*Occupy Wall Street*

[Dancing Fire]

[quote="ksinger|1320101317|
DF is a perfect example of that in this very thread - when confronted with a person in OWS, who did not fit his view of all of them as lazy stoners, he either refused to read OR refused to accept. THAT is what I'm talking about, no pause, no thought, no doubt, just dogmatism. That isn't interpretation, that is just denial. But they ARE ALL lazy losers, said he, when one (and clearly MORE than one) are not. I have no use for that. Intepretation can be taken so far as to be fantasy - who could call the Inquisition of the middle ages, or the Holocaust, or American slavery, anything but bad? In that regard, no, historical interpretation - while inevitable - is NOT in the mind of the beholder, not up for debate. Certain historical things are very very clear, are they not? Maybe someone would have the right to believe that bad is good, but then the rest of society would also have the right and maybe even duty, to collectively call BS on it too...

i don't understand enough english...
not losers but lazy...they want everything handed to them on a silver platter for free.history taught us that socialism will never work..

(pleasantly I call a big hearty hi-ho BS. You understand perfectly well. Even your favorite goddess thinks you're as full of crap as a Christmas goose, DF. Stated as much earlier in the thread. We don't agree on quite a few things, but we're in perfect accord on THAT one.

Me? A goddess? [/quote]
yes,and beebrisk is my hero ...

 

[ksinger]

[quote="ksinger|1320101317|
DF is a perfect example of that in this very thread - when confronted with a person in OWS, who did not fit his view of all of them as lazy stoners, he either refused to read OR refused to accept. THAT is what I'm talking about, no pause, no thought, no doubt, just dogmatism. That isn't interpretation, that is just denial. But they ARE ALL lazy losers, said he, when one (and clearly MORE than one) are not. I have no use for that. Intepretation can be taken so far as to be fantasy - who could call the Inquisition of the middle ages, or the Holocaust, or American slavery, anything but bad? In that regard, no, historical interpretation - while inevitable - is NOT in the mind of the beholder, not up for debate. Certain historical things are very very clear, are they not? Maybe someone would have the right to believe that bad is good, but then the rest of society would also have the right and maybe even duty, to collectively call BS on it too...

i don't understand enough english...
not losers but lazy...they want everything handed to them on a silver platter for free.history taught us that socialism will never work..

(pleasantly I call a big hearty hi-ho BS. You understand perfectly well. Even your favorite goddess thinks you're as full of crap as a Christmas goose, DF. Stated as much earlier in the thread. We don't agree on quite a few things, but we're in perfect accord on THAT one.

Me? A goddess? [/quote]


Well, DF clearly thinks so, but then there's no accounting for other people's religious tastes....

 

[beebrisk]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33rnpSyOPwk&feature=player_embedded#at=69

Golly gee whiz. Imagine that. Who'da thunk it? Didn't see this coming.

Anyone want to defend these "Occupiers"? Was their action warranted? Was it a wise move, well considered, thought out, helpful to their cause? Or merely stupid?

My money's on stupid.

You call sleeping in a park for weeks on end, pissing on public (and private) property, getting 10 different answers to what this "movement" is about from 10 different people, "stupid"?? Pshaw!

That video makes me wanna barf. Really. Those people would be happy to sacrifice any one of their own so they can have the pleasure of screaming "P O L I C E B R U T A L I T Y!!" After all, most of them missed the 60's and that was such a cooool time. I'm surprised they don't dig up the most common invectives from back then when referring to law enforcement: "PIg" and "Fuzz". I'm sure if they watched enough old TV (because it's doubtful they read) they'd know that. I'll bet if I took the subway down to Wall St. this morning and held up a sign that reads: "Turn On, Tune In and Drop Out", I'd be the most popular gal around!

My prediction is, that before this is all over, someone will be killed (after inciting cops with some kind of stupid, provocative act) and held up as a martyr. That, I believe is the ultimate goal here. These people aren't looking for justice, they want another Kent State. Then maybe, just maybe they will feel their lives have meaning. Groovy.

