a related degree. Is McDonalds even still one of them? How long has she had her position?
KingCracker wrote:Honestly....anymore when I try to think about who really is to blame on the current situation.... I think everything the Government has done in the last 10-15 years is to blame. I dont care how relative it is to the problem, Im just blaming everything on it. Can we drop a nuke on Parliament yet and just start over?
Yep, and when you look at that first list of demands, about all of which start with 'Congress' I have to wonder why they are not in DC vice on Wallstreet.
Melissia wrote:When you work at McDonald's, the job sucks the life out of you. Do you really want to condemn people to a soulless life of working at McDonald's?
The very thought of it makes me shudder in fear.
As someone who has worked fast food, construction, customer service jobs, active military and now contractor for the Army I have to laugh. I've had soul sucking jobs. Know what? They paid for me to enjoy non-soul sucking activites when not working. It is the kids who are too good for 'soul sucking jobs' that want many of the things in the second list of demands from the opening post. They want the world handed to them and don't think they should ever have to break a sweat to enjoy the fruits of MY sweat. As Dad used to say, they can find sympathy between shyte and syphilis in the dictionary. They need to embrace the suck and drive on.
Whilst one can appreciate the desire to emphasise the validity and strength of ones feelinsg with regards to this issue, could we please refrain from making cracks about heads in asses and the like please. It detracts majorly from otherwise very well made points and opinions.
As someone who has worked fast food, construction, customer service jobs, active military and now contractor for the Army I have to laugh. I've had soul sucking jobs. Know what? They paid for me to enjoy non-soul sucking activites when not working. It is the kids who are too good for 'soul sucking jobs' that want many of the things in the second list of demands from the opening post.
You sound like you're used to soul crushing jobs. You should get out of that rut.
They want the world handed to them and don't think they should ever have to break a sweat to enjoy the fruits of MY sweat. As Dad used to say, they can find sympathy between shyte and syphilis in the dictionary. They need to embrace the suck and drive on.
I'm sure there demands have more to do with the fact that the income divide has grown steadily for 40 years while good paying unskilled work has all but vanished in america. Wages have not increased against inflation since the 70s. gak is shittier then when your dad was bitching. You have it worse then your dad. Pretending that everyone but you is a lazy twit pretending that things are going wrong during the greatest recession in almost a century is lame.
As someone who has worked fast food, construction, customer service jobs, active military and now contractor for the Army I have to laugh. I've had soul sucking jobs. Know what? They paid for me to enjoy non-soul sucking activites when not working. It is the kids who are too good for 'soul sucking jobs' that want many of the things in the second list of demands from the opening post.
You sound like you're used to soul crushing jobs. You should get out of that rut.
They want the world handed to them and don't think they should ever have to break a sweat to enjoy the fruits of MY sweat. As Dad used to say, they can find sympathy between shyte and syphilis in the dictionary. They need to embrace the suck and drive on.
I'm sure there demands have more to do with the fact that the income divide has grown steadily for 40 years while good paying unskilled work has all but vanished in america. Wages have not increased against inflation since the 70s. gak is shittier then when your dad was bitching. You have it worse then your dad. Pretending that everyone but you is a lazy twit pretending that things are going wrong during the greatest recession in almost a century is lame.
Clearly you haven't had to pay a plumber recently.
ShumaGorath wrote:And how many hundreds work under her can not be afforded the same opportunity until she leaves? Growth in wealth can't exist solely through promotion, not everyone can be the manager and our population isn't rising a fifth as fast as would be needed for that to make sense. Acting like mcdonalds isn't a corporation that heavily exploits its ability to pay low for unskilled gak labor is like pretending the sky doesn't exist. It's right there. Look at it. It's ugly.
It also doesn't help that there are very few corporations left that will allow a worker to move to upper management without a related degree. Is McDonalds even still one of them? How long has she had her position?
She's had her position for 2 years. She completed her degree this year. Unusual for anyone to get her position without her degree, but she's good and was recommended by several franchise owners.
On your first point, not everyone is a go-getter and deserves promotion. You get that in every group. Pretending they don't exist is pie-int-the-sky thinking, too. Some people can't do any better than minimum wage because they're lazy and/or suck at everything they try. You can't push a rope.
Those that apply themselves get better jobs, get promoted, and get ahead. It's on the individual to make that choice and take the effort. Saying that coporations are evil because they have employees that can't do anything else is pointing the finger at the wrong person.
As someone who has worked fast food, construction, customer service jobs, active military and now contractor for the Army I have to laugh. I've had soul sucking jobs. Know what? They paid for me to enjoy non-soul sucking activites when not working. It is the kids who are too good for 'soul sucking jobs' that want many of the things in the second list of demands from the opening post.
You sound like you're used to soul crushing jobs. You should get out of that rut.
They want the world handed to them and don't think they should ever have to break a sweat to enjoy the fruits of MY sweat. As Dad used to say, they can find sympathy between shyte and syphilis in the dictionary. They need to embrace the suck and drive on.
I'm sure there demands have more to do with the fact that the income divide has grown steadily for 40 years while good paying unskilled work has all but vanished in america. Wages have not increased against inflation since the 70s. gak is shittier then when your dad was bitching. You have it worse then your dad. Pretending that everyone but you is a lazy twit pretending that things are going wrong during the greatest recession in almost a century is lame.
I'm not pretending anything, nor implying everyone other than me is lazy. I am stating that the folks who came up with that second list are looters and leaches.
I don't think I have it worse than my dad. In fact, I would argue I have it a lot better.
ShumaGorath wrote:Do the liberals have their own teaparty now? Nah, this things still more coherent then that pack of crap.
Your over confidence in the liberal movement is entertaining, even if factually inaccurate. The Tea Party is a relevant and legitimate grass-roots organisation of groups generally sympathetic to the GOP. This is a manufactured protest and a generalized grievance against "the man." As illustrated in their list of 'demands', they really don't have a coherent message.
Well, there is a coherent message, but they apparently don't feel the need to advertise it.
ShumaGorath wrote:You should look at minimum wage jobs that don't have such high attrition rates then. Fast food has an immense amount of churn at everything below multi store manager level. It's awful and difficult work.
You're right, it is. Minimum wage work sucks. Which is probably why so many people tend to leave it as soon as they can.
Here's some statistics. Most minimum wage earners are young, the percent of minimum wage earners tends to decrease as you look at older groups.
I found Table 10 interesting. Despite all of the claims that Bush was only adding "McJobs", the number of people at or below minimum wage was a lot higher in the '90s than during the '00s. Even the percent of hourly workers decreased during the Bush years, indicating that most of the increase in employment was in salaried employees. And the decrease wasn't simply due to better opportunities for women (an interesting trend you can see in the bottom part of table 10).
As someone who has worked fast food, construction, customer service jobs, active military and now contractor for the Army I have to laugh. I've had soul sucking jobs. Know what? They paid for me to enjoy non-soul sucking activites when not working. It is the kids who are too good for 'soul sucking jobs' that want many of the things in the second list of demands from the opening post.
You sound like you're used to soul crushing jobs. You should get out of that rut.
They want the world handed to them and don't think they should ever have to break a sweat to enjoy the fruits of MY sweat. As Dad used to say, they can find sympathy between shyte and syphilis in the dictionary. They need to embrace the suck and drive on.
I'm sure there demands have more to do with the fact that the income divide has grown steadily for 40 years while good paying unskilled work has all but vanished in america. Wages have not increased against inflation since the 70s. gak is shittier then when your dad was bitching. You have it worse then your dad. Pretending that everyone but you is a lazy twit pretending that things are going wrong during the greatest recession in almost a century is lame.
Clearly you haven't had to pay a plumber recently.
Speaking of McDonald's I remember when McD's hiring 50K people earlier this year was a sign tha the job's market was improving.
That made me laugh.
Also, since OWS has no actual leadership, you can't take any demands you read seriously. Essentially, it is a grass roots movement protesting economic disparity and the growing hourglass economy. They aren't demanding anyone do anything, because that would require a level of top down hierarchy that the protesteres simply do not have/want.
Your over confidence in the liberal movement is entertaining, even if factually inaccurate. The Tea Party is a relevant and legitimate grass-roots organisation of groups generally sympathetic to the GOP.
Its relevant and legitimate in that it exists and has a lot of people. Not due to any sort of actual platform or political relevance. They STILL lack a coherent ideology and conflict themselves daily.
This is a manufactured protest and a generalized grievance against "the man." As illustrated in their list of 'demands', they really don't have a coherent message.
You do realize that's exactly how the teaparty started? If the democrats claimed to all be 99%ers and MSNBC started funding their rallies it would be exactly the same.
Well, there is a coherent message, but they apparently don't feel the need to advertise it.
No. There is no coherent message. Stop reading into the radio noise.
You're right, it is. Minimum wage work sucks. Which is probably why so many people tend to leave it as soon as they can.
Here's some statistics. Most minimum wage earners are young, the percent of minimum wage earners tends to decrease as you look at older groups.
I didn't disagree with you last time you said it so don't strawman me with pie charts. We were all 15 once.
I found Table 10 interesting. Despite all of the claims that Bush was only adding "McJobs", the number of people at or below minimum wage was a lot higher in the '90s than during the '00s. Even the percent of hourly workers decreased during the Bush years, indicating that most of the increase in employment was in salaried employees. And the decrease wasn't simply due to better opportunities for women (an interesting trend you can see in the bottom part of table 10).
That exact same graph shows that the bush years averaged about 2% less salaried workers. You know why there was more? Population growth. Look an inch to the right. That same graph also shows a direct loss of job growth during the bush years compared to the years before.
One issue is that there are a lot of REASONABLE people who are just arguing about the overall wage gap and how to fix it, but then reactionists see that and assume we're talking about socialism or something.
There are poor people, there are rich people. The fact that there's a difference is very important to our economy functioning properly. Concentrated capital in some areas is fantastic because it builds an investment pool from which people in all income brackets can borrow and start businesses.
The issue is that it isn't stable. The percentage of people in the different income groups is fluctuating and pooling at either end. This is an indicator that something is seriously wrong. If it gets stretched too thin, you start to have SERIOUS demand issues and stagnation.
But then idiots see THAT and say "WELL WE NEED TO GET ALL THAT MONEY FROM THE RICHIES AND TAKE IT BAAAAACK" but that's just as wrong as the people who say "everything is totally fine, change nothing, work hard, bootstraps, etc"
In reality, the best fix is to tweak tax policy to stabilize the groups so that growth is happening at similar rates in each one. Income levels shift over time, but they should not fluctuate as they have been for the past 20 years or so.
The good news though is that the fix can be gradual if done right. There's no need to massively tax the wealthy or cut all taxes for the poor. Small targeted tweaks that most people will not notice are capable of doing it as long as people don't mind it taking 5+ years.
Which brings me to the NEXT economic problem: People have STUPID expectations for how fast this stuff works. Economic policy changes are utterly incapable of doing anything faster than 18 months, and even then you'll just see a bunch of complicated numbers and an economist will need to interpret it. People are insisting on instant fixes and changing course so fast right now that nothing is going to work. It almost doesn't matter what we do, as long as we keep doing whatever it is for at least 18 months without freaking out and trying something else.
TLR, calm the freak down, American consumer. This is complicated crap and it doesn't happen overnight, jesus.
CptJake wrote:I'm not pretending anything, nor implying everyone other than me is lazy. I am stating that the folks who came up with that second list are looters and leaches.
I'm lazy and even I can't deal with the second list. Its just fairy tale dust.
Eliminate all debt for everyone? OK. Lets think about that.
1. All banks go under. Most financial institutions go under. Everyone is unemployed. Thats millions of people instantly unemployed in the US alone.
2. Much of that debt is owned by other countries. Their savings is now gone.
3. Debt is owned by lots of companies and lots of individuals. Everyone that has bonds, and notes in their 401K just got killed. Thats Great Depression X2.
4. Once you've killed the global economy what then? How are you going to buy a house, a car, a college education? How are businesses going to get working capital or loans for new capital?
In essence you've just dropped back to a Mideval economy. Smooth move rocket queens now we all stink like you do because running water just ceased.
Yeah the fight club one is probably the dumbest on that list. Debt is an expression of the trade of work and potential work. The economy wouldn't FUNCTION if it weren't for access to debt.
CptJake wrote:I'm not pretending anything, nor implying everyone other than me is lazy. I am stating that the folks who came up with that second list are looters and leaches.
I'm lazy and even I can't deal with the second list. Its just fairy tale dust.
Eliminate all debt for everyone? OK. Lets think about that.
1. All banks go under. Most financial institutions go under. Everyone is unemployed. Thats millions of people instantly unemployed in the US alone.
2. Much of that debt is owned by other countries. Their savings is now gone.
3. Debt is owned by lots of companies and lots of individuals. Everyone that has bonds, and notes in their 401K just got killed. Thats Great Depression X2.
4. Once you've killed the global economy what then? How are you going to buy a house, a car, a college education? How are businesses going to get working capital or loans for new capital?
In essence you've just dropped back to a Mideval economy. Smooth move rocket queens now we all stink like you do because running water just ceased.
ShumaGorath wrote:Its relevant and legitimate in that it exists and has a lot of people. Not due to any sort of actual platform or political relevance. They STILL lack a coherent ideology and conflict themselves daily.
"Conflict themselves daily" doesn't necessarily mean that their core ideology changes daily. In fact, the opposite tends to be true. While some "Tea Party" groups may have different ideas, the core concept of smaller government and less taxes is pretty standard.
Plus, the Tea Party involves a LOT of people and groups, and you're not going to get a single message out from all of them. Hell, LaRouche crashed some Tea Party events, and they're about as far from the Tea Party ideal as you can get.
ShumaGorath wrote:You do realize that's exactly how the teaparty started? If the democrats claimed to all be 99%ers and MSNBC started funding their rallies it would be exactly the same.
No, actually it's not.
ShumaGorath wrote:No. There is no coherent message. Stop reading into the radio noise.
Read both of those concepts with an eye towards pure socialism and replacing the capitalist system. They're pretty "coherent" under that understanding.
ShumaGorath wrote:I didn't disagree with you last time you said it so don't strawman me with pie charts. We were all 15 once.
I'm not "strawman[nig you] with pie charts." It's a table. (also, it's interesting and demonstrates the point I made that people don't stay in minimum wage jobs).
ShumaGorath wrote:That exact same graph shows that the bush years averaged about 2% less salaried workers.
Huh? Lets look at table 10...
Total wage and salary workers: Workers paid hourly rates: Total Percent of total wage and salary workers
In '09, for example, there were 124,490,000 workers. 72,611,000 were hourly workers (58.3%). That measn the remainder (51,879,000) were salaried.
