*Occupy Wall Street*

[Lula]

Holly, I am not going to parrot back anything. Our founding fathers said everything about protest that needs to be said. And there wasn't any bad consequence of allowing protest that's come out from the OWS movement that they didn't foresee and contemplate before taking a position on protests.

I would agree if this was an actual "protest". But it's not that. Not any longer, anyway. It's now grown into a cadre of low-lives, thieves, miscreants and instigators who have no actual gripe and are out to create a little havoc (or worse) because they have no value system and nothing better to do.

Yes, it's become violent. This is what happens when a culture loses its core values. It's now an "us against them" situation that's been fueled by the lack of compromise and tolerance that's pervasive across our culture.

Many years ago in the 1980s, when I was more conservative politically, I was complaining to a lawyer friend of mine about how I resented the amount of my tax money going to fund social programs to help poor people, who were just leeching off the rest of us. He wisely said, well, those same programs keep the poor from breaking into your house and rioting in the street. Hopelessness and desperation, and, yes, anger and resentment, fuel violence. You may be morally against social safety nets, and that's your right, but then don't be surprised if people get to the point where they just. don't. care. anymore.

Really? You admit it's violent and then justify it because, well, they're "angry"?

Personally, I don't think your friends comment was anywhere near "wise". I think it's foolhardy and naive. 50-something years of "programs" to help those in need and this is the direct result. A generation of entitled losers who have a gripe against something they have absolutely no experience with and can't even comprehend.

If anger and "desperation" (who knows how desperate these people really are. Most look able bodied and young and ripe for work) is a justification for violence, then all you have left is anarchy, which is now on display at a local park near you.

So....let them eat cake? That didn't end so well either.

 

[beebrisk]

Speaking of taxes, you may want to wait until after work to read this article so you can have a strong drink in hand: http://www.salon.com/2011/11/03/the_great_corporate_tax_scam/ The first few paragraphs:

"In 2010, Verizon reported an annual profit of nearly $12 billion. The statutory federal corporate income tax rate is 35 percent, so theoretically, Verizon should have owed the IRS around $4.2 billlion. Instead, according to figures compiled by the Center for Tax Justice, the company actually boasted a negative tax liability of $703 million. Verizon ended up making even more money after it calculated its taxes.

Verizon is hardly alone, and isn’t even close to being the worst offender. Perhaps most famously, General Electric raked in $10.5 billion in profit in 2010, yet ended up reporting $4.7 billion worth of negative taxes. The worst offender in 2010, as measured by its overall negative tax rate, was Pepco, the electricity utility that serves Washington, D.C. Pepco reported profits of $882 million in 2010, and negative taxes of $508 million — a negative tax rate of 57.6 percent.

Altogether, according to “Corporate Taxpayers & Corporate Tax Dodgers 2008-10,” a blockbuster new report put together by the Citizens for Tax Justice and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy that will have you reaching for your hypertension medicine before you finish reading the third page, 37 of the United States’ biggest corporations paid zero taxes in 2010. The list is a blue-chip roll-call.

As the authors acidly note, “Most Americans can rightfully complain, ‘I pay more federal income taxes than General Electric, Boeing, DuPont, Wells Fargo, Verizon, etc., etc., all put together.’ That’s an unacceptable situation.”

Thing, I need to grab the thermometer because I must be delirious from fever. I can actually feel your pain here!

But since I can't just let you get off that easy, let's remember who the chairman of GE is, how he (as a former outsourcing king) now has a shiny new presidential appointment as "Jobs Czar", thanks entirely to fund raising efforts on behalf of that other guy you love(d)? and many believed would usher in a better, brighter, more equitable world.

 

[beebrisk]

Holly, I am not going to parrot back anything. Our founding fathers said everything about protest that needs to be said. And there wasn't any bad consequence of allowing protest that's come out from the OWS movement that they didn't foresee and contemplate before taking a position on protests.

I would agree if this was an actual "protest". But it's not that. Not any longer, anyway. It's now grown into a cadre of low-lives, thieves, miscreants and instigators who have no actual gripe and are out to create a little havoc (or worse) because they have no value system and nothing better to do.

Yes, it's become violent. This is what happens when a culture loses its core values. It's now an "us against them" situation that's been fueled by the lack of compromise and tolerance that's pervasive across our culture.

Many years ago in the 1980s, when I was more conservative politically, I was complaining to a lawyer friend of mine about how I resented the amount of my tax money going to fund social programs to help poor people, who were just leeching off the rest of us. He wisely said, well, those same programs keep the poor from breaking into your house and rioting in the street. Hopelessness and desperation, and, yes, anger and resentment, fuel violence. You may be morally against social safety nets, and that's your right, but then don't be surprised if people get to the point where they just. don't. care. anymore.

Really? You admit it's violent and then justify it because, well, they're "angry"?

Personally, I don't think your friends comment was anywhere near "wise". I think it's foolhardy and naive. 50-something years of "programs" to help those in need and this is the direct result. A generation of entitled losers who have a gripe against something they have absolutely no experience with and can't even comprehend.

If anger and "desperation" (who knows how desperate these people really are. Most look able bodied and young and ripe for work) is a justification for violence, then all you have left is anarchy, which is now on display at a local park near you.

So....let them eat cake? That didn't end so well either.

Nope. Let them get a job and actually contribute to the society they demand so much from in return for....nothing.

 

[Lula]

Holly, I am not going to parrot back anything. Our founding fathers said everything about protest that needs to be said. And there wasn't any bad consequence of allowing protest that's come out from the OWS movement that they didn't foresee and contemplate before taking a position on protests.

I would agree if this was an actual "protest". But it's not that. Not any longer, anyway. It's now grown into a cadre of low-lives, thieves, miscreants and instigators who have no actual gripe and are out to create a little havoc (or worse) because they have no value system and nothing better to do.

Yes, it's become violent. This is what happens when a culture loses its core values. It's now an "us against them" situation that's been fueled by the lack of compromise and tolerance that's pervasive across our culture.