 

[iheartscience]

Funnily enough, a study done by one of the skeptics of climate change/global warming/whatever you want to call it was just published. Guess what he found? Climate change is real! I bet the Koch brothers wish they hadn't forked over ETA a quarter of the $600k to help fund the study only to be proven wrong. Not sure if this has too much data for you, but it was published in the Wall Street Journal, so perhaps you'll deem it worth a read: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...6594872796327348.html?KEYWORDS=richard+muller

Climate changes DUH! The earth just exited an ice age not to long ago of course it changes......
From the article:
"How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that."
That is the issue.
First it was global cooling then it was global warming and geez that study said they messed with the numbers and now they say.. 1/3 cooling and 2/3 warming .. trust us we messed with the numbers in just the right way. WOW they discovered that climate changes! Well if you believe they messed with the numbers right anyway..... but they didn't even try and study if it was caused by humans......

From the article: "The two-to-one ratio reflects global warming. The changes at the locations that showed warming were typically between 1-2ºC..." And this is from a skeptic of global warming, who did the research himself and found the same thing all the other scientists were finding. He also found that the land has warmed 1.6º since the 1950s. That's quite the rapid climate change.

So why are you opposed to the idea that global warming is due to humans? Do you think that the gases created from burning fossil fuels have no effect at all on the earth? Just curious. I don't understand the motivation of ordinary people who are against the idea of global warming. I get when corporations want to fight it-they want to pollute as much as they want and spend as little money as possible, so they don't like the costs incurred by complying with environmental regulations.

 

[Imdanny]

Kent State was a massacre.

In any case, anyone can research Kent State. The notion that it was anything other than a massacre is simply fantasy.

 

[ksinger]

Kent State was a massacre.


In any case, anyone can research Kent State. The notion that it was anything other than a massacre is simply fantasy.

Your interpretation is incorrect. They clearly deserved, maybe even wanted, to die because they were protesting and who were they to protest anything? The students there weren't actually IN the war, what did THEY have to complain about? They were stupid for protesting, they should have known they'd get shot.

Please do get it right Danny....geesh.

 

[Karl_K]

From the article: "The two-to-one ratio reflects global warming. The changes at the locations that showed warming were typically between 1-2ºC..." And this is from a skeptic of global warming, who did the research himself and found the same thing all the other scientists were finding. He also found that the land has warmed 1.6º since the 1950s. That's quite the rapid climate change.

So why are you opposed to the idea that global warming is due to humans? Do you think that the gases created from burning fossil fuels have no effect at all on the earth? Just curious. I don't understand the motivation of ordinary people who are against the idea of global warming. I get when corporations want to fight it-they want to pollute as much as they want and spend as little money as possible, so they don't like the costs incurred by complying with environmental regulations.

I don't like junk science period, one can play with numbers all day and make them say whatever one wants.
The global cooling/heating/change junk science has done a great amount of harm to the cause of cleaning up the environment.
I believe in conservation and pollution control but not using junk science to push it on people.
We need to move beyond oil/coal but in a calm orderly way with solid research and development that does not destroy what is left of the economy.

 

[Imdanny]

Yeah, my labor union electrician father told me all about how the DFH's got what they had coming, and then at some point I used this thing they call the "google" and found out he was full of bleep.

 

[beebrisk]

Kent State was a massacre.


In any case, anyone can research Kent State. The notion that it was anything other than a massacre is simply fantasy.

Your interpretation is incorrect. They clearly deserved, maybe even wanted, to die because they were protesting and who were they to protest anything? The students there weren't actually IN the war, what did THEY have to complain about? They were stupid for protesting, they should have known they'd get shot.

Please do get it right Danny....geesh.

Was I actually questioning the point about it being a "massacre"? Nope.
Although, I guess I could bring it up for questioning because it's all a matter of historical perspective and interpretation anyway...Right, KSinger?