If you look at the first column (Total wage and salary workers) you'll see that it increased from 1991-2008. The percent of those (column 3) who were hourly workers peaked during 1996 and decreased from ~60% in 2000 to just over 58% in 2008.
ShumaGorath wrote:You know why there was more? Population growth. Look an inch to the right. That same graph also shows a direct loss of job growth during the bush years compared to the years before.
No it doesn't. It shows an increase in the number of jobs during the Bush years (column 1). The unemployment rate (4-6%) supports that.
CptJake wrote:I'm not pretending anything, nor implying everyone other than me is lazy. I am stating that the folks who came up with that second list are looters and leaches.
I'm lazy and even I can't deal with the second list. Its just fairy tale dust.
Eliminate all debt for everyone? OK. Lets think about that.
1. All banks go under. Most financial institutions go under. Everyone is unemployed. Thats millions of people instantly unemployed in the US alone.
2. Much of that debt is owned by other countries. Their savings is now gone.
3. Debt is owned by lots of companies and lots of individuals. Everyone that has bonds, and notes in their 401K just got killed. Thats Great Depression X2.
4. Once you've killed the global economy what then? How are you going to buy a house, a car, a college education? How are businesses going to get working capital or loans for new capital?
In essence you've just dropped back to a Mideval economy. Smooth move rocket queens now we all stink like you do because running water just ceased.
The second list also looks fake as hell.
Its from their actual website which was included. If you read the comments from protesters on FB sites and the Washington Post its not out of wack.
"Conflict themselves daily" doesn't necessarily mean that their core ideology changes daily. In fact, the opposite tends to be true. While some "Tea Party" groups may have different ideas, the core concept of smaller government and less taxes is pretty standard.
It implies that their ideology at its core is contradictory. Which it is.
Plus, the Tea Party involves a LOT of people and groups, and you're not going to get a single message out from all of them. Hell, LaRouche crashed some Tea Party events, and they're about as far from the Tea Party ideal as you can get.
Which is part of it's illegitimacy. It's nothing. It has no organization or ideals, just a name.
No, actually it's not.
Well, aside from exchanging democrats for repubs and fox for MSNBC anyway. I figured you would see that.
Read both of those concepts with an eye towards pure socialism and replacing the capitalist system. They're pretty "coherent" under that understanding.
I'm still pretty sure you don't know what the term socialism means and couldn't quantify it, but we've had that discussion before. I'll agree that second list is pretty fethed up and I doubt it's veracity as anything but the mewling of a homeless turd.
Huh? Lets look at table 10... Total wage and salary workers: Workers paid hourly rates: Total Percent of total wage and salary workers
In '09, for example, there were 124,490,000 workers. 72,611,000 were hourly workers (58.3%). That measn the remainder (51,879,000) were salaried.
If you look at the first column (Total wage and salary workers) you'll see that it increased from 1991-2008. The percent of those (column 3) who were hourly workers peaked during 1996 and decreased from ~60% in 2000 to just over 58% in 2008.
Sorry, i was comparing bush to clinton. The chart would need a hell of a lot of asterisks if we're to be using it for pure numbers post recession. I didn't think you were doing that.
No it doesn't. It shows an increase in the number of jobs during the Bush years (column 1). The unemployment rate (4-6%) supports that.
But jobs on chart decrease. This implies more self 'employment'. The data set is incomplete and either way the idea that salaried work increased is wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
CptJake wrote:I'm not pretending anything, nor implying everyone other than me is lazy. I am stating that the folks who came up with that second list are looters and leaches.
I'm lazy and even I can't deal with the second list. Its just fairy tale dust.
Eliminate all debt for everyone? OK. Lets think about that.
1. All banks go under. Most financial institutions go under. Everyone is unemployed. Thats millions of people instantly unemployed in the US alone.
2. Much of that debt is owned by other countries. Their savings is now gone.
3. Debt is owned by lots of companies and lots of individuals. Everyone that has bonds, and notes in their 401K just got killed. Thats Great Depression X2.
4. Once you've killed the global economy what then? How are you going to buy a house, a car, a college education? How are businesses going to get working capital or loans for new capital?
In essence you've just dropped back to a Mideval economy. Smooth move rocket queens now we all stink like you do because running water just ceased.
The second list also looks fake as hell.
Its from their actual website which was included. If you read the comments from protesters on FB sites and the Washington Post its not out of wack.
Frazzled wrote:Its from their actual website which was included. If you read the comments from protesters on FB sites and the Washington Post its not out of wack.
Yeah, you usually get a bit nutty when you have lots of disparate (and sometimes desparate) people come together. I mean, the Tea Party movement had some pretty damn nutty arguments when it starts, too.
In many ways it still does. I doubt I could ever agree with either extreme about that much...
Frazzled wrote:Its from their actual website which was included. If you read the comments from protesters on FB sites and the Washington Post its not out of wack.
Yeah, you usually get a bit nutty when you have lots of disparate (and sometimes desparate) people come together. I mean, the Tea Party movement had some pretty damn nutty arguments when it starts, too.
In many ways it still does. I doubt I could ever agree with either extreme about that much...
You're acting like this crew is new though. they aren't - same bunch of wackjobs who pop up protesting economic summits and such for the last 20 years.
Frazzled wrote:Its from their actual website which was included. If you read the comments from protesters on FB sites and the Washington Post its not out of wack.
Yeah, you usually get a bit nutty when you have lots of disparate (and sometimes desparate) people come together. I mean, the Tea Party movement had some pretty damn nutty arguments when it starts, too.
In many ways it still does. I doubt I could ever agree with either extreme about that much...
You're acting like this crew is new though. they aren't - same bunch of wackjobs who pop up protesting economic summits and such for the last 20 years.
Reminds me of the Tea Party, except they're left-wing instead of right, and instead of protesting economic summits they bombed abortion clinics.
Frazzled wrote:Its from their actual website which was included. If you read the comments from protesters on FB sites and the Washington Post its not out of wack.
Yeah, you usually get a bit nutty when you have lots of disparate (and sometimes desparate) people come together. I mean, the Tea Party movement had some pretty damn nutty arguments when it starts, too.
In many ways it still does. I doubt I could ever agree with either extreme about that much...
You're acting like this crew is new though. they aren't - same bunch of wackjobs who pop up protesting economic summits and such for the last 20 years.
Reminds me of the Tea Party, except they're left-wing instead of right, and instead of protesting economic summits they bombed abortion clinics.
1. Prove any abortion clinics were bombed by the Tea party, else you're blwoing smoke out your ass yet again.
2. There is one big difference however. Tea Party protesters, be they or be they not wackjobs, have at least one advantage. They bathe.
Frazzled wrote:Its from their actual website which was included. If you read the comments from protesters on FB sites and the Washington Post its not out of wack.
Yeah, you usually get a bit nutty when you have lots of disparate (and sometimes desparate) people come together. I mean, the Tea Party movement had some pretty damn nutty arguments when it starts, too.
In many ways it still does. I doubt I could ever agree with either extreme about that much...
You're acting like this crew is new though. they aren't - same bunch of wackjobs who pop up protesting economic summits and such for the last 20 years.
Reminds me of the Tea Party, except they're left-wing instead of right, and instead of protesting economic summits they bombed abortion clinics.
1. Prove any abortion clinics were bombed by the Tea party, else you're blwoing smoke out your ass yet again.
2. There is one big difference however. Tea Party protesters, be they or be they not wackjobs, have at least one advantage. They bathe.
Frazzled wrote:1. Prove any abortion clinics were bombed by the Tea party, else you're blwoing smoke out your ass yet again.
2. There is one big difference however. Tea Party protesters, be they or be they not wackjobs, have at least one advantage. They bathe.
1: I never said the Tea Party did such. Only that the type of person whom locally is interested in the tea party comes from the same like minded group of people whom would bomb abortion clinics or murder their employees.
2: Sometimes. There's a reason that they get associated with troglodytes.
Frazzled wrote:1. Prove any abortion clinics were bombed by the Tea party, else you're blwoing smoke out your ass yet again.
2. There is one big difference however. Tea Party protesters, be they or be they not wackjobs, have at least one advantage. They bathe.
1: I never said the Tea Party did such. Only that the type of person whom locally is interested in the tea party comes from the same like minded group of people whom would bomb abortion clinics or murder their employees.
2: Sometimes. There's a reason that they get associated with troglodytes.
So now you're backpedalling because you can't actually support your own statement. Got it.
Watch out for the homeless guys with shanks if you show up downtown on Thursday. They're really jealous of their block corners.
on the positive I cannot recommend enough treesbeards near the meeting point. Although everything is awesome, the chocolate cake is like your grandmother just appeared and gave you a hug.
ShumaGorath wrote:But jobs on chart decrease. This implies more self 'employment'. The data set is incomplete and either way the idea that salaried work increased is wrong.
Jobs on the table don't show a decrease:
Column 1: Year
Column 2: Total number of workers
Column 3: Total number of workers paid an hourly wage Column 4: Hourly workers as a percent of total workers
Columns 5-8: Number/percent of workers at/below minimum wage.
If you're going to claim that the data is wrong, please at least try to contradict it other than by means of a conclusory statement.
Melissia wrote:Yeah it is.
Don't just take our word for it. Let's hear it from those excellent boys and girls at The Economist:
My comment was pertaining to the comment/implication that the Tea Party was a manufactured protest.
Also, protests, even minor ones, must be organized to some extent. The important question is who organized these "protests"?
There have been other pro-Obama "protests" (grassroots and otherwise) that attempted to re-capture the wave of energy that he had going into office. They fizzled out and I fully expect this one will too.
It's hard to generate the correct amount of righteous anger when your guy is the one in the White House. Which is why the Tea Party didn't materialize until Obama took office, despite the anti-bailout sentiment being present during Bush.
ShumaGorath wrote:But jobs on chart decrease. This implies more self 'employment'. The data set is incomplete and either way the idea that salaried work increased is wrong.
Jobs on the table don't show a decrease:
Column 1: Year
Column 2: Total number of workers
Column 3: Total number of workers paid an hourly wage Column 4: Hourly workers as a percent of total workers
Columns 5-8: Number/percent of workers at/below minimum wage.
If you're going to claim that the data is wrong, please at least try to contradict it other than by means of a conclusory statement.
Melissia wrote:Yeah it is.
Don't just take our word for it. Let's hear it from those excellent boys and girls at The Economist:
My comment was pertaining to the comment/implication that the Tea Party was a manufactured protest.
Also, protests, even minor ones, must be organized to some extent. The important question is who organized these "protests"?
There have been other pro-Obama "protests" (grassroots and otherwise) that attempted to re-capture the wave of energy that he had going into office. They fizzled out and I fully expect this one will too.
It's hard to generate the correct amount of righteous anger when your guy is the one in the White House. Which is why the Tea Party didn't materialize until Obama took office, despite the anti-bailout sentiment being present during Bush.
No, you're just intentionally misreading what I posted because you are trying to get a rise out of me.
except of course, its what you actually posted.
Reminds me of the Tea Party, except they're left-wing instead of right, and instead of protesting economic summits they bombed abortion clinics.
Ah right, so you're just taking things out of context.
Let's look at what was being responded to so you can perhaps finally get a grasp on waht was actually said, shall we Frazzled?
Melissia wrote:
Frazzled wrote:You're acting like this crew is new though. they aren't - same bunch of wackjobs who pop up protesting economic summits and such for the last 20 years.
Reminds me of the Tea Party, except they're left-wing instead of right, and instead of protesting economic summits they bombed abortion clinics.
And then, to elucidate on my statement:
I never said the Tea Party did such. Only that the type of person whom locally is interested in the tea party comes from the same like minded group of people whom would bomb abortion clinics or murder their employees.
No, you're just intentionally misreading what I posted because you are trying to get a rise out of me.
except of course, its what you actually posted.
Reminds me of the Tea Party, except they're left-wing instead of right, and instead of protesting economic summits they bombed abortion clinics.
Ah right, so you're just taking things out of context.
Let's look at what was being responded to so you can perhaps finally get a grasp on waht was actually said, shall we Frazzled?
Melissia wrote:
Frazzled wrote:You're acting like this crew is new though. they aren't - same bunch of wackjobs who pop up protesting economic summits and such for the last 20 years.
Reminds me of the Tea Party, except they're left-wing instead of right, and instead of protesting economic summits they bombed abortion clinics.
Does that help?
Apologize for misspeaking and move on. You're not in a defensible position here.
No, you're just intentionally misreading what I posted because you are trying to get a rise out of me.
except of course, its what you actually posted.
Reminds me of the Tea Party, except they're left-wing instead of right, and instead of protesting economic summits they bombed abortion clinics.
Ah right, so you're just taking things out of context.
Let's look at what was being responded to so you can perhaps finally get a grasp on waht was actually said, shall we Frazzled?
Melissia wrote:
Frazzled wrote:You're acting like this crew is new though. they aren't - same bunch of wackjobs who pop up protesting economic summits and such for the last 20 years.
Reminds me of the Tea Party, except they're left-wing instead of right, and instead of protesting economic summits they bombed abortion clinics.
Do I have to spell it out for you, or are you going to continue being dense?
I guess I'll have to keep being dense (situation normal), because when one says "they bombed abortion clinics" and the noun in the sentence is "the Tea Party," then I just naturally assume you're talking about the Tea Party and not President Obama or whoever you were actually treferring to, but didn't actually put into the sentence.
I am prepared to move however if you can pull up a pic of a crackpot in a revolutionary outfit . I always love those particular nuts, but get blocked at work.
Frazzled wrote:I guess I'll have to keep being dense (situation normal), because when one says "they bombed abortion clinics" and the noun in the sentence is "the Tea Party," then I just naturally assume you're talking about the Tea Party and not President Obama or whoever you were actually treferring to, but didn't actually put into the sentence.
Come on Frazzled, you're smarter than this.
You stated that "these are the same people that have always been protesting left-wing issues" (to paraphrase).
I stated pretty much the same about the Tea Party. Of course if you think I'm insinuating that there's no left wing terrorists, that'd certainly be a wrong assumption (I think PETA is pretty damned nutty, myself-- animals are too tasty not to eat). But many of the same people who joined the tea party movements were the exact same ones who did ultraconservative protests around the nation.
Frazzled wrote:I guess I'll have to keep being dense (situation normal), because when one says "they bombed abortion clinics" and the noun in the sentence is "the Tea Party," then I just naturally assume you're talking about the Tea Party and not President Obama or whoever you were actually treferring to, but didn't actually put into the sentence.
Come on Frazzled, you're smarter than this.
You stated that "these are the same people that have always been protesting left-wing issues" (to paraphrase).