Many years ago in the 1980s, when I was more conservative politically, I was complaining to a lawyer friend of mine about how I resented the amount of my tax money going to fund social programs to help poor people, who were just leeching off the rest of us. He wisely said, well, those same programs keep the poor from breaking into your house and rioting in the street. Hopelessness and desperation, and, yes, anger and resentment, fuel violence. You may be morally against social safety nets, and that's your right, but then don't be surprised if people get to the point where they just. don't. care. anymore.

Really? You admit it's violent and then justify it because, well, they're "angry"?

Personally, I don't think your friends comment was anywhere near "wise". I think it's foolhardy and naive. 50-something years of "programs" to help those in need and this is the direct result. A generation of entitled losers who have a gripe against something they have absolutely no experience with and can't even comprehend.

If anger and "desperation" (who knows how desperate these people really are. Most look able bodied and young and ripe for work) is a justification for violence, then all you have left is anarchy, which is now on display at a local park near you.

So....let them eat cake? That didn't end so well either.

Nope. Let them get a job and actually contribute to the society they demand so much from in return for....nothing.

Have you not heard? Trickle-down economics has not trickled down any jobs. If the "job creators" had actually been creating jobs in this country that would support a family without said family having to rely on public benefits for health care (which is what Walmart, in several internal memos, suggested in defending their decision to keep wages low and not pay benefits), there might not be so much resentment from the ingrate class.

 

[ksinger]

21 jobs are not even a blip on the radar. They're not even the margin of error in the unemployment rate. Not to be insensitive to real people with real hardship, but YES focusing on that is a distraction.

I am conceding that the people on the street aren't the best representative of the people who want reform.

Yet it's okay that they cause what's not even a "blip on the radar" ?

It's an unfortunate consequence but we don't shut down everything in this country that has unfortunate consequences. If we did, birth control pills would have been pulled off the market the first time a woman had a stroke from using them.

As for political outrage, this is how political outrage works. I think Obama has done a pretty decent job. I think Bush's administration handled the crash & bail out brilliantly. I'm a card-carrying Republican and member of the Federalist Society. I'm also a former lobbyist who knows a little bit about the political process. Political pressure is best applied unambiguously. Protesting down in Washington and hollering at the federal government is not going to be nearly as effective as sending the message TO Washington FROM NYC. It's very specific: it's not about health care, or the deficit, or social security, or a million other political beefs people have. It is about the financial industry and the way policy treats it. It's the bad incentives Congress has created, it's about the coddling tax structure for investment banks, it's about traders knowing that Washington DC has their back so much that TODAY they trade mortgage-backed securities with the assumption of 0% default risk... because they know that if Freddie & Fannie go under, the government will see to it that Wall Street still gets paid.

Yeah, the other half and I discussed this yet again after this post. He was on your side of it, with me thinking perhaps facing DC might be more in order. But I begin to see the point (at this stage anyway) of addressing the puppetmasters rather than the puppets. The Great and Glorious Oz is always more flustered when the curtain is ripped back and people let him know they can see his real face, yes?

At some point though, I would think that this thing has got to tighten up and get highly political and organized, because undoing the policy damage created in the last 40 years or so, is going to take sustained effort over years, which is something these protests simply can't accomplish.

 

[movie zombie]

"Can we all agree that a $1 billion swindle represents a lot of money, and the fact that Citigroup agreed last week to pay a $285 million fine to settle SEC charges for "misleading investors" demonstrates a damning admission of culpability?

So why has Robert Rubin, the onetime treasury secretary who went on to become Citigroup chairman during the time of the corporation's financial shenanigans, never been held accountable for this and other deep damage done to the U.S. economy on his watch?"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-scheer/too-big-to-jail_b_1073083.html?ref=daily-brief?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=110311&utm_medium=email&utm_content=BlogEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief


its not just that the government has the back of these people, its that these people run and control the government for their own profit.

 

[beebrisk]

Holly, I am not going to parrot back anything. Our founding fathers said everything about protest that needs to be said. And there wasn't any bad consequence of allowing protest that's come out from the OWS movement that they didn't foresee and contemplate before taking a position on protests.

I would agree if this was an actual "protest". But it's not that. Not any longer, anyway. It's now grown into a cadre of low-lives, thieves, miscreants and instigators who have no actual gripe and are out to create a little havoc (or worse) because they have no value system and nothing better to do.

Yes, it's become violent. This is what happens when a culture loses its core values. It's now an "us against them" situation that's been fueled by the lack of compromise and tolerance that's pervasive across our culture.

Many years ago in the 1980s, when I was more conservative politically, I was complaining to a lawyer friend of mine about how I resented the amount of my tax money going to fund social programs to help poor people, who were just leeching off the rest of us. He wisely said, well, those same programs keep the poor from breaking into your house and rioting in the street. Hopelessness and desperation, and, yes, anger and resentment, fuel violence. You may be morally against social safety nets, and that's your right, but then don't be surprised if people get to the point where they just. don't. care. anymore.

Really? You admit it's violent and then justify it because, well, they're "angry"?

Personally, I don't think your friends comment was anywhere near "wise". I think it's foolhardy and naive. 50-something years of "programs" to help those in need and this is the direct result. A generation of entitled losers who have a gripe against something they have absolutely no experience with and can't even comprehend.

If anger and "desperation" (who knows how desperate these people really are. Most look able bodied and young and ripe for work) is a justification for violence, then all you have left is anarchy, which is now on display at a local park near you.

So....let them eat cake? That didn't end so well either.

Nope. Let them get a job and actually contribute to the society they demand so much from in return for....nothing.

Have you not heard? Trickle-down economics has not trickled down any jobs. If the "job creators" had actually been creating jobs in this country that would support a family without said family having to rely on public benefits for health care (which is what Walmart, in several internal memos, suggested in defending their decision to keep wages low and not pay benefits), there might not be so much resentment from the ingrate class.