 

[partgypsy]

Hypocrites on parade

http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/10/28/8522718-michael-moore-confesses-i-am-the-1-percent

Don't you think there's a difference though between successful and greedy? My husband and I love watching documentaries, and we've watched a lot of Moore's films. Yes, he's a wealthy man (but one of the wealthiest? Hmmm, not sure about that one). I think he does fight for others who are not in his same tax bracket, and I don't see anything wrong with that. I think many of the WS corporate higher-ups were just selfish and greedy. Moore doesn't come across that way to me.

And just who is to say who's greedy? And so what? There's absolutely no law prohibiting personal greediness. You want to be greedy? That's your right.

I despise Michael Moore, but I don't begrudge him his millions, nor do expect (or accept) the idea of anyone telling him what to do with it. Whether he "fights for others not in his tax bracket" isn't the issue. Living in NYC, I have known lots of extremely wealthy people. Every one of them is a huge benefactor to children's' charities, animal charities, AIDS charities, the arts, etc... However, it is by choice. It's called personal freedom.


If you earn it, inherit it or win it in a lottery, it's YOUR'S. Whoever feels obliged can send whatever they like to anyone, any charity and yes, even the IRS- should they feel their taxes aren't high enough and they aren't doing their "fare share".

In fact, here's the payment information if anyone would like to make a voluntary tax payment: eftps.gov

I encourage anyone to send an electronic payment (it's easy!) if that's what it takes to ease your conscience.

Ok, the philosophy you've outlined in this post, I hope I might refer to it fairly as your"it's YOUR'S" philosophy, has been combined with your (I'll admit somewhat rhetorical ) question: "And so what?" after asking who gets decided who's "greedy."

Have I been fair so far? I don't want to misrepresent your post; it's just that I need "terms" to work with to reply to you and it seems to me that the terms should be yours.

You've said a lot in this post about about individuals. You've said nothing about society. It's essential in light of the topic of this thread to discuss not only individuals but also society. Moreover, it would be impossible to discuss economics with discussing society.

It seems to me (and again please let me know if I'm wrong) that your philosophy, in fact, boils down to what you said as follows:

"It is no one's business what anyone does with what they have. And it should be of no concern if a highly successful person decided not to part with a dime."

The following sentence is very interesting to me:

" it's YOUR'S. Whoever feels obliged can send whatever they like to anyone, any charity and yes, even the IRS-..."

However, the IRS is most certainly not a charitable organization and taxes are owed; taxes are not a matter of individuals' charitable inclination.

Do you think that what you said is literally what you believe? In other words, do yo believe that whatever a person earns, inherits, or wins in a lottery belongs to that person absolutely, including not to the government? I'm not sure what you believe on this point. Your use of bold letters at: "it's YOUR'S" seems to indicate that the answer is yes.

As far as who gets to decide, the government gets to decide. The Constitution gives it the power to tax.

I would like to talk more with you (assuming, of course, that neither of wants to personally insult the other) if you are willing to please clarify your view regarding individuals' rights/ possession and the government's role/ taxes.

Thank you.

With a promise not to insult and a thank you for actually asking and not attacking, I'll try to clarify my position here.

I was reacting to Zoe's comments regarding Michael Moore and that he doesn't seem as "greedy and selfish" as some other wealthy people. Of course none of us know how greedy, selfish or charitable he actually is, but that's besides the point.

As I stated above, I have nothing but distaste for Mr. Moore, but I hope I never have to live in a country where the government has decided he's earned "too much". In fact, that thought is chilling to me. Of course the government has the power to tax but contrary to your statement, I don't believe the government "gets to decide" who is too rich. I'm no Constitutional scholar, but I don't believe that was part of the package.

My rich friends (and I'm talking multi-millionaires) pay more in taxes every year than I earn over the course of several years. They also own large, expensive properties that are taxed at ridiculous rates (been to the Hamptons or Manhattan lately?). They buy very large toys in greater quantity than I could dream of at a NY/NYC sales tax rate of 8.865%. Layer that on top of their Federal, State and City income taxes and you're talking about 40+% of their earnings going to the IRS and city and state coffers.. Do I feel sorry for them? No. Do I believe it's their responsibility and their moral obligation to take care of "society"? Absolutely not.