I stated pretty much the same about the Tea Party. Of course if you think I'm insinuating that there's no left wing terrorists, that'd certainly be a wrong assumption. but many of the same people who joined the tea party movements were the exact same ones who did ultraconservative protests around the nation.
i wasn't insinuating the lefties were terrorists or killers. You went there. I was just insinuating a lack of hygiene. But as noted, I'll let it go (I just realized even if you post a funny looking revolutionary tea partier I'd still be blocked from seeing it).
It's okay, the only tea party pictuers I'd have on my computer would probably be a cat in a top hat saying "I say there" while looking at tea and biscuits.
biccat wrote:I'm not "strawman[nig you] with pie charts." It's a table.
According to some posters, using charts is a strawman and citing sources is an appeal to authority.
That's some quality debating right there.
Its a strawman because he argued against a false point that I never presented. Not because he used a graph. When you read a third of a post and reply with two sentences you tend to avoid presenting quality yourself.
ShumaGorath wrote:Its a strawman because he argued against a false point that I never presented. Not because he used a graph. When you read a third of a post and reply with two sentences you tend to avoid presenting quality yourself.
What argument did I argue against that you never presented?
I used the information as supporting of my argument that people who work minimum wage jobs tend to get out of them quickly. The remaining comments were because I thought that the chart included some interesting data.
ShumaGorath wrote:Its a strawman because he argued against a false point that I never presented. Not because he used a graph. When you read a third of a post and reply with two sentences you tend to avoid presenting quality yourself.
What argument did I argue against that you never presented?
I used the information as supporting of my argument that people who work minimum wage jobs tend to get out of them quickly. The remaining comments were because I thought that the chart included some interesting data.
I never disagreed that they left them quickly and the chart was in reference to nothing that I had stated and addressed nothing I had intended to state. My points were that A. the economic opportunity of the average America has decreased steadily and noticeably in the last 40 years with no administration doing much to curb it and B. that minimum wage fast food jobs provide no upward mobility and that the concept of moving up in the company is a lie when you can't support yourself on the basic level of pay and there is an incredibly finite number of advancement positions which are hotly contested.
You came in implying that the bush years were better then the obama years and that I thought people lived in their fast food jobs. I worked two of them. I didn't stay long.
as an aside The fast food jobs were the worst job experiences of my life and I've had a lot of jobs. They made me less healthy, less happy, stupider, and I got little for the immense effort it took to accomplish the tasks set before me. Fast food is constant work of the lowest order for virtually no gain and it's an awful mechanism for training a new work force or helping the jobless. It's damaging.
ShumaGorath wrote:I never disagreed that they left them quickly and the chart was in reference to nothing that I had stated and addressed nothing I had intended to state. My points were that A. the economic opportunity of the average America has decreased steadily and noticeably in the last 40 years with no administration doing much to curb it
Which is blatently false.
ShumaGorath wrote:B. that minimum wage fast food jobs provide no upward mobility and that the concept of moving up in the company is a lie when you can't support yourself on the basic level of pay and there is an incredibly finite number of advancement positions which are hotly contested.
Is Kronk lying about his wife's accomplishment?
ShumaGorath wrote:You came in implying that the bush years were better then the obama years and that I thought people lived in their fast food jobs. I worked two of them. I didn't stay long.
I didn't say anything about the Obama years. At least, I don't think so...if I did then my bad, I meant Clinton, the president during the '90s (will go back and check). However, it's also true that the Bush years were better than the Obama years (so far) simply because of the current economic straits we're in.
ShumaGorath wrote:The fast food jobs were the worst job experiences of my life and I've had a lot of jobs. They made me less healthy, less happy, stupider, and I got little for the immense effort it took to accomplish the tasks set before me. Fast food is constant work of the lowest order for virtually no gain and it's an awful mechanism for training a new work force or helping the jobless. It's damaging.
I never worked at a fast food restaurant. But I did work minimum wage doing construction work. I'm not sure how the two would compare. But it made me realize that I didn't want to work in construction (at least, not for minimum wage).
Besides, fast food isn't designed as a mechanism for training a work force of helping the jobless. It's a company that wants to provide a product for a low cost. Cheap labor is a side effect.
Look, we've danced this dance before. You don't change your opinions. It doesn't matter when what or how they are. It doesn't matter if they're right, wrong, or absolutely insane. You drove poor sebster to the drink against last time! So I'm just going to post charts!
Also, when you're looking at the flat growth keep in mind that even though wages have increased by about 25% in 40 years for the bottom half of the pie chart the price of gas has gone up 1200%, the price of a new car 500% and the price of a cheeseburger has gone up 400%.
Soo..... No. You're wrong. Aaaaaaaand that's about all I'm willing to say.
Is Kronk lying about his wife's accomplishment?
Aside from the fact that he could be, that's not really important and totally blows over everything I posted. Which is something you do regularly. Stop it. Go back to my last post and read it again and it'll be like i just replied to you since it's all I'm really gonna say.
I didn't say anything about the Obama years. At least, I don't think so...if I did then my bad, I meant Clinton, the president during the '90s (will go back and check). However, it's also true that the Bush years were better than the Obama years (so far) simply because of the current economic straits we're in.
Well now everyones confusd.
I never worked at a fast food restaurant. But I did work minimum wage doing construction work. I'm not sure how the two would compare. But it made me realize that I didn't want to work in construction (at least, not for minimum wage).
You know the heavy things you had to carry? Fill them with chicken. You know the water in your boots? Make it chicken grease. You know the sunburns you get? Make those actual and serious burns when a thing of gravy falls in the fryer. You know that thing you get to do when you're minorly injured? The not working thing? Your 19 year old manager doesn't want you to do that. Get back to the register with your burnt up fingers and hit those buttons.
Fast food kitchens are really unhealthy environments.
Besides, fast food isn't designed as a mechanism for training a work force of helping the jobless. It's a company that wants to provide a product for a low cost. Cheap labor is a side effect.
Then we should probably ask ourselves as a society just how badly we're willing to treat people for really gakky burgers.
ShumaGorath wrote:So I'm just going to post charts!
Your charts don't show that "economic opportunity" for Americans hasn't increased in the last 40 years.
First, your chart starts in 1989 (end of a boom cycle) and ends in 2010, the depths of the latest recession. Second, 1989 - 2011 is less than 40 years. If you go back to 1971 (40 years ago), the median (inflation-adjusted) income was ~$42,000. Today it's $49,777.
Plus, the first graph further illustrates my observation that the Clinton years really weren't that great.
ShumaGorath wrote:the price of gas has gone up 1200%
ShumaGorath wrote:and the price of a cheeseburger has gone up 400%.
Couldn't find anything on cheeseburgers. But since you can get one for $1 today and it cost 15 cents in the late '60s, I'm guessing that this is wrong too.
ShumaGorath wrote:that's not really important and totally blows over everything I posted
You posted "minimum wage fast food jobs provide no upward mobility." Are you lying now, or were you lying then?
ShumaGorath wrote:Well now everyones confusd.
Went back and checked my post. Nope, there's nothing to be confused about. The '90s sucked for the poor & lower middle class. See your last post for further reinforcement.
ShumaGorath wrote:You know the heavy things you had to carry? Fill them with chicken. You know the water in your boots? Make it chicken grease. You know the sunburns you get? Make those actual and serious burns when a thing of gravy falls in the fryer. You know that thing you get to do when you're minorly injured? The not working thing? Your 19 year old manager doesn't want you to do that. Get back to the register with your burnt up fingers and hit those buttons.
Woe is you. Seriously, this type of one-upmanship is a sad excuse for an argument.
ShumaGorath wrote:
Besides, fast food isn't designed as a mechanism for training a work force of helping the jobless. It's a company that wants to provide a product for a low cost. Cheap labor is a side effect.
Then we should probably ask ourselves as a society just how badly we're willing to treat people for really gakky burgers.
This is such an absurd argument that I'm not entirely sure where to begin. First, it's not "society" that treats people badly, it's individual managers/owners. I'm positive that there are many people who are happy to work at McDonalds, even in the kitchen or at the fryer.
And I'm even more positive that cheap fast-food provided by places like McDonalds provides value to their customers who don't want to spend $10 for a hamburger every day.
Couldn't find anything on cheeseburgers. But since you can get one for $1 today and it cost 15 cents in the late '60s, I'm guessing that this is wrong too.
.15 x 400% = .60 So, if a cheezeboiger cost 1.00 now it actually went up over 400%.
CptJake wrote:.15 x 400% = .60 So, if a cheezeboiger cost 1.00 now it actually went up over 400%.
Just saying...
The argument on wages is relevant only in terms of inflation. Yes, cheeseburgers have increased in price (15 cents to $1) but wages have also increased during that time.
Couldn't find anything on cheeseburgers. But since you can get one for $1 today and it cost 15 cents in the late '60s, I'm guessing that this is wrong too.
.15 x 400% = .60 So, if a cheezeboiger cost 1.00 now it actually went up over 400%.
Just saying...
Back in the day I could go to Quarter Burger (or $.25 Burger I forget the name) and get 8 for $2.00. California version of White Castle. It was awesome.
I'm hungry now and its too early even for breakfast.
CptJake wrote:.15 x 400% = .60 So, if a cheezeboiger cost 1.00 now it actually went up over 400%.
Just saying...
The argument on wages is relevant only in terms of inflation. Yes, cheeseburgers have increased in price (15 cents to $1) but wages have also increased during that time.
Wages are up more than 400% since then? Man, when did that happen?
Your charts don't show that "economic opportunity" for Americans hasn't increased in the last 40 years.
First, your chart starts in 1989 (end of a boom cycle) and ends in 2010, the depths of the latest recession. Second, 1989 - 2011 is less than 40 years. If you go back to 1971 (40 years ago), the median (inflation-adjusted) income was ~$42,000. Today it's $49,777.
Source? That certainly contradicts most of what I'm seeing.
No, it hasn't.
sure it has, and I didn't say inflation adjusted. I was implying inflation by stating it.
No, it hasn't.
1971 $3,919 2001 $19,654
Yes, it really has.
Couldn't find anything on cheeseburgers. But since you can get one for $1 today and it cost 15 cents in the late '60s, I'm guessing that this is wrong too.
Biccat can't into math.
Went back and checked my post. Nope, there's nothing to be confused about. The '90s sucked for the poor & lower middle class. See your last post for further reinforcement.
Huh? Lets look at table 10... Total wage and salary workers: Workers paid hourly rates: Total Percent of total wage and salary workers
In '09, for example, there were 124,490,000 workers. 72,611,000 were hourly workers (58.3%). That measn the remainder (51,879,000) were salaried.
If you look at the first column (Total wage and salary workers) you'll see that it increased from 1991-2008. The percent of those (column 3) who were hourly workers peaked during 1996 and decreased from ~60% in 2000 to just over 58% in 2008.
2008 was both the bottom of the recession and an election year. Hence my comment about all the asterisks being needed.
Woe is you. Seriously, this type of one-upmanship is a sad excuse for an argument.
I wasn't making an argument. I was describing a workplace environment.
This is such an absurd argument that I'm not entirely sure where to begin. First, it's not "society" that treats people badly, it's individual managers/owners. I'm positive that there are many people who are happy to work at McDonalds, even in the kitchen or at the fryer.
Like 12? This some sort of flowers for algernon thing? Do they not know any better?
And I'm even more positive that cheap fast-food provided by places like McDonalds provides value to their customers who don't want to spend $10 for a hamburger every day.
Diabetes and our nations collapsing health infrastructure sure does seem worth those cheap burgers! Clearly our society values the correct things and has no need of change or realignment in it's value structure. I'm at work, I'm gonna tag in one of your regular punching bags. I don't have time to run in circles and spit the shifting sands out as they fly into my mouth.
Well the big Houston protest just went by.
LAME!
It was like two park and ride buses full. Thats it? Come on the weekly marches at my college had ten times that, and 3/4 were fine California numphs. This was sad. I did like the guy on stilts dressed as Uncle Sam though. A brave man to try to walk on stilts through all the construction and normal Houston downtown potholes.
Melissia if you were there I was the guy drinking coffee and giving the protesters the finger. Sorry...
ShumaGorath wrote:Source? That certainly contradicts most of what I'm seeing.
I'm starting to think that you really don't understand how to read charts and graphs. If you don't know how they work, please stop trying to support your points with them. This is especially frustrating when the points your arguing are adverse to the graphs you're posting.
ShumaGorath wrote:sure it has, and I didn't say inflation adjusted. I was implying inflation by stating it.
Are you arguing in inflation-adjusted numbers or not? When you mix the two you're obfuscating the data. For example, one might note that gas prices have stayed relatively flat for the last several decades while average incomes have increased approximately 300%.
At this point you're basically making crap up and presenting data in a dishonest manner to support a point that is completely adverse to reality.
USE CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY AND OVERSIGHT TO ENSURE APPROPRIATE FEDERAL AGENCIES FULLY INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE THE WALL STREET CRIMINALS
So rather than focus on installing working oversight to prevent any future problems we should attempt to dig up a cold case from 3 years ago to investigate and prosecute everybody involved in the financial collapse that might have been involved and may have done something illegal when the burden of proof to successfully prosecute anybody for fraud will be difficult or impossible to meet.
CONGRESS ENACT LEGISLATION TO PROTECT OUR DEMOCRACY BY REVERSING THE EFFECTS OF THE CITIZENS UNITED SUPREME COURT DECISION
That one is flat out unconstitutional. A simple bill can not override a supreme court decision, and if they tried the supreme court would just toss that law out as unconstitutional. Congress can only override citizen's united with a constitutional amendment, so stop wasting our time by proposing unconstitutional legislation.
CONGRESS PASS SPECIFIC AND EFFECTIVE LAWS LIMITING THE INFLUENCE OF LOBBYISTS AND ELIMINATING THE PRACTICE OF LOBBYISTS WRITING LEGISLATION THAT ENDS UP ON THE FLOOR OF CONGRESS.
Sounds like a good idea, but it's a complete waste of time. Did I write this post, or did a lobbyist write this post. How can anybody prove that I wrote this post or that a lobbyist wrote this post? It's also dancing on a fine line between limiting influence and limiting free speech. The best way to limit lobbyists is to limit the way they can spend money, which goes back to a constitutional amendment to overturn citizens united.
CONGRESS PASS THE BUFFETT RULE ON FAIR TAXATION SO THE RICH AND CORPORATIONS PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE & CLOSE CORPORATE TAX LOOP HOLES AND ENACT A PROHIBITION ON HIDING FUNDS OFF SHORE.
The Buffett rule has some legs to stand on, especially now that they are raising the definition of rich to million + incomes. A shutdown of loopholes and off shore exemptions would also be productive, depending on how you define loophole. For instance if a company goes massively into the red one year hemorrhaging cash out the whaazoo should the tax code take that into consideration in the next year? If your answer is yes you just gave GE a tax break (they paid no taxes because they were way in the red the year before). Corporate tax codes are a highly complicated subject. The largest loopholes do need to be closed, but hammering them to the point they go out of business won't help anybody. A middle ground approach is necessary.