Well, there are (will be) at least 21 jobs available at Milk Street Cafe ( 40 Wall St) once these ne-er-do-wells leave the confines and relative comfort (free food and more!) of Zuccoti Park. That is, if the owner of the business can hang on long enough to withstand the damage being done by "the angry".

And I beg to differ about jobs. While not plentiful, they are available. And it makes perfect sense for a "desperate" person to hang in the park, drinking and smoking (free) cigarettes (they are $14/pack in NYC) rather than actually looking for a job that may be beneath their perceived station in life.

 

[Lula]

"Can we all agree that a $1 billion swindle represents a lot of money, and the fact that Citigroup agreed last week to pay a $285 million fine to settle SEC charges for "misleading investors" demonstrates a damning admission of culpability?

So why has Robert Rubin, the onetime treasury secretary who went on to become Citigroup chairman during the time of the corporation's financial shenanigans, never been held accountable for this and other deep damage done to the U.S. economy on his watch?"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-scheer/too-big-to-jail_b_1073083.html?ref=daily-brief?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=110311&utm_medium=email&utm_content=BlogEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief


its not just that the government has the back of these people, its that these people run and control the government for their own profit.

Yes, this goes to the heart of it. And for beebrisk and the others on here who think you are "safe" because you have a well-paying job, you are not. Unless you are Robert Rubin, or one of his buddies, the global financial instability, along with the U.S. descent into a debtor nation with an ever-growing income gap between rich and poor, will affect you at some point. It might take a bit longer, that's all. But there are many people, and I am one of them, who see these sorts of issues as merely a symptom of the real problem -- and that is, we are headed for third world status. Again, unless you are one of the 1% who is able to move your money around the world to whatever safe haven is the flavor of the month -- the Swiss franc? the CAD? -- you will not come out of this mess ahead. Think your IRA and savings that you are so proud of are safe in an economic collapse?

Because I know how you love to poke fun at the links we socialists post, here are a few more about how our government, including the dude I voted for for president, are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Profile of a trader who made money betting against the bubble:
http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2010/04/wall-street-excerpt-201004

More proof, if you needed it, of why banks are not your friend:
http://www.portfolio.com/news-marke...olio/2008/11/11/The-End-of-Wall-Streets-Boom/

And, finally, a few good reads for those of you who may be starting to suspect that the U.S. is in danger of losing its first world status:
http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520261372
http://monthlyreview.org/2003/12/01/u-s-hegemony-continuing-decline-enduring-danger
ETA: Can't get the monthly review article to link; it's the second Du Boff article on this page http://monthlyreview.org/author/richardbduboff

 

[iheartscience]

Speaking of taxes, you may want to wait until after work to read this article so you can have a strong drink in hand: http://www.salon.com/2011/11/03/the_great_corporate_tax_scam/ The first few paragraphs:

"In 2010, Verizon reported an annual profit of nearly $12 billion. The statutory federal corporate income tax rate is 35 percent, so theoretically, Verizon should have owed the IRS around $4.2 billlion. Instead, according to figures compiled by the Center for Tax Justice, the company actually boasted a negative tax liability of $703 million. Verizon ended up making even more money after it calculated its taxes.

Verizon is hardly alone, and isn’t even close to being the worst offender. Perhaps most famously, General Electric raked in $10.5 billion in profit in 2010, yet ended up reporting $4.7 billion worth of negative taxes. The worst offender in 2010, as measured by its overall negative tax rate, was Pepco, the electricity utility that serves Washington, D.C. Pepco reported profits of $882 million in 2010, and negative taxes of $508 million — a negative tax rate of 57.6 percent.

Altogether, according to “Corporate Taxpayers & Corporate Tax Dodgers 2008-10,” a blockbuster new report put together by the Citizens for Tax Justice and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy that will have you reaching for your hypertension medicine before you finish reading the third page, 37 of the United States’ biggest corporations paid zero taxes in 2010. The list is a blue-chip roll-call.

As the authors acidly note, “Most Americans can rightfully complain, ‘I pay more federal income taxes than General Electric, Boeing, DuPont, Wells Fargo, Verizon, etc., etc., all put together.’ That’s an unacceptable situation.”

Thing, I need to grab the thermometer because I must be delirious from fever. I can actually feel your pain here!

But since I can't just let you get off that easy, let's remember who the chairman of GE is, how he (as a former outsourcing king) now has a shiny new presidential appointment as "Jobs Czar", thanks entirely to fund raising efforts on behalf of that other guy you love(d)? and many believed would usher in a better, brighter, more equitable world.

No idea what you're trying to say with your first line, but if your responses to me are going to include creepy emoticons, I'd like to go back to you ignoring me.

I absolutely think that the flow of corporate cash to all politicians is a problem. And that is one of the things the "doobie-smoking" OWS supporters and protesters have a problem with.

 

[beebrisk]

"Can we all agree that a $1 billion swindle represents a lot of money, and the fact that Citigroup agreed last week to pay a $285 million fine to settle SEC charges for "misleading investors" demonstrates a damning admission of culpability?

So why has Robert Rubin, the onetime treasury secretary who went on to become Citigroup chairman during the time of the corporation's financial shenanigans, never been held accountable for this and other deep damage done to the U.S. economy on his watch?"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-scheer/too-big-to-jail_b_1073083.html?ref=daily-brief?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=110311&utm_medium=email&utm_content=BlogEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief


its not just that the government has the back of these people, its that these people run and control the government for their own profit.

Yes, this goes to the heart of it. And for beebrisk and the others on here who think you are "safe" because you have a well-paying job, you are not. Unless you are Robert Reich, or one of his buddies, the global financial instability, along with the U.S. descent into a debtor nation with an ever-growing income gap between rich and poor, will affect you at some point. It might take a bit longer, that's all. But there are many people, and I am one of them, who see these sorts of issues as merely a symptom of the real problem -- and that is, we are headed for third world status. Again, unless you are one of the 1% who is able to move your money around the world to whatever safe haven is the flavor of the month -- the franc? the CAD? -- you will not come out of this mess ahead. Think your IRA and savings that you are so proud of is safe in an economic collapse?