Ironically however, they are huge benefactors--generous and charitable. In fact, do a little research on charitable fund raising in this country (and NYC to be specific) and you'll find the most charitable people are among the richest. Again, look at the history of some of the biggest charitable organizations, dedicated to helping the poor, the sick and the helpless. Check out their directors and patrons and you will find a very long list of names of people with very deep pockets and very caring hearts. I for one, am sick and tired of the rich being demonized and treated like pariahs.

And you are right, I talk only of individuals because I believe so strongly in individual liberty. The concept that is the basis for our Constitution. Hand in hand with individual liberty comes individual responsibility--the notion that you are responsible for you. Not you and me.

I am not a member of the 1%,not by any means. I will however defend them their right to life, liberty and their pursuit of happiness, without further encroachment by a government that already takes under penalty of imprisonment, a good chunk of their earnings.

As for sending a check to the IRS, of course I wasn't implying that they are a charitible organization. I was referring to the sycophants of Warren Buffett and his ilk who have this idea that higher taxation is the answer to society's ills. If anyone here feels they aren't contributing enough of their wages to the Feds, then by all means they should log on and pay up! I'm sure a few hundred million more is needed to squander on the next Solyndra.

Before anyone labels me a Gordon "Greed is Good" Gecco type, I'm not. I'm all about sharing. If you have it. But more importantly, if you want to.

The irony of this discussion on a board dedicated to the most precious, coveted and valuable gemstone on earth hasn't escaped me. Perhaps we can experiment with "fairness" right here. It would be interesting to see how fast anyone ringing their hands over "economic inequity" would be willing to remove their lovely e-ring, tennis bracelet, pave huggies or pear-shaped pendant to spread a little wealth of their own. Hmmmm...

(Danny, that was just a general snark...not directed toward you)

I suppose that it is neither here nor there, but I did start feeling uncomfortable about spending money on jewelry, considering how others live. The last year I bought something significant I made myself a "tax" that whatever I spent on jewelry, I put 50% of that amount towards causes I felt were important (don't listen Karl, some of it was to Amazon Watch!(some was to habitat for humanity as well). I have sold some jewelry items and used it to help my mom financially. The rest I'm hanging on for my kids. The last couple years I haven't bought much jewelry, for a number of reasons.
Personally I would be comfortable paying slightly higher taxes IF the obligations to a wider swath of the populace were not being ignored. I do want the government to make a commitment to balance the budget. But right now we are having talks about balancing the budget, by preserving (or even enlarging) tax breaks for the very rich but social services like social security and medicare/medicaid are gutted.

PS - those people quoting that rich contribute more to charity, most studies find that people in the 9K-30K income rate contribute the MOST percentage-wise of their income.

 

[Karl_K]

(don't listen Karl, some of it was to Amazon Watch!
I support much of what Amazon Watch does but I do disagree with some of the solutions they want. There are ways to extract resources in an environmentally neutral way while providing for the people living there.
(some was to habitat for humanity as wellI have worked on a few of their build sites, I cant anymore because of my arm and allergies. My dad and I did the heating and AC in a few of them years ago, donating labor and installing donated equipment).
PS - those people quoting that rich contribute more to charity, most studies find that people in the 9K-30K income rate contribute the MOST percentage-wise of their income.

They also spend the most time helping out also

 

[partgypsy]

Yeah wouldn't it be great if more very rich people, when it came time to give to charity, maybe skipped attending their favorite ball for the year and writing a check, instead volunteered at the hospital where they typically donate to, or were on site building a house for the working poor, or even, not just serving at a soup kitchen, but sat down at the end of the day and shared a meal with the people who came for that meal? I'm not talking about celebrities swooping in and leaving after the publicity shot, but spending the day.
But who am I kidding.

 

[HollyS]

Kent State was a massacre.


In any case, anyone can research Kent State. The notion that it was anything other than a massacre is simply fantasy.

Your interpretation is incorrect. They clearly deserved, maybe even wanted, to die because they were protesting and who were they to protest anything? The students there weren't actually IN the war, what did THEY have to complain about? They were stupid for protesting, they should have known they'd get shot.