CONGRESS COMPLETELY REVAMP THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
The agency is gimped and in dire need of being fixed.
CONGRESS PASSING "Revolving Door Legislation" LEGISLATION ELIMINATING THE ABILITY OF FORMER GOVERNMENT REGULATORS GOING TO WORK FOR CORPORATIONS THAT THEY ONCE REGULATED
That one is plausible and passable as a law, but will be a bit tricky to implement without violating the civil liberties of the people in question.
ELIMINATE "PERSONHOOD" LEGAL STATUS FOR CORPORATIONS.
Corporations are not people, but the issue is more complicated than it might seem. Stockholders are people, and depriving their corporation of liberty or property without due process of law is depriving the stockholders of their property. By the same logic of corporations are people the great irony is owning stock=owning people=owning a slave. Corporations don't need a person hood status, but stockholders do need their 14th amendment rights upheld.
HR 1489 is a viable that we can have a good debate about the pros and cons of reinstating the Glass-Steagall act. Does mixing reasonable requests that the American people need in with pie in the sky dreams, unconstitutional bills, and partisan hyperbolic ramblings spelled out in a list of all caps requests help the situation? Tone it down a notch and focus on the most important and easily fixed items first.
Frazzled wrote:Well the big Houston protest just went by.
LAME!
It was like two park and ride buses full. Thats it? Come on the weekly marches at my college had ten times that, and 3/4 were fine California numphs. This was sad. I did like the guy on stilts dressed as Uncle Sam though. A brave man to try to walk on stilts through all the construction and normal Houston downtown potholes.
Melissia if you were there I was the guy drinking coffee and giving the protesters the finger. Sorry...
lolno. I was busy trying to be a productive student.
So are these "Occupy X" popping up all over and are they copycats or are they part of some organized group (possibly being funded by another more well financed organized group)? It was in an email with links to the event and I couldn't find a list of grievances, well at least a cohesive one. There was a video of a guy in a Guy Fawkes mask I didn't watch and something about how we are the 99% taking on the 1%. It wasn't clear exactly who that 1% was, but that it was 'us' and they were 'them'.
Frazzled wrote:Well the big Houston protest just went by.
LAME!
It was like two park and ride buses full. Thats it? Come on the weekly marches at my college had ten times that, and 3/4 were fine California numphs. This was sad. I did like the guy on stilts dressed as Uncle Sam though. A brave man to try to walk on stilts through all the construction and normal Houston downtown potholes.
Melissia if you were there I was the guy drinking coffee and giving the protesters the finger. Sorry...
lolno. I was busy trying to be a productive student.
Excellent. Once you're a productive student you can work a little bit and become an unproductive employee.
Ahtman wrote:So are these "Occupy X" popping up all over and are they copycats or are they part of some organized group (possibly being funded by another more well financed organized group)? It was in an email with links to the event and I couldn't find a list of grievances, well at least a cohesive one. There was a video of a guy in a Guy Fawkes mask I didn't watch and something about how we are the 99% taking on the 1%. It wasn't clear exactly who that 1% was, but that it was 'us' and they were 'them'.
Well unions and Moveon.org are now supporting so....
Ahtman wrote:It wasn't clear exactly who that 1% was, but that it was 'us' and they were 'them'.
I don't know about you guys, but it seems that a lot of my friends that are really into this aren't really the most industrious or responsible people that I know.
Honey, it's not JP Morgan's fault that you've quit 4 jobs in the last three years.
I'm, of course, only speaking about those people. I'm not generalizing about the majority of unemployed/underemployed people.
Mn, Dunno about those guys-- but I do know that many polls of households (example) have repeatedly shown anywhere from 20% to 26% unemployment numbers, and that I think would be unfair to blame purely on supposed laziness.
There are definitely some lazy people out there though...
I'm a white collar, corporate wage slave who makes well over the national average in my field. I am into this.
Anybody with even a smidge of empathy and EQ knows that something important is going on. You know Emotional Intelligence, things that can't be measured on a graph.
It isn't left/right, Dem/Rep, Boomer/Gen Y, Male/Female or Lib/Con. It is something else, something that will defy a strong label until historians have enough time to be seperated from it in the arc of history.
I don't know exactly what it is, but it is big and it is building all over the Western World.
Easy E wrote:It isn't left/right, Dem/Rep, Boomer/Gen Y, Male/Female or Lib/Con. It is something else, something that will defy a strong label until historians have enough time to be seperated from it in the arc of history.
Yet what are the odds it will be almost entirely made up of left, Dem, libs? Historians love nothing more than coming up with labels for movements and groups so I doubt it will be a problem this time.
I emailed the people about the one this weekend and they admitted that what was being extremely vague but that hoped that over time it would coalesce into something that would be able to appeal to others and generate awareness.
Easy E wrote:It isn't left/right, Dem/Rep, Boomer/Gen Y, Male/Female or Lib/Con. It is something else, something that will defy a strong label until historians have enough time to be seperated from it in the arc of history.
Yet what are the odds it will be almost entirely made up of left, Dem, libs? Historians love nothing more than coming up with labels for movements and groups so I doubt it will be a problem this time.
I emailed the people about the one this weekend and they admitted that what was being extremely vague but that hoped that over time it would coalesce into something that would be able to appeal to others and generate awareness.
The people marching down the street in Houston were left/smelly/commies.
On the positive the Tea Party rally here some time ago was more lame, but better organized and certainly more hygienic.
Easy E wrote:It isn't left/right, Dem/Rep, Boomer/Gen Y, Male/Female or Lib/Con. It is something else, something that will defy a strong label until historians have enough time to be seperated from it in the arc of history.
Yet what are the odds it will be almost entirely made up of left, Dem, libs? Historians love nothing more than coming up with labels for movements and groups so I doubt it will be a problem this time.
I emailed the people about the one this weekend and they admitted that what was being extremely vague but that hoped that over time it would coalesce into something that would be able to appeal to others and generate awareness.
The people marching down the street in Houston were left/smelly/commies.
On the positive the Tea Party rally here some time ago was more lame, but better organized and certainly more hygienic.
Did they manage to avoid assaulting anyone this time?
biccat wrote:First, your chart starts in 1989 (end of a boom cycle) and ends in 2010, the depths of the latest recession. Second, 1989 - 2011 is less than 40 years. If you go back to 1971 (40 years ago), the median (inflation-adjusted) income was ~$42,000. Today it's $49,777.
This is gak. Not your figure, that is, which is entirely correct, but the level of growth shown. It is an absolute failure of an economic system to deliver 19% wages growth over 40 years.
If you look at Australia over the same period of time, we delivered growth of a tick under 64% after inflation, and we had an entirely mediocre 80s and absolutely terrible early 90s in terms of economic growth. But at the end of the day, the average guy drawing the average wage today is more than 50% better off than his Dad was, and that's about how it is across the board.
Except the US, where despite having economic growth on par with the rest of the world, the average guy earning the average wage has only seen it grow by 19% - because most of the growth has gone to the guy at the top end of town.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:So are these "Occupy X" popping up all over and are they copycats or are they part of some organized group (possibly being funded by another more well financed organized group)? It was in an email with links to the event and I couldn't find a list of grievances, well at least a cohesive one. There was a video of a guy in a Guy Fawkes mask I didn't watch and something about how we are the 99% taking on the 1%. It wasn't clear exactly who that 1% was, but that it was 'us' and they were 'them'.
Real Americans?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote:It isn't left/right, Dem/Rep, Boomer/Gen Y, Male/Female or Lib/Con. It is something else, something that will defy a strong label until historians have enough time to be seperated from it in the arc of history.
That's what they said about the Tea Party as well. It wasn't true then, and I doubt it's true now.
Movements like this don't get mainstream media coverage from the get-go unless they've got inside players pulling the strings for them. Inside players means connections to one of the two big political establishments, either the Democrats or the Republicans.
Actual, real grassroots movements get sidelined by the media. Look at the protests against the Iraq war, they had incredible numbers in cities across the globe, but the media coverage was less than we have for these very small turnouts.
It really, really wouldn't surprise me if there were Democrat groups at the core of this, either looking to build base enthusiasm for the party, or force the party as a whole to move further to the left.
Ive always hated how arrogant middle class arseholes look down on people with gak jobs.
In the UK they are far more generous with social programmes than in the US, you can live on the dole. Im talking 30 years without a job, its not hard to do. They pay your council tax and your rent and give you money, sure your not gonna be wadded, but its comfortable enough. Thats why so many fething people do it.
For that reason, I dont merely appreciate people with gakky jobs, I really fething respect them. People look at a street sweeper and think they guy has no self respect, its the exact fething opposite.
If your a bus driver or a street sweeper or a toilet cleaner, you get your ass out of bed on a morning to do a job you don't enjoy, and you do it BECAUSE you have too much self respect to sit on your ass and live off fething wellfare like so many parasites do.
I will bro fist a toilet cleaner.
I will chainfist a pretentious English literature student who wears a beret.
That is an awesome post, man. I really like you attitude, if only more people had that amount of respect for those of us with hard/unrewarding jobs, the world would be a better place.
Okay, so a couple arrests, one a Ron Paul supporter not at a Tea Party event who subdued someone looking to cause trouble by running at a candidate, someone NOT involved in the rally but inserting themself (unless you consider Moveon.org part of the TeaParty). But we'll give you two arrests, one for a non-violent act (soliciting sex) and one for a violent act.
So, to compare the Tea Party to these guys and be fair, one must note that their behavior and tactics are quite different (the victim in one of the arrests above is actually an example of poor behavior we are seeing from the Occupy Wall Street crowd. She did not deserve to get thrown to the ground, but runnng and yelling at a candidate sure could be considered a threat and she was inserting herself into a rally for a candidate she was opposed to).
Which set of behaviors and the values they indicate do you think is going to be appreciated by the independent and moderate voters that decide every election? Which message will actually get listened to by those deciding votes? I'm guessing the typical American won't sympathize nor empathize with thuggery.
Ive always hated how arrogant middle class arseholes look down on people with gak jobs.
In the UK they are far more generous with social programmes than in the US, you can live on the dole. Im talking 30 years without a job, its not hard to do. They pay your council tax and your rent and give you money, sure your not gonna be wadded, but its comfortable enough. Thats why so many fething people do it.
For that reason, I dont merely appreciate people with gakky jobs, I really fething respect them. People look at a street sweeper and think they guy has no self respect, its the exact fething opposite.
If your a bus driver or a street sweeper or a toilet cleaner, you get your ass out of bed on a morning to do a job you don't enjoy, and you do it BECAUSE you have too much self respect to sit on your ass and live off fething wellfare like so many parasites do.
I will bro fist a toilet cleaner.
I will chainfist a pretentious English literature student who wears a beret.
Let's see - in southampton the bin men made more than I did as a forensic scientist with an honours degree working long shifts and having legal responsiblities. My wife earned 2/3s of that (approx) working even longer hours as a deputy nursery manager. So don't tell me a street sweeper or bus driver is a poorly paid job. It is highly paid for what it is. Its certainly valuable and necessary (ut so is childcare!) It didn't help that they went on strike wanting more pay either....
English lit student with beret is fine, said pretentious student not fine. But you find pretentious people everywhere in all walks of life.
CptJake wrote:Which set of behaviors and the values they indicate do you think is going to be appreciated by the independent and moderate voters that decide every election? Which message will actually get listened to by those deciding votes?
That depends on how desparate said independent is. In fact, from what I've read... for independents, it looks like the average unemployment rate is actually higher than for members of either party. So they could very well side with whoever has the most appealing job plan for them. What exactly that is I would not offer a prediction for.
I don't know if either movement has a real plan. Certainly the Tea Party doesn't, it's more concerned with a somewhat irrelevant budget issue than it is with job creation (its desire to fix the former harms any attempts to fix the latter anyway). Hell, neither party really has a coherent plan for this-- republicans because they're riding high on tea party (which as mentioned before don't really care that much about the issue), the democrats because they're so disorganized they're not really riding on anything right now.
Organized violence, which then turns unorganized is not going to win over moderates and independants. And when the less than coherent message seems to be 'More Big Gov't' and this message is emphasized by these tools (as in they are being used) in the way it is, that message is not going to resonate they way they want it to.
CptJake wrote:Have any tea party folks been arrested at their rallies? How about arrests in mass like this current group seems to enjoy?
Honest qustion.
No tea party activists almost never get arrested. They're not teenagers and have been there/done that with the whole spending the night in jail thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:
CptJake wrote:Which set of behaviors and the values they indicate do you think is going to be appreciated by the independent and moderate voters that decide every election? Which message will actually get listened to by those deciding votes?
That depends on how desparate said independent is. In fact, from what I've read... for independents, it looks like the average unemployment rate is actually higher than for members of either party. So they could very well side with whoever has the most appealing job plan for them. What exactly that is I would not offer a prediction for.
I don't know if either movement has a real plan. Certainly the Tea Party doesn't, it's more concerned with a somewhat irrelevant budget issue than it is with job creation (its desire to fix the former harms any attempts to fix the latter anyway). Hell, neither party really has a coherent plan for this-- republicans because they're riding high on tea party (which as mentioned before don't really care that much about the issue), the democrats because they're so disorganized they're not really riding on anything right now.
if you think the budget is not relevant you have no conception of what has happened in the world in the past 50 years.
Frazzled wrote:if you think the budget is not relevant you have no conception of what has happened in the world in the past 50 years.
The bigger issue is that our economy is being hurt through too many budget cuts, which also has cut consumer confidence. We're nowhere NEAR the situation that Greece is in-- and hell, the indecisiveness, the opposition for opposition's sake, the lack of actually getting something accomplished, and so on caused by the politics of the last few years has done more to damage our economic standing than the debt has.
I am upset that 67 copies of Moby Dick were not on the demands. Also, I see a distinct lack of a get away vehicle, I would suggest a Helicopter, it is very popular in these situations.....
Frazzled wrote:if you think the budget is not relevant you have no conception of what has happened in the world in the past 50 years.
The bigger issue is that our economy is being hurt through too many budget cuts, which also has cut consumer confidence. We're nowhere NEAR the situation that Greece is in-- and hell, the indecisiveness, the opposition for opposition's sake, the lack of actually getting something accomplished, and so on caused by the politics of the last few years has done more to damage our economic standing than the debt has.
No, its not. The fact you don't get that is scary.
There have been no budget cuts. there haven't even been cuts to growth. You think that is what has destroyed consumer confidence?