Because I know how you love to poke fun at the links we socialists post, here are a few more about how our government, including the dude I voted for for president, are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Profile of a trader who made money betting against the bubble:
http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2010/04/wall-street-excerpt-201004

More proof, if you needed it, of why banks are not your friend:
http://www.portfolio.com/news-marke...olio/2008/11/11/The-End-of-Wall-Streets-Boom/

And, finally, a few good reads for those of you who may be starting to suspect that the U.S. is in danger of losing its first world status:
http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520261372
http://www.monthlyreview.org/2003/12/01/u-s-hegemony-continuing-decline-enduring-danger

When on earth did I ever express the notion that I think I am "safe" ? Really??

No. In fact the burden caused by the policies of the current administration including, but not limited to Obamacare, has made me very well aware of the fact that the business I love and rely on for my livelihood may very well end up in jeopardy in the not-too-distant future. (We aren't big enough, or influential enough to get a waiver from Pelosi).

I can tell you one thing though. If I lost my job tomorrow or next year, or the year after that, I wouldn't be hanging out in a park beating a drum.

 

[Lula]

"Can we all agree that a $1 billion swindle represents a lot of money, and the fact that Citigroup agreed last week to pay a $285 million fine to settle SEC charges for "misleading investors" demonstrates a damning admission of culpability?

So why has Robert Rubin, the onetime treasury secretary who went on to become Citigroup chairman during the time of the corporation's financial shenanigans, never been held accountable for this and other deep damage done to the U.S. economy on his watch?"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-scheer/too-big-to-jail_b_1073083.html?ref=daily-brief?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=110311&utm_medium=email&utm_content=BlogEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief


its not just that the government has the back of these people, its that these people run and control the government for their own profit.

Yes, this goes to the heart of it. And for beebrisk and the others on here who think you are "safe" because you have a well-paying job, you are not. Unless you are Robert Reich, or one of his buddies, the global financial instability, along with the U.S. descent into a debtor nation with an ever-growing income gap between rich and poor, will affect you at some point. It might take a bit longer, that's all. But there are many people, and I am one of them, who see these sorts of issues as merely a symptom of the real problem -- and that is, we are headed for third world status. Again, unless you are one of the 1% who is able to move your money around the world to whatever safe haven is the flavor of the month -- the franc? the CAD? -- you will not come out of this mess ahead. Think your IRA and savings that you are so proud of is safe in an economic collapse?

Because I know how you love to poke fun at the links we socialists post, here are a few more about how our government, including the dude I voted for for president, are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Profile of a trader who made money betting against the bubble:
http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2010/04/wall-street-excerpt-201004

More proof, if you needed it, of why banks are not your friend:
http://www.portfolio.com/news-marke...olio/2008/11/11/The-End-of-Wall-Streets-Boom/

And, finally, a few good reads for those of you who may be starting to suspect that the U.S. is in danger of losing its first world status:
http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520261372
http://www.monthlyreview.org/2003/12/01/u-s-hegemony-continuing-decline-enduring-danger

When on earth did I ever express the notion that I think I am "safe" ? Really??

No. In fact the burden caused by the policies of the current administration including, but not limited to Obamacare, has made me very well aware of the fact that the business I love and rely on for my livelihood may very well end up in jeopardy in the not-too-distant future. (We aren't big enough, or influential enough to get a waiver from Pelosi).

I can tell you one thing though. If I lost my job tomorrow or next year, or the year after that, I wouldn't be hanging out in a park beating a drum.

So how do you plan to protest when the hand of Adam Smith reaches out and slaps you and you lose your job? If not drums (hey, I've got no plans to join OWS either, and I don't own a drum). But we all need a plan. Because it's not going to end well for any of us, unless, like I said, you've got friends in the right places. So if you're not willing to protest the status quo in some way (drums optional), then you better have a financial survival plan. And Obamacare may be the only thing that keeps you from losing your feet to untreated diabetes, which is what happened to a formerly self-employed and under-insured friend of mine, who was solidly middle-class before the economy (and his industry) tanked in 2007-2008.

ETA: I think what bothers me the most about this discussion is the realization that most Americans stupidly think they have more in common with the top 1% (along with the adjoining myth that if you just work hard enough, you can become one of the 1%) than they do with the bottom 20%. That's the Koolaid that we're supposed to drink so we aren't tempted to look behind the curtain!

 

[beebrisk]

Speaking of taxes, you may want to wait until after work to read this article so you can have a strong drink in hand: http://www.salon.com/2011/11/03/the_great_corporate_tax_scam/ The first few paragraphs:

"In 2010, Verizon reported an annual profit of nearly $12 billion. The statutory federal corporate income tax rate is 35 percent, so theoretically, Verizon should have owed the IRS around $4.2 billlion. Instead, according to figures compiled by the Center for Tax Justice, the company actually boasted a negative tax liability of $703 million. Verizon ended up making even more money after it calculated its taxes.

Verizon is hardly alone, and isn’t even close to being the worst offender. Perhaps most famously, General Electric raked in $10.5 billion in profit in 2010, yet ended up reporting $4.7 billion worth of negative taxes. The worst offender in 2010, as measured by its overall negative tax rate, was Pepco, the electricity utility that serves Washington, D.C. Pepco reported profits of $882 million in 2010, and negative taxes of $508 million — a negative tax rate of 57.6 percent.

Altogether, according to “Corporate Taxpayers & Corporate Tax Dodgers 2008-10,” a blockbuster new report put together by the Citizens for Tax Justice and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy that will have you reaching for your hypertension medicine before you finish reading the third page, 37 of the United States’ biggest corporations paid zero taxes in 2010. The list is a blue-chip roll-call.

As the authors acidly note, “Most Americans can rightfully complain, ‘I pay more federal income taxes than General Electric, Boeing, DuPont, Wells Fargo, Verizon, etc., etc., all put together.’ That’s an unacceptable situation.”

Thing, I need to grab the thermometer because I must be delirious from fever. I can actually feel your pain here!