Please do get it right Danny....geesh.

You can both cut the drama. No one, including beebrisk said Kent State WASN'T a massacre. She said there might be some who want to incite a riot or a killing to prove their point. It isn't that farfetched. Horrible. But not impossible. After all, in a matter of seconds it could be uploaded on any cellphone, and then what? The kind of response and outcry some may be hoping for. Do you really think it hasn't been considered? Sure. And the Weathermen didn't build bombs.

But, please, let's stop comparing the idiot policies of a foreign war we should never have been in, and the college kids who did not want to go die in a war we couldn't win, with the type of protests going on right now. They're not cut from the same cloth. Apples and oranges. (Have I used enough cliches?) I think I have.

 

[AGBF]

(don't listen Karl, some of it was to Amazon Watch!
I support much of what Amazon Watch does but I do disagree with some of the solutions they want. There are ways to extract resources in an environmentally neutral way while providing for the people living there.
(some was to habitat for humanity as wellI have worked on a few of their build sites, I cant anymore because of my arm and allergies. My dad and I did the heating and AC in a few of them years ago, donating labor and installing donated equipment).
PS - those people quoting that rich contribute more to charity, most studies find that people in the 9K-30K income rate contribute the MOST percentage-wise of their income.

They also spend the most time helping out also

I have never followed the percentages of who donates what percentage to others. I am grateful that there are people who care about others and put themselves out for others. I am afraid that I think as long as the economy is structured to benefit what President Eisenhower labelled, "the military industrial complex" that "the people" do not have a chance in hell, however, of ever achieving a fair deal in the United States. It is better when people are concerned about their brethren than when they are not (in my opinion). Because I place value on human beings and do not like to see them suffer. But whether the country is going through a period in which there are many anti-poverty programs and church programs to aid the poor and a period of relatively high unemployment or it is in a period of high unemployment with no so-called "safety nets" (e.g. pre-FDR or post-Reagan and Bill Clinton) the poor are always with us...in droves. The economy is truly not set up to give the workers a fair shake.

My niece, who is lucky if she makes it up into the 9K a year bracket!, left her job as teacher's assistant in Spain to volunteer for a week in June in Senegal with Habitat for Humanity. She had volunteered for them before in the United States, helping to build houses. Senegal in June was pretty hot. She worked on building a toilet...and they didn't have one to use as they worked. She has a lot of Senegalese friends in Spain and has picked up the local language, so she had a great time there and wants to return. I am really proud of her for for getting joy out of this kind of experience. I don't think I ever would have!

Deb/AGBF

 

[beebrisk]

Yeah wouldn't it be great if more very rich people, when it came time to give to charity, maybe skipped attending their favorite ball for the year and writing a check, instead volunteered at the hospital where they typically donate to, or were on site building a house for the working poor, or even, not just serving at a soup kitchen, but sat down at the end of the day and shared a meal with the people who came for that meal? I'm not talking about celebrities swooping in and leaving after the publicity shot, but spending the day.
But who am I kidding.

And you know they don't? And how do you know this??

My wealthy friends (with more money than I'll ever see) and free time on their hands spend much of it "giving back". Let's see, here's just a few of the project they have been involved with or are currently working on:

Decorating and furnishing transitional family housing in Harlem
Collecting used and unwanted baby clothes and furnishings for those in need.
Teaching English at the Fortune Society
Paying for, and installing computerized "black boards" in community schools.
Driving to North Carolina for 10 days to work on a Habitat for Humanity home.
Opening their home for a benefit for Doctors Without Borders
Serving Thanksgiving dinner for God's Love We Deliver.

We aren't talking about celebrities here. We are talking about wealthy, VERY wealthy people whose names you don't know and won't know because the last thing they seek is publicity in return for their generosity. Because really, that's what charity should be about, right??

Enough with demonizing the rich as selfish and self-serving,. It is no more true of the them than it is of the so-called 99%. With all due respect, you are wrong and don't know what you're talking about when it comes to this point.