Europe is teetering on the edge of the abyss. Greece will fall within 60 days. The Euro money center banks are already in deep trouble, as exampled by nationalizing one just recently. The French banks are on the ropes. We're early 2008 here, with underlying bank conditions getting very twitchy.
In the words of a certainly financially wise Gremlin in Gremlins II: "We're recommedning that all our clients invest in canned goods and shotguns."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadwinter wrote:I am upset that 67 copies of Moby Dick were not on the demands. Also, I see a distinct lack of a get away vehicle, I would suggest a Helicopter, it is very popular in these situations.....
Frazzled wrote:if you think the budget is not relevant you have no conception of what has happened in the world in the past 50 years.
The bigger issue is that our economy is being hurt through too many budget cuts, which also has cut consumer confidence.
Confidence is the key word.
The market reacts according to what is presented as the future. Instability because of not knowing what tomorrow brings is exactly the result we should expect.
Investors are like anyone else; they want to be comfortable and have a system in place and know what the laws will be like.
No one likes to see dramatic change unless it helps them or can be worked around.
Right now there is alot of change going on that people do not like and most certainly makes them wary of the future.
CptJake wrote:Have any tea party folks been arrested at their rallies? How about arrests in mass like this current group seems to enjoy?
Honest qustion.
Not in huge numbers like this, no. With ANY protest you're going to have some scattered arrests, but the tea party has avoided anything high profile.
So cite some examples of Tea Party arrests. So far folks in this thread have found 2 total. One non-violent (soliciting a prostitute) and one violent (though it is a stretch to call the latter a Tea Party arrest).
As far as I can tell the Tea Party has always had permits, unlike this current group. They have been respectful of cops and other LE, unlike this current group. Again, tactics and their use as well as the values those tactics imply helps sell a message. I submit this current group's message and the way it is being sold will not appeal to the moderates of this country.
CptJake wrote:Have any tea party folks been arrested at their rallies? How about arrests in mass like this current group seems to enjoy?
Honest qustion.
Not in huge numbers like this, no. With ANY protest you're going to have some scattered arrests, but the tea party has avoided anything high profile.
So cite some examples of Tea Party arrests. So far folks in this thread have found 2 total. One non-violent (soliciting a prostitute) and one violent (though it is a stretch to call the latter a Tea Party arrest).
As far as I can tell the Tea Party has always had permits, unlike this current group. They have been respectful of cops and other LE, unlike this current group. Again, tactics and their use as well as the values those tactics imply helps sell a message. I submit this current group's message and the way it is being sold will not appeal to the moderates of this country.
Well it seems you've already decided the tea party can do no wrong, so I'm not going to cite anything. The fact is, you simply cannot have large protests in every major city and only have 2 arrests. I'm not going to comb smalltown papers to find them, but the idea that it's only 2 is ludicrous and you should feel silly about that.
We can agree that this group is dumb and wants to get arrests and absolutely cannot appeal to the moderates in its current form, but I'm not getting into a stupid fight over this.
KUHNER: Obama’s October revolution
Protesters aren’t interested in solutions, just demonizing enemies of the people
The Washington Times
President Obama’s shock troops are marching in the streets. Occupy Wall Street - a movement composed of communists, anarchists, socialists and anti-globalization student radicals - is spreading. Protests have swelled in cities including New York, Washington, Los Angeles, Chicago, Denver and Philadelphia. The protesters are gaining influence and numbers. A ragtag group of hippie students has turned into a potent political force.
Occupy Wall Street seeks to demonize big banks, large corporations and capitalism. Its goal is to overturn America’s economic structure. The protesters are calling for wealth redistribution, fees on bank profits and massive tax increases on the rich. Many are demanding a socialist revolution - the confiscation of private property and nationalization of the economy. They are the heirs of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Vladimir Lenin. Their aim is to impose the hammer and sickle upon America.
Leftist radicals, such as Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky, have endorsed the anti-capitalist movement. Both men have glorified authoritarian communist regimes - Fidel Castro’s Cuba, Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela and the old Soviet Union. Their hatred for America has found expression in the rabble on the streets of New York and Washington. Actress Roseanne Barr even has called for the return of the “guillotine.” She wants bankers to be sent to “re-education camps,” and if they still refuse to hand over their profits, they should be beheaded, she says. This is the language of revolutionary terror and Marxist violence.
Mr. Obama has said he “sympathizes” with the protesters - especially their anger at Wall Street and “fat-cat” bankers. For years, he has demonized billionaires and millionaires, jet owners and corporate America. His divisive, irresponsible rhetoric has laid the groundwork for Occupy Wall Street.
The White House connection is even deeper. The protest’s main players all have ties to the Obama administration. Its primary organizer is former Obama “green-jobs czar” Van Jones. Mr. Jones is a self-avowed communist and follower of Saul Alinsky, the radical community organizer who also was Mr. Obama’s intellectual mentor. Mr. Jones said October is the month of the long-awaited “progressive offensive” - the watershed moment when students, labor unions, socialists and civil rights activists coalesce into an anti-Tea Party to blunt Middle America’s growing opposition to Mr. Obama.
Occupy Wall Street also is being supported by MoveOn.org. The group was one of the first to back Mr. Obama’s presidential candidacy when he was still an obscure senator from Illinois. The protests are being funded by socialist billionaire George Soros - a key Obama ally. And the protesters are being joined by big labor, the administration’s most powerful constituency.
Hence, Occupy Wall Street is not a spontaneous uprising of disenchanted citizens frustrated with corporate plutocracy and capitalist excess. Rather, it is a planned, manufactured attempt to prop up Mr. Obama’s failed presidency. It is a page taken straight from the Alinsky playbook: Demonize bankers and businessmen in order to divert attention from the real source of our economic woes, Mr. Obama’s policies.
The president inherited a recession, and he has deepened it. His out-of-control spending and trillion-dollar deficits have brought us to the brink of bankruptcy. America’s debt credit rating has been downgraded. Growth has slowed to less than 1 percent. Unemployment has risen above 9 percent. Inflation is rising as consumer confidence declines. Obamacare is strangling job creation and business investment. Mr. Obama has waged war upon the private sector. If those students are truly angry about joblessness and a bleak future, they should direct their fury at the president.
Instead, they mouth leftist pieties. They are a spoiled, dependent and illiterate generation that believes it is entitled to government handouts, state coddling and permanent prosperity. They don’t wish to be self-reliant and make their own way; rather, they want others - successful, productive members of society - to transfer their hard-earned money to subsidize their indolence. They are the kind of deadbeats the welfare state eventually produces - lazy, whining and shameless.
Alinsky argued that an economic crisis inevitably fosters a political crisis. The key for the hard left was to take advantage of our misery to seize power and impose a socialist regime. By sowing street mayhem, Occupy Wall Street is hoping to demoralize and distract Middle America into believing big business is the evil culprit for the financial collapse. The very opposite, however, is true. Meddlesome government intervention caused the housing bubble, the subprime mortgage debacle and the reckless bank lending practices that triggered the Great Recession. The way out is not more statism; it is less. Only a vibrant free market can restore economic recovery and stimulate job growth.
The protesters are not interested in real solutions. They are political activists masquerading as concerned citizens. Progressives are desperate to keep Mr. Obama in office. This is why the president is deliberately encouraging Occupy Wall Street. He hopes to create enough bedlam and then target Republicans, the Tea Party and the rich. He is pursuing the Alinsky strategy of divide and conquer, pitting interest groups and different classes against each other.
Mr. Obama has unleashed class hatred and racial hostility in the pursuit of state socialism. It is clear that his 2008 campaign slogan of “hope and change” was really a thinly veiled rallying cry, not to save the nation, but to precipitate the downfall of American capitalism.
Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute.
CptJake wrote:So cite some examples of Tea Party arrests. So far folks in this thread have found 2 total. One non-violent (soliciting a prostitute) and one violent (though it is a stretch to call the latter a Tea Party arrest).
As far as I can tell the Tea Party has always had permits, unlike this current group. They have been respectful of cops and other LE, unlike this current group. Again, tactics and their use as well as the values those tactics imply helps sell a message. I submit this current group's message and the way it is being sold will not appeal to the moderates of this country.
I think it's a bit of a stretch to assume that the Tea Party has had no arrests. I'm sure there have been a few, but not on the scale of the left-wing protests. The tea parties tend to be pretty tame, but I'm sure that there have been at least a few arrests.
Interestingly, this link claims 9 arrests, but the source they cite doesn't appear to mention any (someone, not me obviously, might wonder then if the Huffington Post article is distorting the news. However, not being Fox, we know this isn't the case). Here's a link citing 12 arrests of people who refused to leave the area outside of Pelosi's office. (oops, seems to be the same event, well there you go, Huffington Post did lie)
Obviously there are vast differences between the Tea Party and these protests. But the assertion that there were never any arrests at Tea Party events is a little far fetched.
Rented Tritium wrote:That's a pretty dumb piece for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that it claims Obama is behind the protests.
Agree I don't think Obama's behind it, but he and other Democrats are defniintely trying to hyjack it. The fact the unions and moveon.org are now supporting it doesn't help them. it fits with Obama's current "Blame the Banks!" theme.
biccat wrote:
Interestingly, this link claims 9 arrests, but the source they cite doesn't appear to mention any (someone, not me obviously, might wonder then if the Huffington Post article is distorting the news.
It may also be that Politco redacted a claim that 9 were arrested, as the source article was edited, and Politco has a history of doing exactly that.
Note also that the second attached video mentions arrests, but the article does not.
CptJake wrote:So cite some examples of Tea Party arrests. So far folks in this thread have found 2 total. One non-violent (soliciting a prostitute) and one violent (though it is a stretch to call the latter a Tea Party arrest).
As far as I can tell the Tea Party has always had permits, unlike this current group. They have been respectful of cops and other LE, unlike this current group. Again, tactics and their use as well as the values those tactics imply helps sell a message. I submit this current group's message and the way it is being sold will not appeal to the moderates of this country.
I think it's a bit of a stretch to assume that the Tea Party has had no arrests. I'm sure there have been a few, but not on the scale of the left-wing protests. The tea parties tend to be pretty tame, but I'm sure that there have been at least a few arrests.
Interestingly, this link claims 9 arrests, but the source they cite doesn't appear to mention any (someone, not me obviously, might wonder then if the Huffington Post article is distorting the news. However, not being Fox, we know this isn't the case). Here's a link citing 12 arrests of people who refused to leave the area outside of Pelosi's office. (oops, seems to be the same event, well there you go, Huffington Post did lie)
Obviously there are vast differences between the Tea Party and these protests. But the assertion that there were never any arrests at Tea Party events is a little far fetched.
Way to put words in my mouth. I NEVER stated there were no arrests, I asked an honest question, how many Tea Party arrests were there. The answer provided was the two.
Now it appears you found more. Hooah. So over the last couple of years there has been a handful or two of arrests.
Can you find fault with my conclusions that:
"the Tea Party seems to have been respectful of cops and other LE, unlike this current group. Again, tactics and their use as well as the values those tactics imply helps sell a message. I submit this current group's message and the way it is being sold will not appeal to the moderates of this country."
Rented Tritium wrote:
CptJake wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:
CptJake wrote:Have any tea party folks been arrested at their rallies? How about arrests in mass like this current group seems to enjoy?
Honest qustion.
Not in huge numbers like this, no. With ANY protest you're going to have some scattered arrests, but the tea party has avoided anything high profile.
So cite some examples of Tea Party arrests. So far folks in this thread have found 2 total. One non-violent (soliciting a prostitute) and one violent (though it is a stretch to call the latter a Tea Party arrest).
As far as I can tell the Tea Party has always had permits, unlike this current group. They have been respectful of cops and other LE, unlike this current group. Again, tactics and their use as well as the values those tactics imply helps sell a message. I submit this current group's message and the way it is being sold will not appeal to the moderates of this country.
Well it seems you've already decided the tea party can do no wrong, so I'm not going to cite anything. The fact is, you simply cannot have large protests in every major city and only have 2 arrests. I'm not going to comb smalltown papers to find them, but the idea that it's only 2 is ludicrous and you should feel silly about that.
We can agree that this group is dumb and wants to get arrests and absolutely cannot appeal to the moderates in its current form, but I'm not getting into a stupid fight over this.
I have not come close to deciding the Tea Party can do no wrong, and you have no proof to back up that statement, so you too can quit putting words in my mouth. I think the simple fact that it does seemingly require a lot of research to find violent incidents leading to arrests on the part of the Tea Party (which has been around and active a couple of years) goes a long way towards proving my point that their tactics and values are a lot different than those of the current group of protestors.
CptJake wrote:
Which set of behaviors and the values they indicate do you think is going to be appreciated by the independent and moderate voters that decide every election? Which message will actually get listened to by those deciding votes? I'm guessing the typical American won't sympathize nor empathize with thuggery.
The venue of protest is also important. Americans tend to respond well to protests aimed at government, and poorly to protests aimed at private, or business related, entities.
That said interference based protests have drawn major, positive attention before. Sit-ins, for example. Though that likely had to do with the way riots were handled in the 60's.
According to some reports they're abusing the local small businesses by using their facilities as washrooms and such. I can't go along with people who sit there and vandalize small businesses and then ask them dispose of their waste while protesting large corporations. They're literally gakking all over the little guys trying to start businesses.
Of course its a select few, but it makes the overall protest look bad.
Of course the Chicago riots had a strongly negative impact, and were viewed as a factor in the Republican victory, unleashing the Dark Lord upon the Earth.
Or as the ancient Vulcan proverb goes: Only Nixon could go to China.
CptJake wrote:Have any tea party folks been arrested at their rallies? How about arrests in mass like this current group seems to enjoy?
Honest qustion.
Not in huge numbers like this, no. With ANY protest you're going to have some scattered arrests, but the tea party has avoided anything high profile.
It helps that the tea parties tend to protest in venues that they rent with money provided by their political supporters or fox. The 99s seem to just take up residence outside of business locations. The vast majority of their arrests have been due to a refusal to change venue, which is pretty standard faire for any protest movement.
Frazzled wrote:Of course the Chicago riots had a strongly negative impact, and were viewed as a factor in the Republican victory, unleashing the Dark Lord upon the Earth.
Also, don't try to block the Brooklyn bridge. 700 people won't get arrested if you don't do that.
Idiots.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, you'll know when the left wing establishment starts really backing these guys. It's the day the arrests STOP suddenly.
CptJake wrote:Have any tea party folks been arrested at their rallies? How about arrests in mass like this current group seems to enjoy?
Honest qustion.
Not in huge numbers like this, no. With ANY protest you're going to have some scattered arrests, but the tea party has avoided anything high profile.