But since I can't just let you get off that easy, let's remember who the chairman of GE is, how he (as a former outsourcing king) now has a shiny new presidential appointment as "Jobs Czar", thanks entirely to fund raising efforts on behalf of that other guy you love(d)? and many believed would usher in a better, brighter, more equitable world.

No idea what you're trying to say with your first line, but if your responses to me are going to include creepy emoticons, I'd like to go back to you ignoring me.

I absolutely think that the flow of corporate cash to all politicians is a problem. And that is one of the things the "doobie-smoking" OWS supporters and protesters have a problem with.

I guess I was trying to say I (gulp!) agree with the sentiment you expressed here.

And, if that isn't enough, I completely agree with the corporate cash/political connection (Oh, dear...someone bring me the smelling salts!) Which is why I think DC should be the center of the "anger"...After all, they're big on the receiving end.

I'll conclude here with a few of my fave emoties (but only because it annoys you)

 

[0-0-0]

I think what bothers me the most about this discussion is the realization that most Americans stupidly think they have more in common with the top 1% (along with the adjoining myth that if you just work hard enough, you can become one of the 1%) than they do with the bottom 20%. That's the Koolaid that we're supposed to drink so we aren't tempted to look behind the curtain!

+1

And I'm still not sure if it's supposed to be ridiculously sad, or ridiculously funny.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-november-1-2011/men-of-a-certain-wage---money-talks

 

[MissStepcut]

Yeah, the other half and I discussed this yet again after this post. He was on your side of it, with me thinking perhaps facing DC might be more in order. But I begin to see the point (at this stage anyway) of addressing the puppetmasters rather than the puppets. The Great and Glorious Oz is always more flustered when the curtain is ripped back and people let him know they can see his real face, yes?

At some point though, I would think that this thing has got to tighten up and get highly political and organized, because undoing the policy damage created in the last 40 years or so, is going to take sustained effort over years, which is something these protests simply can't accomplish.

I agree that it needs to be brought to DC, but not through protests. As other people in this thread have pointed out, you bring about change in the government by voting in new leaders. Of course, if all the leaders we have to choose from are beholden to Wall Street, that's not very helpful. The tea party drummed up House candidates through protest, and OWS can too.

My biggest concern with protesting in DC is that the substantive message can more easily be muddled down there. Everyone has a bone to pick, and the more opportunities you give people to go off message, the more they will. (In fact I will go out on a limb and say that's part of the problem with the Oakland branch of OWS: they're not mad at Wall Street; they're just mad.) While it's DC's policy that needs to change, by protesting on Wall Street, you make it more difficult for other issues to misappropriate the movement.

 

[Dancing Fire]

[quote="Lula|1320344185|3053338
:ETA: I think what bothers me the most about this discussion is the realization that most Americans stupidly think they have more in common with the top 1% (along with the adjoining myth that if you just work hard enough, you can become one of the 1%) than they do with the bottom 20%. That's the Koolaid that we're supposed to drink so we aren't tempted to look behind the curtain![/quote]


well, one thing for sure...peeing in the park ain't gonna get you to that 1%...

 

[iheartscience]

Speaking of taxes, you may want to wait until after work to read this article so you can have a strong drink in hand: http://www.salon.com/2011/11/03/the_great_corporate_tax_scam/ The first few paragraphs:

"In 2010, Verizon reported an annual profit of nearly $12 billion. The statutory federal corporate income tax rate is 35 percent, so theoretically, Verizon should have owed the IRS around $4.2 billlion. Instead, according to figures compiled by the Center for Tax Justice, the company actually boasted a negative tax liability of $703 million. Verizon ended up making even more money after it calculated its taxes.

Verizon is hardly alone, and isn’t even close to being the worst offender. Perhaps most famously, General Electric raked in $10.5 billion in profit in 2010, yet ended up reporting $4.7 billion worth of negative taxes. The worst offender in 2010, as measured by its overall negative tax rate, was Pepco, the electricity utility that serves Washington, D.C. Pepco reported profits of $882 million in 2010, and negative taxes of $508 million — a negative tax rate of 57.6 percent.

Altogether, according to “Corporate Taxpayers & Corporate Tax Dodgers 2008-10,” a blockbuster new report put together by the Citizens for Tax Justice and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy that will have you reaching for your hypertension medicine before you finish reading the third page, 37 of the United States’ biggest corporations paid zero taxes in 2010. The list is a blue-chip roll-call.

As the authors acidly note, “Most Americans can rightfully complain, ‘I pay more federal income taxes than General Electric, Boeing, DuPont, Wells Fargo, Verizon, etc., etc., all put together.’ That’s an unacceptable situation.”

Thing, I need to grab the thermometer because I must be delirious from fever. I can actually feel your pain here!

But since I can't just let you get off that easy, let's remember who the chairman of GE is, how he (as a former outsourcing king) now has a shiny new presidential appointment as "Jobs Czar", thanks entirely to fund raising efforts on behalf of that other guy you love(d)? and many believed would usher in a better, brighter, more equitable world.

No idea what you're trying to say with your first line, but if your responses to me are going to include creepy emoticons, I'd like to go back to you ignoring me.

I absolutely think that the flow of corporate cash to all politicians is a problem. And that is one of the things the "doobie-smoking" OWS supporters and protesters have a problem with.

I guess I was trying to say I (gulp!) agree with the sentiment you expressed here.

And, if that isn't enough, I completely agree with the corporate cash/political connection (Oh, dear...someone bring me the smelling salts!) Which is why I think DC should be the center of the "anger"...After all, they're big on the receiving end.

I'll conclude here with a few of my fave emoties (but only because it annoys you)

So you're grabbing your drum and doobie, then? See you at Zuccotti Park!

 

[MissStepcut]

Here's a characterization of Zucotti Park that doesn't really square with any of those discussed ITT so far...