 

[Dancing Fire]

[quote="thing2of2|1320146959|3051577

From the article: "The two-to-one ratio reflects global warming. The changes at the locations that showed warming were typically between 1-2ºC..." And this is from a skeptic of global warming, who did the research himself and found the same thing all the other scientists were finding. He also found that the land has warmed 1.6º since the 1950s. That's quite the rapid climate change.

So why are you opposed to the idea that global warming is due to humans? Do you think that the gases created from burning fossil fuels have no effect at all on the earth? Just curious. I don't understand the motivation of ordinary people who are against the idea of global warming. I get when corporations want to fight it-they want to pollute as much as they want and spend as little money as possible, so they don't like the costs incurred by complying with environmental regulations.[/quote]


b/c it is mother nature not humans.

 

[D&T]

How does Habitat for humanity raise money/supplies needed to build these homes so that you can volunteer?

Here is an excerpt from the Organe County Habitat for Humanity:

Habitat uses local government funds such as community development block grants to build infrastructure or buy land, but individuals, corporations and small businesses, foundations, and houses of worship, provide the majority of funds needed.

Please remember that we are all in this,,, doesn't matter if you have all the time in the world to volunteer to these organizations if the wealthy and the business dont provide the materials, then I don't suppose these organizations would exist?

ETA: you all are so hell bent on the Larger Corporations that you don't see that the driving force of the US economy comprise of small business owners who more than anything want certainty that america will sustain its economy and not more handouts.

I am very grateful for my rich small business owners that pays millions in taxes as well as donates millions of dollars as well and takes care of his employee well despite the ever growing tax burdens and health care reform (can he sustain this for longer... I sure hope so). He came back from WWII after serving his country with enough saved up to buy a small business, and since then has grown his empire. I am fortunate to have a job and am more than happy in making him more money as to provide possibly more jobs in the future for others with our company.

I had the opportunity to talk with a man who owned a business in Austrailia, but relocated (due to the stifling restrictions and economically challenging for him to ever grow) to the US as he says this is the greatest country in the world! for business opportunities and everyone has equal chances!

 

[partgypsy]

You are right. Your anecdotes trump any statistics out there about about income and charitable giving.

I'm equal-opportunity. I'm glad and thankful when anyone gives of themselves.

But I guess my snarkiness is that I'm tired of the trope that the very rich should be given a free pass because they give to charity. People give to charity because they want to, because they want to help and maybe it makes them feel better about themselves. Often their religion supports giving so it is both a personal and a peer positive event. It shouldn't be given as an excuse for encouraging income disparity or a substitute for government safety nets.
And in my personal experiences, which is limited of course, because I am just 1 person, I've been to soup kitchens and shelters. I've also been to benefits. In my personal experience, the distribution of who attends each is different. I do allow there is overlap.
To be honest, if I were rich maybe I wouldn't attend some of the grittier events, such as distributing clean needles, either.

 

[HollyS]

"I'm tired of the trope that the very rich should be given a free pass because they give to charity. People give to charity because they want to, because they want to help and maybe it makes them feel better about themselves. Often their religion supports giving so it is both a personal and a peer positive event. It shouldn't be given as an excuse for encouraging income disparity."



Perhaps, out of all the head spinningly silly things that I've seen posted on PS, the bolded phrases horrify me the most. (Emphasis mine.)

 

[D&T]

and the very rich don't get a free pass... If you like to look up Estate Tax please do., the government will tax you to death on this one!

 

[beebrisk]

You are right. Your anecdotes trump any statistics out there about about income and charitable giving.

I'm equal-opportunity. I'm glad and thankful when anyone gives of themselves.

But I guess my snarkiness is that I'm tired of the trope that the very rich should be given a free pass because they give to charity. People give to charity because they want to, because they want to help and maybe it makes them feel better about themselves. Often their religion supports giving so it is both a personal and a peer positive event. It shouldn't be given as an excuse for encouraging income disparity or a substitute for government safety nets.
And in my personal experiences, which is limited of course, because I am just 1 person, I've been to soup kitchens and shelters. I've also been to benefits. In my personal experience, the distribution of who attends each is different. I do allow there is overlap.
To be honest, if I were rich maybe I wouldn't attend some of the grittier events, such as distributing clean needles, either.