It helps that the tea parties tend to protest in venues that they rent with money provided by their political supporters or fox. The 99s seem to just take up residence outside of business locations. The vast majority of their arrests have been due to a refusal to change venue, which is pretty standard faire for any protest movement.
The Tea party protests didn't rent in Houston. They applied for permits and recieved them just like any other group at Jones Plaza.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Of course the Chicago riots had a strongly negative impact, and were viewed as a factor in the Republican victory, unleashing the Dark Lord upon the Earth.
CptJake wrote:Have any tea party folks been arrested at their rallies? How about arrests in mass like this current group seems to enjoy?
Honest qustion.
Not in huge numbers like this, no. With ANY protest you're going to have some scattered arrests, but the tea party has avoided anything high profile.
It helps that the tea parties tend to protest in venues that they rent with money provided by their political supporters or fox. The 99s seem to just take up residence outside of business locations. The vast majority of their arrests have been due to a refusal to change venue, which is pretty standard faire for any protest movement.
This is also true, there is a difference between going through proper legal means and just showing up and hanging around where they aren't wanted. For example a space rented out for the Tea Parties and used for the Tea Party's rally is legal, going into a privately owned business and protesting against it is not legal.
From what I gather about New Yorkers and their traffic, if you block the Brooklyn Bridge their may be more arrests for manslaughter or homicide compared to people being arrested for blocking the bridge, which is probably a life-time sentence in its own right.
We had a massive showing of them down here where I live, an entire 15 people showed up and really disrupted things.
CptJake wrote:Way to put words in my mouth. I NEVER stated there were no arrests, I asked an honest question, how many Tea Party arrests were there. The answer provided was the two.
Now it appears you found more. Hooah. So over the last couple of years there has been a handful or two of arrests.
Can you find fault with my conclusions that:
"the Tea Party seems to have been respectful of cops and other LE, unlike this current group. Again, tactics and their use as well as the values those tactics imply helps sell a message. I submit this current group's message and the way it is being sold will not appeal to the moderates of this country."
Nope, no fault with that conclusion. Heck, read the politico piece, when the speakers asked the protestors to enter the Capitol they lined up to go through the metal detector. I can't imagine the current group would do anything like that (or see Wisconsin protests). And it appears for the most part they left when asked.
I don't think the first two arrests should be included because the Tea Party event wasn't really the proximate cause of the arrests. The latter 12, sure. Perhaps the distinction should have been made between related and unrelated arrests. I don't think an arrest for soliciting prostitution should count as a "tea party arrest."
On the basic concept, the idea is that you should need a permit if you are going to block anything or restrict others use. In some places, protest permits are basically just scheduling tools to make sure there's enough space on whatever park they're in etc. You don't want to have 2 marches trying to use the same area. That works really well.
But if you aren't blocking anybody, you should be allowed to protest in any public place without a permit. Some areas have protest permit processes that are obviously designed to just prevent protests in general. Those are super wrong imo.
Rented Tritium wrote:Now, on a similar note: Protest Permits are dumb.
On the basic concept, the idea is that you should need a permit if you are going to block anything or restrict others use. In some places, protest permits are basically just scheduling tools to make sure there's enough space on whatever park they're in etc. You don't want to have 2 marches trying to use the same area. That works really well.
But if you aren't blocking anybody, you should be allowed to protest in any public place without a permit. Some areas have protest permit processes that are obviously designed to just prevent protests in general. Those are super wrong imo.
Protest permits are also used to help differentiate between a riot and a protest, you don't want a group of disgruntled people just showing up out of nowhere because it could lead to some pretty bad situations and if you have people legally apply to protest then it makes things a bit more orderly and a tad bit safer.
Rented Tritium wrote:Now, on a similar note: Protest Permits are dumb.
On the basic concept, the idea is that you should need a permit if you are going to block anything or restrict others use. In some places, protest permits are basically just scheduling tools to make sure there's enough space on whatever park they're in etc. You don't want to have 2 marches trying to use the same area. That works really well.
But if you aren't blocking anybody, you should be allowed to protest in any public place without a permit. Some areas have protest permit processes that are obviously designed to just prevent protests in general. Those are super wrong imo.
Protest permits are also used to help differentiate between a riot and a protest, you don't want a group of disgruntled people just showing up out of nowhere because it could lead to some pretty bad situations and if you have people legally apply to protest then it makes things a bit more orderly and a tad bit safer.
Except that whole first amendment thing.
Not really a huge fan of the idea that if me and some friends make some signs and walk down a sidewalk just like everyone else on that sidewalk except we have signs, we can be punished for not asking for permission to exercise our free expression.
If we're breaking some other law, like blocking traffic or stopping pedestrians, I can totally understand needing to get special permission so they can have barricades and detours etc, but if what I'm doing requires no special action from the municipality, I should not have to ask anyone.
You have the right to peaceful assembly and getting a permit shows that you're going to be real peaceful. Showing up out of the blue and just protesting probably has a higher chance of being violent compared to one that was carefully organized and implemented.
I knew that American politics was polarised, but I didn't realise by quite how much.
I thought that the Roseanne Barr section was quite amusing. The writers rhetoric brings to mind an image of her beret-clad face filling the TV, chewing on a cigar while the camera pans back to show the obligatory Uzi, Che Guevara t-shirt and a burning stars and stripes. Although her manning a guillotine while various financiers get dragged out to be beheaded would make excellent reality TV. They could have viewer call-ins to vote who gets the chop this week, followed by a re-run of her comedy show from the 90's.
halonachos wrote:You have the right to peaceful assembly and getting a permit shows that you're going to be real peaceful. Showing up out of the blue and just protesting probably has a higher chance of being violent compared to one that was carefully organized and implemented.
I'm not disputing that, however REQUIRING that I get a permit is unconstitutional. Requiring it in any cases where police will need to block a road or something is totally fine.
I have no obligation to PROVE that I'm going to be peaceful. The constitution requires law enforcement to treat that as the default. Until I actually BECOME VIOLENT, I cannot be considered violent.
Well... here's the deal the place that they're at is privately owned. That park is a private area and the owners just don't have the power to evict everyone, they do have the right to evict them, but can't get enough power to enforce it.
Also, a lot of places people like to protest are parks which require a permit because they are protected areas and if a protest has a chance to damage a protected area it leaves free speech zones. However, if you can find a public area that is not a federal/state/local protected park then you can protest there. Sidewalks are sometimes owned by the business they are in front of so that makes them private as well. Face it, most places are either privately owned or are marked as 'parks' which are protected by some government agency for various reasons.
Also the first amendment doesn't say that the government can't make you get a permit in order to protest, all its says is that they can't pass a law prohibiting you from protesting. Making someone get a permit isn't against the first amendment because its not a law that says you can't protest.
first amendment wrote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
If I can legally BE in a place, then I can legally PROTEST in that same place. The idea that walking through a park without a sign and walking through a park with a sign are such utterly different activities that one is no longer protected by the first amendment is super stupid.
No dude, speech doesn't damage trees. That's a huge cop-out. I don't need a permit to have a ton of people go to the park and NOT protest, but I need a permit for the exact same people to go and protest? No, that's unconstitutional.
The Edmund Burke Institute for American Renewal was founded in June, 2005 in the nation's capital, Washington, D.C. We are a non-partisan, non-profit, education and outreach organization which aspires to engage and mobilize the millions of African Americans, Hispanics, women and other minorities in this country who share conservative values.
Clearly its possible to be nonpartisan and conservative, but its pretty difficult in a two party system.
FURTHER, sidewalks are almost NEVER private property and when you DO own a sidewalk, you are ALMOST ALWAYS required by law to keep it open and freely used.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Here's the bottom line on protests. I can get 200 people together to go to a park and play a massive game of stand around and talk loudly and it is 100% legal, but if those exact same 200 people happen to be holding posterboard and doing the EXACT SAME THING, I suddenly need a permit.
Rented Tritium wrote:Not really a huge fan of the idea that if me and some friends make some signs and walk down a sidewalk just like everyone else on that sidewalk except we have signs, we can be punished for not asking for permission to exercise our free expression.
While I agree with you in principle, keep in mind that permits aren't usually required for protests, they're usually required for large gatherings of people. However, any permit requirement that allows any discretion on the part of a city official has typically been found unconstitutional.
I still think there's a Constitutional problem with what are essentially "free speech permits", but they do serve a public policy other than limiting protest.
Rented Tritium wrote:Not really a huge fan of the idea that if me and some friends make some signs and walk down a sidewalk just like everyone else on that sidewalk except we have signs, we can be punished for not asking for permission to exercise our free expression.
While I agree with you in principle, keep in mind that permits aren't usually required for protests, they're usually required for large gatherings of people. However, any permit requirement that allows any discretion on the part of a city official has typically been found unconstitutional.
I still think there's a Constitutional problem with what are essentially "free speech permits", but they do serve a public policy other than limiting protest.
Yes. Like I said before, if the police are going to need to block off a road or if it's a very popular protest spot like the Washington mall, I want some kind of scheduling in place. Permits definitely enable that.
Rented Tritium wrote: Automatically Appended Next Post: Here's the bottom line on protests. I can get 200 people together to go to a park and play a massive game of stand around and talk loudly and it is 100% legal, but if those exact same 200 people happen to be holding posterboard and doing the EXACT SAME THING, I suddenly need a permit.
That is 100% unconstitutional.
Actually, if its a large gathering of people you do need a permit in some parks in order to reserve it. Other people may want to use the park as well, but if you want to protest without a permit and infringe on their right to also enjoy the park, you are also going against the Constitution by denying them their right to enjoy a public area. The protestors are not exactly being the cleanest of all people either, and they are neglecting all of the park's rules; it closes at 1am, tarps/tents/sleeping bags are not allowed, and most importantly they are making a mess and the owners of the park can't clean it like they normally would.
Rented Tritium wrote:That is 100% unconstitutional.
Apparently it's not, since it has been going on for quite some time and hasn't been struck down by the courts.
You're aware that was said about slavery, right?
I'm not saying this was slavery, but I just want to remind you that the fact that something hasn't been struck down is absolutely not proof that it's constitutional. The whole idea of "free speech zones" is insane. We already have one of those, it's called the United States.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post: Here's the bottom line on protests. I can get 200 people together to go to a park and play a massive game of stand around and talk loudly and it is 100% legal, but if those exact same 200 people happen to be holding posterboard and doing the EXACT SAME THING, I suddenly need a permit.
That is 100% unconstitutional.
Actually, if its a large gathering of people you do need a permit in some parks in order to reserve it. Other people may want to use the park as well, but if you want to protest without a permit and infringe on their right to also enjoy the park, you are also going against the Constitution by denying them their right to enjoy a public area.
That's an enormous stretch. There's no constitutional right to enjoy a park, while there IS a constitutional right to free expression.
The government is free to shut down the park ENTIRELY if they want.
halonachos wrote:No, because sometimes speech can infringe on another person's rights to enjoy something else. You know the saying, "Your rights end where mine begin".
Which amendment grants the right to enjoy a park exactly? I've read the constitution a couple of times and I don't think I've seen that one.
Rented Tritium wrote:That's an enormous stretch. There's no constitutional right to enjoy a park, while there IS a constitutional right to free expression.
The government is free to shut down the park ENTIRELY if they want.
Actually, the park in question is privately owned. There is a right to free expression, but there isn't a Constitutional right to block people from enjoying something either.
halonachos wrote:No, because sometimes speech can infringe on another person's rights to enjoy something else. You know the saying, "Your rights end where mine begin".
Which amendment grants the right to enjoy a park exactly? I've read the constitution a couple of times and I don't think I've seen that one.
I don't know, I never saw an amendment where its says a government agency can't require permits for free speech. All it says is that the government can't make laws against free speech in its entirety.
So if it doesn't specifically say "right to enjoy a park" then the Constitution can't have a say? It also never specifically says you have the right to breathe oxygen in those specific terms either.
Rented Tritium wrote:That's an enormous stretch. There's no constitutional right to enjoy a park, while there IS a constitutional right to free expression.
The government is free to shut down the park ENTIRELY if they want.
Actually, the park in question is privately owned. There is a right to free expression, but there isn't a Constitutional right to block people from enjoying something either.
If it's a private park then nobody has a "right" to anything the owner doesn't want.
But if it is a public park, the second half of your post is not how the constitution works.
The first amendment grants EXPLICIT RIGHTS. The fact that there ISN'T a right to disturb people doesn't override the EXPLICIT RIGHTS granted by the first amendment.
Ahtman wrote:So if it doesn't specifically say "right to enjoy a park" then the Constitution can't have a say? It also never specifically says you have the right to breathe oxygen in those specific terms either.
YES, dude. This is how the constitution works. If you have an EXPLICIT RIGHT granted by the constitution, it comes first. End of discussion. If the exercise of a right explicitly provided by the constitution conflicts with a fake right like "enjoying a park" that's not actually written into law anywhere, the explicit right definitely wins.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:It doesn't specifically say that the government can't require a permit to protest, so that line of reasoning seems flawed.
halonachos wrote:No, because sometimes speech can infringe on another person's rights to enjoy something else. You know the saying, "Your rights end where mine begin".
Which amendment grants the right to enjoy a park exactly? I've read the constitution a couple of times and I don't think I've seen that one.
I don't know, I never saw an amendment where its says a government agency can't require permits for free speech. All it says is that the government can't make laws against free speech in its entirety.
Rented Tritium wrote:Are you saying that because it doesn't specifically mention permits that you don't have an explicit right to unrestricted free speech?
Is that what you're saying?
Because that's stupid.
Would you also have the right to enter, assemble, and speak in a courthouse? They are, after all, publicly owned.
Frazzled wrote:There have been no budget cuts. there haven't even been cuts to growth. You think that is what has destroyed consumer confidence?
Not just me, but a good number of economists.
Substance isn't always important to consumer confidence.
Sorry show me the economist that has stated federal budget cuts have hurt consumer confidence. As there have been no budget cuts its not a possibility in the 3 dimensional universe.
protip - as the Senate never signed off on a budget, there isn't one, so its going to be extremely difficult to win this argument.
Rented Tritium wrote:Are you saying that because it doesn't specifically mention permits that you don't have an explicit right to unrestricted free speech?
You brought up things being "specifically mentioned" in the Constitution. I was applying your own standard to your statements.
Way to auto-lose the debate with name calling though.
Rented Tritium wrote:Are you saying that because it doesn't specifically mention permits that you don't have an explicit right to unrestricted free speech?
You brought up things being "specifically mentioned" in the Constitution. I was applying your own standard to your statements.
Way to auto-lose the debate with name calling though.
The right is specifically mentioned. I'm not responsible for your failure to parse.
Rented Tritium wrote:Have you READ the first amendment?
Yup.
It doesn't mention permits at all.