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/11/01/an-undercover-billionaire-visits-occupy-wall-street/

Here’s how [billionaire Jeff] Greene described the crowd:

“It looks like a street fair to me… People are buying cookies, musicians are singing, people are eating. I talk to people about what they are protesting, but they can’t say. If I had to guess, I’d say that 10% are protesters, 10% journalists, 10% musicians and 70% are tourists.”

 

[beebrisk]

So how do you plan to protest when the hand of Adam Smith reaches out and slaps you and you lose your job? If not drums (hey, I've got no plans to join OWS either, and I don't own a drum). But we all need a plan. Because it's not going to end well for any of us, unless, like I said, you've got friends in the right places. So if you're not willing to protest the status quo in some way (drums optional), then you better have a financial survival plan. And Obamacare may be the only thing that keeps you from losing your feet to untreated diabetes, which is what happened to a formerly self-employed and under-insured friend of mine, who was solidly middle-class before the economy (and his industry) tanked in 2007-2008.

And when thousands...perhaps a few million loose their jobs at the alter of Obamacare who then is going to PAY for it? The 1%?

Perhaps that's the plan, but then again, programs like Obamacare are designed specifically to eliminate the 1% (you know, redistribution and all..) Eventually, the well will run dry and even *they* will be up s--t's creek.

I believe it was Margaret Thatcher who said, "Socialism works until you run out of other people's money."

 

[beebrisk]

Speaking of taxes, you may want to wait until after work to read this article so you can have a strong drink in hand: http://www.salon.com/2011/11/03/the_great_corporate_tax_scam/ The first few paragraphs:

"In 2010, Verizon reported an annual profit of nearly $12 billion. The statutory federal corporate income tax rate is 35 percent, so theoretically, Verizon should have owed the IRS around $4.2 billlion. Instead, according to figures compiled by the Center for Tax Justice, the company actually boasted a negative tax liability of $703 million. Verizon ended up making even more money after it calculated its taxes.

Verizon is hardly alone, and isn’t even close to being the worst offender. Perhaps most famously, General Electric raked in $10.5 billion in profit in 2010, yet ended up reporting $4.7 billion worth of negative taxes. The worst offender in 2010, as measured by its overall negative tax rate, was Pepco, the electricity utility that serves Washington, D.C. Pepco reported profits of $882 million in 2010, and negative taxes of $508 million — a negative tax rate of 57.6 percent.

Altogether, according to “Corporate Taxpayers & Corporate Tax Dodgers 2008-10,” a blockbuster new report put together by the Citizens for Tax Justice and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy that will have you reaching for your hypertension medicine before you finish reading the third page, 37 of the United States’ biggest corporations paid zero taxes in 2010. The list is a blue-chip roll-call.

As the authors acidly note, “Most Americans can rightfully complain, ‘I pay more federal income taxes than General Electric, Boeing, DuPont, Wells Fargo, Verizon, etc., etc., all put together.’ That’s an unacceptable situation.”

Thing, I need to grab the thermometer because I must be delirious from fever. I can actually feel your pain here!

But since I can't just let you get off that easy, let's remember who the chairman of GE is, how he (as a former outsourcing king) now has a shiny new presidential appointment as "Jobs Czar", thanks entirely to fund raising efforts on behalf of that other guy you love(d)? and many believed would usher in a better, brighter, more equitable world.

No idea what you're trying to say with your first line, but if your responses to me are going to include creepy emoticons, I'd like to go back to you ignoring me.

I absolutely think that the flow of corporate cash to all politicians is a problem. And that is one of the things the "doobie-smoking" OWS supporters and protesters have a problem with.

I guess I was trying to say I (gulp!) agree with the sentiment you expressed here.

And, if that isn't enough, I completely agree with the corporate cash/political connection (Oh, dear...someone bring me the smelling salts!) Which is why I think DC should be the center of the "anger"...After all, they're big on the receiving end.

I'll conclude here with a few of my fave emoties (but only because it annoys you)

So you're grabbing your drum and doobie, then? See you at Zuccotti Park!

Pete Seeger and the Dead on my iPod, too!

 

[Lula]

So how do you plan to protest when the hand of Adam Smith reaches out and slaps you and you lose your job? If not drums (hey, I've got no plans to join OWS either, and I don't own a drum). But we all need a plan. Because it's not going to end well for any of us, unless, like I said, you've got friends in the right places. So if you're not willing to protest the status quo in some way (drums optional), then you better have a financial survival plan. And Obamacare may be the only thing that keeps you from losing your feet to untreated diabetes, which is what happened to a formerly self-employed and under-insured friend of mine, who was solidly middle-class before the economy (and his industry) tanked in 2007-2008.

And when thousands...perhaps a few million loose their jobs at the alter of Obamacare who then is going to PAY for it? The 1%?

Perhaps that's the plan, but then again, programs like Obamacare are designed specifically to eliminate the 1% (you know, redistribution and all..) Eventually, the well will run dry and even *they* will be up s--t's creek.

I believe it was Margaret Thatcher who said, "Socialism works until you run out of other people's money."

So, my friend, who worked for over 30 years, self-employed, a job creator, whose business was priced out of the private insurance market is what? Collateral damage of a broken private insurance system that cares only about profits? Obamacare (really, a better term would be Mitt-Romney-Care, since that's the system it was modeled after) will not eliminate the 1%. I'm afraid it will take more than that! In fact, removing employer-paid health care would make U.S. business more competitive. I'm suspicious that the reason more big businesses don't want to get out of the insurance-providing business is that it makes it more difficult for small businesses and startups to compete with the big guys. Stifling competition, you might say.

Employers providing health insurance is a relatively new phenomenon anyway -- since WWII, so it's hardly a longstanding tradition in this country. And one that's run its course in my opinion.

 

[beebrisk]

So how do you plan to protest when the hand of Adam Smith reaches out and slaps you and you lose your job? If not drums (hey, I've got no plans to join OWS either, and I don't own a drum). But we all need a plan. Because it's not going to end well for any of us, unless, like I said, you've got friends in the right places. So if you're not willing to protest the status quo in some way (drums optional), then you better have a financial survival plan. And Obamacare may be the only thing that keeps you from losing your feet to untreated diabetes, which is what happened to a formerly self-employed and under-insured friend of mine, who was solidly middle-class before the economy (and his industry) tanked in 2007-2008.