Just how are they given a "free pass"? If you are going to throw out a statement like that, how about backing it up? Free Pass? How? For what? Is there some sort of Free Pass Department that they've never told me about?

Working hard in school, getting a job, putting in lots of hard work and long hours is not a "free pass" in my book. Is being rewarded for a job well done what you object to? Ever turn down a performance-based raise?

And who are you or me to decide what's "enough" if employers wish to reward workers for meeting goals and contributing to the bottom line?? That money isn't coming out of your pocket or mine or anyone else's for that matter.

I can't speak for every rich person, that's for sure, but I can tell you my friends all came from decidedly middle-class homes. None were born with silver spoons in their mouth. They earned every penny they've made and they can do with it (and with their time) anything they please.

And what about "income disparity"?? Are you saying we should all earn the same thing regardless of our education, skills and efforts?? Government imposed salary caps on private enterprise is nothing more than tyranny. That's when the OWS crowd should start screaming "Fascism!". Alas, most don't understand the concept.

Safety net? I assume (but could be wrong) that you are talking about taxes? Put it this way, 10% of my friends' income paid in taxes is exponentially more than 25% of mine. (And needless to say they pay WAY more than 10% of their income in taxes).

 

[HollyS]

beebrisk, darling, you are beating a dead horse. It isn't worth the uptick in your blood pressure. Back away.

 

[partgypsy]

Maybe I need to be more specific. Beebrisk YOU are giving rich people a free pass, a very generous one. Here's a quote from you.

"Ironically however, they are huge benefactors--generous and charitable. In fact, do a little research on charitable fund raising in this country (and NYC to be specific) and you'll find the most charitable people are among the richest. Again, look at the history of some of the biggest charitable organizations, dedicated to helping the poor, the sick and the helpless. Check out their directors and patrons and you will find a very long list of names of people with very deep pockets and very caring hearts. I for one, am sick and tired of the rich being demonized and treated like pariahs."

When in fact if you break it down by income, rich people spend LESS money as a percentage of their income than people of exceedingly less to share (9K-30K income range).

You also pat them on their backs for - what - paying their taxes. Yippee! Aw Shucks just never mind me, you're right, I'm wrong, let's just keep things EXACTLY the way they are. I'm just part of the middle class so of course I don't know what I'm talking about.

 

[partgypsy]

Now If you really wanted me to be a meanie and pick on those poor rich people I can do better than that, here' s a joke.
Just substitute rich person for Lawyer.

The Lawyer's Charity
The Board of the prominent town charity had always hoped for a donation from the city's most successful lawyer. So when the charity's new Director was hired, she thought she would impress the Board by getting a big check out of him.


She made an appointment with the lawyer and visited him in his lavish office. She opened the meeting by saying, "Our research shows that even though your annual income is over two million dollars, you don't give a penny to charity. Wouldn't you like to give something back to your community through the town charity?"

The lawyer thinks for a minute and says, "First, did your research also show you that my mother is dying after a long, painful illness and she has huge medical bills that are far beyond her ability to pay?"

Embarrassed, the new Director mumbles, "Uh... no, I didn't know that."

"Secondly," says the lawyer, "my brother, a disabled veteran, is blind and confined to a wheelchair and is unable to support his wife and six children."

The stricken charity representative begins to stammer an apology, but is cut off again.

"Thirdly, did your research also show you that my sister's husband died in a dreadful car accident, leaving her penniless with a big mortgage and three children, one of whom is disabled, and another has learning disabilities requiring an array of private tutors?"

The humiliated Director, completely beaten, says, "I'm sorry, I had no idea."

"So," the lawyer concludes, "if I didn't give them any money, what makes you think I'd ever give any to you?"

 

[beebrisk]

beebrisk, darling, you are beating a dead horse. It isn't worth the uptick in your blood pressure. Back away.