Agreed, you can make up rights and miscontrue them to fit amendments all you want, but it doesn't mention permits anywhere.
Do you just not know what the word "abridging" means?
Yep, means you can't deprive somebody of the right. Permits don't deprive people of the right to protest though, it just makes people more orderly when they do protest.
Rented Tritium wrote:Have you READ the first amendment?
Yup.
It doesn't mention permits at all.
Agreed, you can make up rights and miscontrue them to fit amendments all you want, but it doesn't mention permits anywhere.
Do you just not know what the word "abridging" means?
Yep, means you can't deprive somebody of the right. Permits don't deprive people of the right to protest though, it just makes people more orderly when they do protest.
So an abridged dictionary is not a dictionary then? It's just blank pages?
Ahtman wrote:So if it doesn't specifically say "right to enjoy a park" then the Constitution can't have a say? It also never specifically says you have the right to breathe oxygen in those specific terms either.
YES, dude. This is how the constitution works. If you have an EXPLICIT RIGHT granted by the constitution, it comes first. End of discussion. If the exercise of a right explicitly provided by the constitution conflicts with a fake right like "enjoying a park" that's not actually written into law anywhere, the explicit right definitely wins.
You could have just said right off the bat you don't really understand Constitutional Law and saved us all a lot of time you know.
Monster Rain wrote:Not to mention the fact that five minutes of research will show you that the courts have upheld the constitutionality of protest permits.
They also held up dredd scott and plessy v Ferguson, that didn't make them right. I disagree with those rulings, while accepting that they are the law at this moment.
I firmly hold that protest permits are unconstitutional in the majority of the places they are used. They're a good idea at the core, but their application is not constitutional.
Monster Rain wrote:Not to mention the fact that five minutes of research will show you that the courts have upheld the constitutionality of protest permits.
But, the Supreme Court upheld Slavery when it was Constitutional therefor the Supreme Court is evil and doesn't have the right to say that Protest Permits are Constitutional.
Ahtman wrote:So if it doesn't specifically say "right to enjoy a park" then the Constitution can't have a say? It also never specifically says you have the right to breathe oxygen in those specific terms either.
YES, dude. This is how the constitution works. If you have an EXPLICIT RIGHT granted by the constitution, it comes first. End of discussion. If the exercise of a right explicitly provided by the constitution conflicts with a fake right like "enjoying a park" that's not actually written into law anywhere, the explicit right definitely wins.
You could have just said right off the bat you don't really understand Constitutional Law and saved us all a lot of time you know.
How am I wrong in the post you quoted? Are you saying that a non-right can beat an actual explicit right?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:Not to mention the fact that five minutes of research will show you that the courts have upheld the constitutionality of protest permits.
But, the Supreme Court upheld Slavery when it was Constitutional therefor the Supreme Court is evil and doesn't have the right to say that Protest Permits are Constitutional.
You keep straw manning me like this and I'll be nasty right back.
Monster Rain wrote:Not to mention the fact that five minutes of research will show you that the courts have upheld the constitutionality of protest permits.
They also held up dredd scott and plessy v Ferguson, that didn't make them right. I disagree with those rulings, while accepting that they are the law at this moment.
You realize that disagreeing with something doesn't make it "unconstitutional" right?
Rented Tritium wrote:I firmly hold that protest permits are unconstitutional in the majority of the places they are used. They're a good idea at the core, but their application is not constitutional.
Monster Rain wrote:Not to mention the fact that five minutes of research will show you that the courts have upheld the constitutionality of protest permits.
They also held up dredd scott and plessy v Ferguson, that didn't make them right. I disagree with those rulings, while accepting that they are the law at this moment.
You realize that disagreeing with something doesn't make it "unconstitutional" right?
Rented Tritium wrote:I firmly hold that protest permits are unconstitutional in the majority of the places they are used. They're a good idea at the core, but their application is not constitutional.
Your firmly held position is incorrect.
Are you ever going to actually post a position and argue it or are you going to just keep popping in with contentless quips?
The explicit right says that the government can't deprive people of the right to protest or assemble. The explicit right doesn't say that the government can't make people be orderly about it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rented Tritium wrote:
You keep straw manning me like this and I'll be nasty right back.
Don't know, your "caps lock" bursts were kind of nasty.
halonachos wrote:The explicit right says that the government can't deprive people of the right to protest or assemble. The explicit right doesn't say that the government can't make people be orderly about it.
It doesn't say can't deprive, it says can't abridge.
And again, do you know what abridge means? Spoiler alert: It doesn't mean take away
Rented Tritium wrote:Are you ever going to actually post a position and argue it or are you going to just keep popping in with contentless quips?
Now who is failing to parse?
My position, since I need to spell it out, is that protest permits are Constitutional and that your idea that they aren't is profoundly incorrect. I don't know how you could have missed that.
Too bad it can mean to take away because it can also mean "curtail".
dictionary wrote:a·bridge /əˈbrɪdʒ/ Show Spelled[uh-brij] Show IPA
verb (used with object), a·bridged, a·bridg·ing.
1. to shorten by omissions while retaining the basic contents: to abridge a reference book.
2. to reduce or lessen in duration, scope, authority, etc.; diminish; curtail: to abridge a visit; to abridge one's freedom.
3. to deprive; cut off.
I have become quite adept in using various definitions in my arguments and I know that some words can have multiple meanings based on context. Just because you see only one definition as fit doesn't mean I can't use the other one.
halonachos wrote:Too bad it can mean to take away because it can also mean "curtail".
Maybe you should look up "curtail" now
Automatically Appended Next Post: If your position is that the first amendment only stops the government from taking away your ENTIRE right to speech and that it's fine as long as they leave a tiny sliver intact, then we are definitely not going to get anywhere. That is crazytown.
No seriously, forget the definitions. You think that the government is allowed to take away all but the last sliver of your free speech and it's constitutional as long as they didn't take it ALL away. You think the first amendment stops the government from completely shutting off free speech, but DOESN'T stop it from restricting free speech.
Because that's what your position is if you use those other definitions of those words.
If that's really your position, I am done arguing. Our premises are SO FAR APART here that it's just not going to go anywhere.
Rented Tritium wrote:How am I wrong in the post you quoted? Are you saying that a non-right can beat an actual explicit right?
Neither of those are explicitly mentioned, but you feel like one is a right becuase it flows from amendments you like and you like the idea. You don't give the other argument the same consideration, that it may be enshrined in other ways not literal. You'll find the word "oxygen" never comes up in the Constitution and neither does the word "park".
Though if it makes you feel better:
Spoiler:
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States." (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2)
Rented Tritium wrote:How am I wrong in the post you quoted? Are you saying that a non-right can beat an actual explicit right?
Neither of those are explicitly mentioned, but you feel like one is a right becuase it flows from amendments you like and you like the idea. You don't give the other argument the same consideration, that it may be enshrined in other ways not literal. You'll find the word "oxygen" never comes up in the Constitution and neither does the word "park".
Though if it makes you feel better:
Spoiler:
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States." (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2)
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States." (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2)
And you think this is allowed to override the first amendment whenever they feel like it?
No. This article is how it's ok to want permits if you're going to block a road. Needful is the key word here.
Monster Rain wrote:In regard to government property, why wouldn't it?
It's right there in the Constitution. Or are some parts of the Constitution more "Constitutiony" than others?
Yep. The articles give a power, the amendments define that power's boundary. Otherwise it would be perfectly logical to use that article as justification to undo all of the amendments whenever you are on government land.
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States." (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2)
And you think this is allowed to override the first amendment whenever they feel like it?
No. This article is how it's ok to want permits if you're going to block a road. Needful is the key word here.
Or a government owned piece of property, like a government owned park for example.
Monster Rain wrote:In regard to government property, why wouldn't it?
It's right there in the Constitution. Or are some parts of the Constitution more "Constitutiony" than others?
Yep. The articles give a power, the amendments define that power's boundary.
Again we are back to your understanding of Constitutional Law (though perhaps just Law would suffice) and how you could have saved us all a bunch of time.
Rented Tritium wrote:So it would be legal for congress to make a law allowing slavery on public land, since article IV says they can make the rules on public land.
Cause that's what you're inadvertently implying here.
It depends on whether or not the Court upheld the law.
Monster Rain wrote:In regard to government property, why wouldn't it?
It's right there in the Constitution. Or are some parts of the Constitution more "Constitutiony" than others?
Yep. The articles give a power, the amendments define that power's boundary.
Again we are back to your understanding of Constitutional Law (though perhaps just Law would suffice) and how you could have saved us all a bunch of time.
Awesome, maybe you can use that saved time to make an argument instead of an ad-hom.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:So it would be legal for congress to make a law allowing slavery on public land, since article IV says they can make the rules on public land.
Cause that's what you're inadvertently implying here.
It depends on whether or not the Court upheld the law.
Well since we're already talking about rulings that the court made that I dissagree with, we're so far into theoryland that our interpretations are more valid than a court. How the court ruled on my argument is already done.
Rented Tritium wrote:
Awesome, maybe you can use that saved time to make an argument instead of an ad-hom.
Ad hominem isn't necessarily invalid when it contributes to the argument, as it does in this case because you really do appear to have a weak grasp of how our legal system functions.
Rented Tritium wrote:
Well since we're already talking about rulings that the court made that I dissagree with, we're so far into theoryland that our interpretations are more valid than a court. How the court ruled on my argument is already done.
No, not really, and this goes back the Ahtman's point about your grasp of the legal system. As with all law, the Constituion only matters in the context of how its upheld. You can argue till you're blue in the face regarding how it should be upheld, but its pointless outside rhetoric, and your approach here is hardly the sort that's likely to convince anyone who doesn't already agree.
You're not using reason, you're brow-beating and ignoring the reality of interpretation. This was most notable regarding your consideration of words like "abridge" which are not Constitutionally defined.
Also, the "theoryland" argument is a bad one, because once you start going down that road I can say something like "Well, the First Amendment should be repealed anyway, so the point is moot." Its just an attempt to obviate criticism of your position without having to address it.
Man, if there's ANYTHING in this thread I'll defend endlessly, it's what abridge means in the first amendment.
Saying it only means "take completely away" makes the first amendment effectively meaningless.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
No, not really, and this goes back the Ahtman's point about your grasp of the legal system. As with all law, the Constituion only matters in the context of how its upheld. You can argue till you're blue in the face regarding how it should be upheld, but its pointless outside rhetoric, and your approach here is hardly the sort that's likely to convince anyone who doesn't already agree.
By this argument, we should never argue about law ever, because the courts are the ultimate authority, not an internet message board. I mean sure, that's fine if you think so, you're free to not read my posts.
Rented Tritium wrote:Man, if there's ANYTHING in this thread I'll defend endlessly, it's what abridge means in the first amendment.
Saying it only means "take completely away" makes the first amendment effectively meaningless.
That's not the point. The point is that there are multiple definitions of abridge, and therefore that particular Amendment requires interpretation, which is ultimately why we have the Supreme Court.
You should also note that if we substitute abridge for an equivalent phrase like "reduce in scope" we still have to answer a question regarding what the original scope was in the first place which, again, doesn't really contribute to your notion that the First Amendment indicates that the Freedom of Speech is implied to be equal in all places everywhere, particularly given that Constitutional Rights are generally thought as protections, and not rights in and of themselves.
Of course, that's before we even start asking questions about what "freedom" and "speech" constitute.
Rented Tritium wrote:
By this argument, we should never argue about law ever, because the courts are the ultimate authority, not an internet message board. I mean sure, that's fine if you think so, you're free to not read my posts.
Actually, no, that isn't what my argument implies. My argument implies that if you're going to argue about the law, you should understand the context in which that law exists.
Rented Tritium wrote:Have you READ the first amendment?
Yup.
It doesn't mention permits at all.
It is interesting to me to note that the 2nd Ammendment also does not mention permits, or background checks mandated by the Federal Gov't. Yet these are accepted.
I also submit that a state or town or whatever level of Gov't requires the permit to gather does not limit free speech as much as it enables public safety and enforces the need to plan the venue for your free speech.
My right to have congress not make a law respecting religion, restricting my freedom to assemble or express myself does indeed extend everywhere.
Other things may restrict that and congress may restrict other things, but the first amendment does indeed apply everywhere.
I see you've chosen to ignore the word "equal".
Thank you for demonstrating that you have no intention of debating honestly.
Insert equal then. Congress doesn't sometimes have the ability to respect religion or restrict speech or assembly. It applies everywhere all the time equally. Congress can never do those things full stop.
dogma wrote:No, not really, and this goes back the Ahtman's point about your grasp of the legal system. As with all law, the Constituion only matters in the context of how its upheld. You can argue till you're blue in the face regarding how it should be upheld, but its pointless outside rhetoric, and your approach here is hardly the sort that's likely to convince anyone who doesn't already agree.
This really is passing the buck Dogma.
A person's views on the application of part of the Constitution does matter for a number of reasons. It impacts how they vote for leaders, how they act within the scope of those laws, and their arguments may be persuasive or impact others' views of the law. Even Judges have some sort of theory of the Constitution that guides their decisions.
Admittedly, Rented Tritium's arguments aren't particularly good or persuasive, but his view on the Constitution at least bears some relevance outside of rhetoric.
An important question I haven't seen addressed is whether, under Rented Tritium's view, Congress (or a State if we're accepting the judicially created doctrine of incorporation) could pass a law prohibiting slander, fraudulent advertising, or even incitement.
Rented Tritium wrote:Have you READ the first amendment?
Yup.
It doesn't mention permits at all.
It is interesting to me to note that the 2nd Ammendment also does not mention permits, or background checks mandated by the Federal Gov't. Yet these are accepted.
I agree!
I also submit that a state or town or whatever level of Gov't requires the permit to gather does not limit free speech as much as it enables public safety and enforces the need to plan the venue for your free speech.
Like I said before, if you are going to be blocking something or protesting somewhere that has constant protests, the government gets to use permits to manage the land and arrange for special needs. If you are not doing anything you couldn't do as an individual, you should not need a permit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
An important question I haven't seen addressed is whether, under Rented Tritium's view, Congress (or a State if we're accepting the judicially created doctrine of incorporation) could pass a law prohibiting slander, fraudulent advertising, or even incitement.
This is a GREAT question!
Yes, there is still unprotected speech. My view is that unprotected speech should be much narrower than it is now, but yes, when there is a functional, demonstratable injury or damage done by speech where a reasonable person should have known better etc etc, I am totally cool with the way it's been handled by scotus. I feel that this the APPROPRIATE application of the right to swing fist ends at face concept, unlike needing a permit because I might annoy someone in a park.