And when thousands...perhaps a few million loose their jobs at the alter of Obamacare who then is going to PAY for it? The 1%?

Perhaps that's the plan, but then again, programs like Obamacare are designed specifically to eliminate the 1% (you know, redistribution and all..) Eventually, the well will run dry and even *they* will be up s--t's creek.

I believe it was Margaret Thatcher who said, "Socialism works until you run out of other people's money."

So, my friend, who worked for over 30 years, self-employed, a job creator, whose business was priced out of the private insurance market is what? Collateral damage of a broken private insurance system that cares only about profits? Obamacare (really, a better term would be Mitt-Romney-Care, since that's the system it was modeled after) will not eliminate the 1%. I'm afraid it will take more than that! In fact, removing employer-paid health care would make U.S. business more competitive. I'm suspicious that the reason more big businesses don't want to get out of the insurance-providing business is that it makes it more difficult for small businesses and startups to compete with the big guys. Stifling competition, you might say.

Employers providing health insurance is a relatively new phenomenon anyway -- since WWII, so it's hardly a longstanding tradition in this country. And one that's run its course in my opinion.

Actually, allowing private insurance companies to compete across state lines will make the insurance industry more competitive-- thus driving prices down.

Whether or not insurance plans are administered by employers isn't the core of the problem. I agree it is perhaps an outdated model.

And FYI, my distate runs to Mitt Romney too as I have no use for him or his MA healthcare plan. I don't tow the party line.

 

[MissStepcut]

Actually, you can't accurately predict what would happen if you allowed private insurance across state lines. It's a heavily regulated industry with phenomenally high barriers to entry, which means simplistic economic modeling from our macro 101 classes aren't going to cut it when trying to predict what might happen.

 

[ksinger]

So how do you plan to protest when the hand of Adam Smith reaches out and slaps you and you lose your job? If not drums (hey, I've got no plans to join OWS either, and I don't own a drum). But we all need a plan. Because it's not going to end well for any of us, unless, like I said, you've got friends in the right places. So if you're not willing to protest the status quo in some way (drums optional), then you better have a financial survival plan. And Obamacare may be the only thing that keeps you from losing your feet to untreated diabetes, which is what happened to a formerly self-employed and under-insured friend of mine, who was solidly middle-class before the economy (and his industry) tanked in 2007-2008.

And when thousands...perhaps a few million loose their jobs at the alter of Obamacare who then is going to PAY for it? The 1%?

Perhaps that's the plan, but then again, programs like Obamacare are designed specifically to eliminate the 1% (you know, redistribution and all..) Eventually, the well will run dry and even *they* will be up s--t's creek.

I believe it was Margaret Thatcher who said, "Socialism works until you run out of other people's money."

So, my friend, who worked for over 30 years, self-employed, a job creator, whose business was priced out of the private insurance market is what? Collateral damage of a broken private insurance system that cares only about profits? Obamacare (really, a better term would be Mitt-Romney-Care, since that's the system it was modeled after) will not eliminate the 1%. I'm afraid it will take more than that! In fact, removing employer-paid health care would make U.S. business more competitive. I'm suspicious that the reason more big businesses don't want to get out of the insurance-providing business is that it makes it more difficult for small businesses and startups to compete with the big guys. Stifling competition, you might say.

Employers providing health insurance is a relatively new phenomenon anyway -- since WWII, so it's hardly a longstanding tradition in this country. And one that's run its course in my opinion.

NOTHING will eliminate the 1%. There will always be the richer and the poorer. It's how the world shakes out, and it's OK. The part that isn't OK, is the size of the gulf.

This little excerpt from an article I read illustrates it pretty well, (I was searching for info on Daimler's Chrysler buyout):

"in 1998, when Daimler-Benz took over Chrysler. It turned out that the number two executive at Chrysler received more in compensation during the prior year from his salary, bonus and stock options than the total compensation for that year of the top ten Daimler-Benz executives combined.

A difference in the nature of compensation in the United States versus Germany has magnified the disparity in the amounts that executives receive in the two countries. As illustrated by the package that Ovitz received from Disney, an increasing component of executive compensation in the United States comes from stock options and similar incentive pay. This reflects a variety of factors, including favorable tax treatment, accounting treatment, and the notion that such compensation better aligns the incentives for executives with the interests of the shareholders. German executives, by contrast, have received far less in variable or incentive oriented compensation. While bonuses for German executives based upon profits are common enough, stock options or similar schemes that reward executives based upon the performance of the company’s shares on the stock market traditionally have been uncommon."

Daimler of course, got the lay of the land - was pretty dismayed and bailed...flurry of stuff....ending with Fiat owning Chrysler currently. Still, Daimler-Benz with it's supposedly anemic executive salaries, is still standing on its own two feet - probably because their executives didn't become "irrationally exuberant" at the seductive prospect of making 500 times the salary of the average employee. Chrysler meanwhile is...what? A failure by pretty much any standard.

As in the previous article I posted, yet another author is pointing out the that the incentive structure for executive pay is counterproductive to the long-term good of the company, the employees, and ultimately the greater economy.

" Allowing corporate executives to be compensated with stock options is one such case; stock-option compensation tends to bend incentives toward the short-term maximization of share prices rather than planning for long-term growth. Consequently, such compensation has allowed top managers to capture jaw-dropping gains despite their companies' often dismal performances. The long-term cost of corporate failure is borne not by CEOs and their executive minions, of course, but by rank-and-file employees, who get laid off when companies need to cut costs and whose pension investments are wiped out when companies' stocks sink."

And this sort of stuff is stuff that we should change and CAN change. How we ALLOW corporations to pay executives is just that - something we ALLOW. Or not. It's not an attempt to get rid of rich people, it's the acknowledgment that without some sort of brake on the system, we're going to reach a rigid class system (we're almost there now) that can't be traversed anymore.