**Please consider this your only warning. Be polite and no personal attacks. There is a difference between discussing political views and attacking people and their views. Stick with the former**

 

[partgypsy]

And so I offend everyone equally, here is a protester joke


Q: How many Columbia students does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: Seventy six-one to change the lightbulb, fifty to protest the lightbulb's right not to change and twenty five to hold a counter protest.
or should I say wink wink? I'm may be slow to be offended, but I'm not stupid "Maybe not a dead horse...a stupid horse."

I love when that happens because when people start calling me stupid I know they lost their argument.

 

[beebrisk]

Maybe I need to be more specific. Beebrisk YOU are giving rich people a free pass, a very generous one. Here's a quote from you.

"Ironically however, they are huge benefactors--generous and charitable. In fact, do a little research on charitable fund raising in this country (and NYC to be specific) and you'll find the most charitable people are among the richest. Again, look at the history of some of the biggest charitable organizations, dedicated to helping the poor, the sick and the helpless. Check out their directors and patrons and you will find a very long list of names of people with very deep pockets and very caring hearts. I for one, am sick and tired of the rich being demonized and treated like pariahs."

When in fact if you break it down by income, rich people spend LESS money as a percentage of their income than people of exceedingly less to share (9K-30K income range).

You also pat them on their backs for - what - paying their taxes. Yippee! Aw Shucks just never mind me, you're right, I'm wrong, let's just keep things EXACTLY the way they are. I'm just part of the middle class so of course I don't know what I'm talking about.

I give them no such thing, because again, I have no idea what you mean by a "free pass".
I just refuse to sit back and listen to the demonizing of a group of people simply because they are the "top earners". Jealous much?

As for spending LESS money as a percentage, here's a little math lesson: A millionaire gives 10% of his/her income and a person making 20k, or even 100k, gives 20%.. God bless the person who can't afford it. God bless the person it "hurts more". But now tell me who is giving more money? It would make perfect sense to me that more individuals in the 9-30K range give to charity, because, hellooo, there are MORE of them! Don't forget, the rich are the "1%"

And when did I pat them on their backs for paying taxes? I simply stated that they too pay their share and are ENTITLED to keep whatever the heck they want after that.

Frankly if I was a millionaire and read all the whining here about not being fair, not doing enough, not giving enough, not deserving of my wealth, and talked about like I was the lowest form of human life, I'd probably never give another dime. But that's just me and I'm selfish

 

[beebrisk]

And so I offend everyone equally, here is a protester joke


Q: How many Columbia students does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: Seventy six-one to change the lightbulb, fifty to protest the lightbulb's right not to change and twenty five to hold a counter protest.
or should I say wink wink? I'm may be slow to be offended, but I'm not stupid "Maybe not a dead horse...a stupid horse."

I love when that happens because when people start calling me stupid I know they lost their argument.

Wasn't directed toward you.

But I do believe anyone that supports the OWS "movement", believes that "the banks" are the enemy, that any "economic disparity" should and can be prevented in this country, that "taxing the rich" will make everything better and that Captialism is the problem and Socialism the answer, is...well, not smart. In fact, I do believe it's a stupid conclusion and based on stupid thought.

And that encompasses lots of people, and not just on the PS site. My opinion. As far as I know, I'm still entitled to that.

 

[Karl_K]

believes that "the banks" are the enemy,

That I agree with banks are an enemy!
They together with the wall street crooks tanked the entire economy for their personal gain.
Then get bailed out with my and every other American's money.
To this day the fed. a bank is printing money like there is no tomorrow which directly effects me in a negative way(every dollar I earn is worth less) and giving it away to their banker cronies.
How does that not make them an enemy?

 

[Ella]

Please remember that we still have a no political discussions policy. We are trying to give more leeway and test the waters to bringing politics back to ATW. But that will not occur if we believe that political discussions will dissolve into personal attacks.

Please remember to discuss political views it is not necessary to throw around personal attacks. This includes calling someone stupid, a pig, or any number of comments we have seen in this thread so far.

Stick to critiquing the politics not the people.