The thing I really don't like is the idea that I can arrange a softball game on a public park and it's totally fine, but if those same people hold signs, suddenly I need to ask permission. The government gets to manage its land when reasonable, but if I am already being allowed to go somewhere wearing a t shirt with a message on it, but a sign is magically something I need a permit for, something has gone wrong with the first amendment. In that case the government is picking and choosing mediums to respect.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If it were up to me, you'd be able to protest anywhere that you could legally go and speak as an individual, but you could be required to NOTIFY officials under certain circumstances.
biccat wrote:
This really is passing the buck Dogma.
A person's views on the application of part of the Constitution does matter for a number of reasons. It impacts how they vote for leaders, how they act within the scope of those laws, and their arguments may be persuasive or impact others' views of the law. Even Judges have some sort of theory of the Constitution that guides their decisions.
Admittedly, Rented Tritium's arguments aren't particularly good or persuasive, but his view on the Constitution at least bears some relevance outside of rhetoric.
I didn't mean to use "rhetoric" in the sense of "bombast", but in the sense of "the skillful use of language". The point being he should try and be more nuanced in his approach.
Rented Tritium wrote:
Yes, there is still unprotected speech. My view is that unprotected speech should be much narrower than it is now, but yes, when there is a functional, demonstratable injury or damage done by speech where a reasonable person should have known better etc etc, I am totally cool with the way it's been handled by scotus.
So the Freedom of Speech does not apply equally in all places at all times.
Rented Tritium wrote:
The thing I really don't like is the idea that I can arrange a softball game on a public park and it's totally fine, but if those same people hold signs, suddenly I need to ask permission. The government gets to manage its land when reasonable, but if I am already being allowed to go somewhere wearing a t shirt with a message on it, but a sign is magically something I need a permit for, something has gone wrong with the first amendment. In that case the government is picking and choosing mediums to respect.
You probably wouldn't need to get a permit for holding a sign, if it were just you, or even a small group, but if a large group assembled, all wearing similar t-shirts, you would still probably need a permit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rented Tritium wrote:
If it were up to me, you'd be able to protest anywhere that you could legally go and speak as an individual, but you could be required to NOTIFY officials under certain circumstances.
The correct way for government to deal with protests is to have cops stand around and make sure other laws don't get broken. If you are denying protests because doing so would be too hard, then cry more.
dogma wrote:I didn't mean to use "rhetoric" in the sense of "bombast", but in the sense of "the skillful use of language". The point being he should try and be more nuanced in his approach.
Fair enough. But then that statement pretty much covers everyone.
Rented Tritium wrote:Except that they are allowed to deny the permit.
Not really at their discretion. Only if you fail to comply with the technical requirements.
Rented Tritium wrote:
Except that they are allowed to deny the permit.
That's the problem.
The correct way for government to deal with protests is to have cops stand around and make sure other laws don't get broken. If you are denying protests because doing so would be too hard, then cry more.
I don't see why its a problem, you're essentially requesting additional government services (police protection in particular) when you request a permit, which taxes government resources.
The alternative would be to require the protesters to pay for the services they draw from the city, but that's probably an even bigger hurdle to protests.
Rented Tritium wrote:
Except that they are allowed to deny the permit.
That's the problem.
The correct way for government to deal with protests is to have cops stand around and make sure other laws don't get broken. If you are denying protests because doing so would be too hard, then cry more.
I don't see why its a problem, you're essentially requesting additional government services (police protection in particular) when you request a permit, which taxes government resources.
The alternative would be to require the protesters to pay for the services they draw from the city, but that's probably an even bigger hurdle to protests.
Protesters already pay for services they draw from the city. They're called taxes.
If it's too expensive to let people exercise their rights, then you're doing the whole "government" thing wrong.
You should get to protest either way. If the government doesn't feel like showing up, that's their business. You notified them. When my house catches on fire, I don't even HAVE to notify the government and they still come. In this case, I want to tell them so they can be ready if they think they need to show up. How nice is that?
Rented Tritium wrote:
Except that they are allowed to deny the permit.
That's the problem.
The correct way for government to deal with protests is to have cops stand around and make sure other laws don't get broken. If you are denying protests because doing so would be too hard, then cry more.
I don't see why its a problem, you're essentially requesting additional government services (police protection in particular) when you request a permit, which taxes government resources.
The alternative would be to require the protesters to pay for the services they draw from the city, but that's probably an even bigger hurdle to protests.
Protesters already pay for services they draw from the city. They're called taxes.
If it's too expensive to let people exercise their rights, then you're doing the whole "government" thing wrong.
1. What if the protesters aren't from the locale? They are not paying taxes.
2. Judging by the protesters for this event I saw, I don't think there's a lot of tax paying going on.
Rented Tritium wrote: Except that they are allowed to deny the permit.
That's the problem.
The correct way for government to deal with protests is to have cops stand around and make sure other laws don't get broken. If you are denying protests because doing so would be too hard, then cry more.
I don't see why its a problem, you're essentially requesting additional government services (police protection in particular) when you request a permit, which taxes government resources.
The alternative would be to require the protesters to pay for the services they draw from the city, but that's probably an even bigger hurdle to protests.
Protesters already pay for services they draw from the city. They're called taxes.
If it's too expensive to let people exercise their rights, then you're doing the whole "government" thing wrong.
This is a crock-o-crap.
In another post you want cops to protect protesters but don't want the protesters to have to fill out the paperwrok to enable that protection (the permit). Now you are assuming that the city/town/county budget includes enough over time to deal with protesters and that those protesters pay enough taxes to cover those extra man hours. I call BS. How many of the Invade Wall Street crowd pay NY NY taxes and how many just showed up to protest? Why should the citizens of NY NY pay for these crap bags to interupt their lives? Why should NY NY have collected extra taxes to cover the extensive clean up and LE overtime just in case a group of undisciplined crap bags invade their city to 'exercise thier right to free speech'?
Go to a small town and it is even worse. Local taxes can't cover crap like this and it is not fair for locals to have to foot the bill.
CptJake wrote:Why should the citizens of NY NY pay for these crap bags to interupt their lives? Why should NY NY have collected extra taxes to cover the extensive clean up and LE overtime just in case a group of undisciplined crap bags invade their city to 'exercise thier right to free speech'?
Yeah, you're right. We should just ban all protests. That would be cheaper.
Also, did you really just put scarequotes around that? Man, that's horrible.
Rented Tritium wrote:
Except that they are allowed to deny the permit.
That's the problem.
The correct way for government to deal with protests is to have cops stand around and make sure other laws don't get broken. If you are denying protests because doing so would be too hard, then cry more.
I don't see why its a problem, you're essentially requesting additional government services (police protection in particular) when you request a permit, which taxes government resources.
The alternative would be to require the protesters to pay for the services they draw from the city, but that's probably an even bigger hurdle to protests.
Protesters already pay for services they draw from the city. They're called taxes.
If it's too expensive to let people exercise their rights, then you're doing the whole "government" thing wrong.
This is a crock-o-crap.
In another post you want cops to protect protesters but don't want the protesters to have to fill out the paperwrok to enable that protection (the permit). Now you are assuming that the city/town/county budget includes enough over time to deal with protesters and that those protesters pay enough taxes to cover those extra man hours. I call BS. How many of the Invade Wall Street crowd pay NY NY taxes and how many just showed up to protest? Why should the citizens of NY NY pay for these crap bags to interupt their lives? Why should NY NY have collected extra taxes to cover the extensive clean up and LE overtime just in case a group of undisciplined crap bags invade their city to 'exercise thier right to free speech'?
Go to a small town and it is even worse. Local taxes can't cover crap like this and it is not fair for locals to have to foot the bill.
Like, I think the occupy guys are mostly really dumb and unnecessarily rowdy.
But you can get onto them for the other laws they are breaking. They have the right to protest though. The stuff you can totally arrest them for is the other crap they get up to in the process. There's no reason to restrict their right to protest, you're already restricting their right to litter and block traffic via other laws.
When you are restricting rights because they MIGHT break another law instead of just enforcing that other law, you're doing it wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And as long as we're talking about costs to local government, do you think it's appropriate to deny permits because you don't think you can't afford the police??
That seems like it is probably not what the permits are designed for. Freedoms should always trump beancounting.
Did you EVER see anything I typed indicate I want to ban ANY protests? If so, point it out, if not quit putting words in my mouth.
I put qoutes aroung 'exercise their free speech' because I find their illegal actions to be an infringement on the rights of the folks who live and work where these leaches have chosen to occupy. They are NOT legally assembling, when you break the law and infringe on the rights of others, as these folks clearly are doing, they cannot start to claim they are exercising a constitutional right. They have no right to infinge on the rights of others.
CptJake wrote:Did you EVER see anything I typed indicate I want to ban ANY protests? If so, point it out, if not quit putting words in my mouth.
I put qoutes aroung 'exercise their free speech' because I find their illegal actions to be an infringement on the rights of the folks who live and work where these leaches have chosen to occupy. They are NOT legally assembling, when you break the law and infringe on the rights of others, as these folks clearly are doing, they cannot start to claim they are exercising a constitutional right. They have no right to infinge on the rights of others.
See, the problem is that you're basically saying the ENTIRE ASSEMBLY is illegal because people IN IT are committing crimes.
Arrest those people then. The assembly ITSELF is still a right.
I'm totally down with the arrests happening up there. Some of those guys are being horrible and breaking other laws.
Rented Tritium wrote:Like, I think the occupy guys are mostly really dumb and unnecessarily rowdy.
But you can get onto them for the other laws they are breaking. They have the right to protest though. The stuff you can totally arrest them for is the other crap they get up to in the process. There's no reason to restrict their right to protest, you're already restricting their right to litter and block traffic via other laws.
These kids have NO right to litter or block traffic. The fact that you consider those to be rights is disgusting to me. Those actions infringe on the rights of others.
Rented Tritium wrote:Like, I think the occupy guys are mostly really dumb and unnecessarily rowdy.
But you can get onto them for the other laws they are breaking. They have the right to protest though. The stuff you can totally arrest them for is the other crap they get up to in the process. There's no reason to restrict their right to protest, you're already restricting their right to litter and block traffic via other laws.
These kids have NO right to litter or block traffic. The fact that you consider those to be rights is disgusting to me. Those actions infringe on the rights of others.
I'm using "right" rhetorically up there to match the cadence of the rest of the post, dude. I don't think it's a right. You can calm down.
The point of the post is that there's no need to restrict their protesting, since you already have other laws to get the bad ones with.
Yeah, and if camping there is already illegal, then arrest people who are camping. It's pretty easy.
But that doesn't make speech happening at the same place also illegal. Arrest the campers.
Can we taser them too? I'm starting to get giddy.
If they resist using passive or active force, yes!
Since there are supposedly sympathizers all abut (that whole 99% thing) can I taser them too? There's usually a pretty big line at the bus stop. This would improve that considerably. I'm just putting that out there.
Someone who can should delete those extra posts. They were right when the server was going down/up and my posts were "failing" repeatedly then actually posting later.
It's not exactly some hidden, indiscernable fact that consumer concerns about budget cuts translate into reduced consumer confidence.
These budget cuts may not be actual cuts, as you argue, but consumer confidence is still hurt by them.
"Consumers are concerned about the effect of comets dropping and killing everyone. "
"No comets have hit the planet in at least 80MM years."
"yea, well they're concerned!"
I live in a state capitol and I can absolutely tell you that people are nervous about cuts here. The local businesses can't survive without state employees shopping there. The restaurants near state offices are doing much worse than usual and people know it.
as a resident of Portland Oregon, I would ask the people of Washington to stay there. When we have rush hour 70% of the cars on our highways are from Washington. We all know OR > WA, so if you want to be > than, move you worthless highway loaders
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DIDM wrote:as a resident of Portland Oregon, I would ask the people of Washington to stay there. When we have rush hour 70% of the cars on our highways are from Washington. We all know OR > WA, so if you want to be > than, move you worthless highway loaders
edit
yea, in all honesty that is the only WA I care about, the other one is beyond my control, and I could honestly care less, each party is the same anyways
Rented Tritium wrote:
Protesters already pay for services they draw from the city. They're called taxes.
Taxes don't cover all services drawn from a city, just try going through re-zoning, or getting a building permit, or a health inspection, or putting out more than the allotted number of garbage cans, or any number of other services that cities charge additional fees for.
Rented Tritium wrote:
If it's too expensive to let people exercise their rights, then you're doing the whole "government" thing wrong.
No, not really, there's a much easier way around that issue. We simply inform you, via judicial process, which rights we are going to protect, and what we consider those rights to be. You're free to disagree of course, but since we have more power (physical, fiscal, and legal) than you, you're probably out of luck.
The correct way for government to deal with protests is to have cops stand around and make sure other laws don't get broken. If you are denying protests because doing so would be too hard, then cry more.
Yeah they can deny a permit, but they can only deny it if there is a neutral reason for doing so. If the KKK or Neo Nazis want to march through a predominantly Jewish neighborhood they need to get a permit, the permit can't be denied based on the message of the march, but only if it would cause a major functional disruption. In fact I recall a story where a group of Neo-Nazis did indeed manage to get a permit to march through the neighborhood, despite the fact that the local government of Skokie, Illinois tried to use permits to deny the Nazis from marching, citing things like they couldn't march in military uniform and then making rules such as a $350,000 insurance down payment, before the Supreme Court said that the reasons for the criteria on the permit were only made to deny the Nazis a permit.
Seriously, if the Nazis are willing to get a permit and fight to get a permit in order to protest and actually get a permit, I think that some people protesting banks can get a permit.
halonachos wrote:
Seriously, if the Nazis are willing to get a permit and fight to get a permit in order to protest and actually get a permit, I think that some people protesting banks can get a permit.
If the cause is actually legitimate, it shouldn't be too great an annoyance either. I mean, its better than being hit with a fire hose.
Somewhere, James Meredith is rolling in his grave.
halonachos wrote:
Seriously, if the Nazis are willing to get a permit and fight to get a permit in order to protest and actually get a permit, I think that some people protesting banks can get a permit.
If the cause is actually legitimate, it shouldn't be too great an annoyance either. I mean, its better than being hit with a fire hose.
Somewhere, James Meredith is rolling in his grave.
That would be awfully hard for him Dogma, James Meredith is still alive.
But yeah, the Nazis wanted to march, but it was through a community with a large Jewish population. The local government tried to do all sorts of things after they started applying, even saying that they couldn't hand out pamphlets as well as the previously mentioned criteria. Seriously, if the Supreme Court said the Nazis could get a permit to march through a Jewish neighborhood I'm sure these rowdy youths can get a permit to protest a bank.
even government jobs. Thats Sr. Manager level pay for government jobs in Texas, almost Director level. For a starting salary? its just absofreakinglootely crazy talk.
R, calm the freak down, American consumer. This is complicated crap and it doesn't happen overnight, jesus.