 

[beebrisk]

So how do you plan to protest when the hand of Adam Smith reaches out and slaps you and you lose your job? If not drums (hey, I've got no plans to join OWS either, and I don't own a drum). But we all need a plan. Because it's not going to end well for any of us, unless, like I said, you've got friends in the right places. So if you're not willing to protest the status quo in some way (drums optional), then you better have a financial survival plan. And Obamacare may be the only thing that keeps you from losing your feet to untreated diabetes, which is what happened to a formerly self-employed and under-insured friend of mine, who was solidly middle-class before the economy (and his industry) tanked in 2007-2008.

And when thousands...perhaps a few million loose their jobs at the alter of Obamacare who then is going to PAY for it? The 1%?

Perhaps that's the plan, but then again, programs like Obamacare are designed specifically to eliminate the 1% (you know, redistribution and all..) Eventually, the well will run dry and even *they* will be up s--t's creek.

I believe it was Margaret Thatcher who said, "Socialism works until you run out of other people's money."

So, my friend, who worked for over 30 years, self-employed, a job creator, whose business was priced out of the private insurance market is what? Collateral damage of a broken private insurance system that cares only about profits? Obamacare (really, a better term would be Mitt-Romney-Care, since that's the system it was modeled after) will not eliminate the 1%. I'm afraid it will take more than that! In fact, removing employer-paid health care would make U.S. business more competitive. I'm suspicious that the reason more big businesses don't want to get out of the insurance-providing business is that it makes it more difficult for small businesses and startups to compete with the big guys. Stifling competition, you might say.

Employers providing health insurance is a relatively new phenomenon anyway -- since WWII, so it's hardly a longstanding tradition in this country. And one that's run its course in my opinion.

NOTHING will eliminate the 1%. There will always be the richer and the poorer. It's how the world shakes out, and it's OK. The part that isn't OK, is the size of the gulf.

This little excerpt from an article I read illustrates it pretty well, (I was searching for info on Daimler's Chrysler buyout):

"in 1998, when Daimler-Benz took over Chrysler. It turned out that the number two executive at Chrysler received more in compensation during the prior year from his salary, bonus and stock options than the total compensation for that year of the top ten Daimler-Benz executives combined.

A difference in the nature of compensation in the United States versus Germany has magnified the disparity in the amounts that executives receive in the two countries. As illustrated by the package that Ovitz received from Disney, an increasing component of executive compensation in the United States comes from stock options and similar incentive pay. This reflects a variety of factors, including favorable tax treatment, accounting treatment, and the notion that such compensation better aligns the incentives for executives with the interests of the shareholders. German executives, by contrast, have received far less in variable or incentive oriented compensation. While bonuses for German executives based upon profits are common enough, stock options or similar schemes that reward executives based upon the performance of the company’s shares on the stock market traditionally have been uncommon."

Daimler of course, got the lay of the land - was pretty dismayed and bailed...flurry of stuff....ending with Fiat owning Chrysler currently. Still, Daimler-Benz with it's supposedly anemic executive salaries, is still standing on its own two feet - probably because their executives didn't become "irrationally exuberant" at the seductive prospect of making 500 times the salary of the average employee. Chrysler meanwhile is...what? A failure by pretty much any standard.

As in the previous article I posted, yet another author is pointing out the that the incentive structure for executive pay is counterproductive to the long-term good of the company, the employees, and ultimately the greater economy.

" Allowing corporate executives to be compensated with stock options is one such case; stock-option compensation tends to bend incentives toward the short-term maximization of share prices rather than planning for long-term growth. Consequently, such compensation has allowed top managers to capture jaw-dropping gains despite their companies' often dismal performances. The long-term cost of corporate failure is borne not by CEOs and their executive minions, of course, but by rank-and-file employees, who get laid off when companies need to cut costs and whose pension investments are wiped out when companies' stocks sink."

And this sort of stuff is stuff that we should change and CAN change. How we ALLOW corporations to pay executives is just that - something we ALLOW. Or not. It's not an attempt to get rid of rich people, it's the acknowledgment that without some sort of brake on the system, we're going to reach a rigid class system (we're almost there now) that can't be traversed anymore.

Are you suggesting that the Federal government regulate salaries and remove that responsibility from share holders and directors?
And what happens when the government decides how YOU should be paid? Perhaps how often you should be entitled to performance based raises or even cost of living increases?

And do you trust the Feds to do a better job in that capacity in light of the recent approval of enormous bonuses for the Fannie and Freddie guys?

I would concede that any corporation receiving bail out funds should be regulated in this way, but then again, I'm against the bail outs in the first place.

 

[Karl_K]

I am really bothered by some of what I am reading here and in the news.
It is a fundamental right of every American to peacefully assemble and protest.
Even if I don't agree with everything they stand for they have the right to do so.
When the line is crossed into senseless violence that is another matter however I feel in some cases the police are pushing them into it.

As far as voting goes it is a good idea, get candidates you agree with to run and vote for them.
That happens in the house.
However it is far less common in the the senate and impossible for President, they can not run without being owned by wall street and big business because of how much money they have to raise.
Even in the house many are quickly corrupted by the system so the only way to do it is constantly find new candidates and kick out the old. The entire system however is stacked against that happening.

 

[MissStepcut]

Are you suggesting that the Federal government regulate salaries and remove that responsibility from share holders and directors?
And what happens when the government decides how YOU should be paid? Perhaps how often you should be entitled to performance based raises or even cost of living increases?

And do you trust the Feds to do a better job in that capacity in light of the recent approval of enormous bonuses for the Fannie and Freddie guys?

I would concede that any corporation receiving bail out funds should be regulated in this way, but then again, I'm against the bail outs in the first place.

Beebrisk it's a common myth that shareholders are in charge of their corporations. It's not true in the least, as the Goldman Sachs case I already posted about would tell you, or a famous Disney case about executive pay. I am not at all suggesting that the federal gov't should be allowed to reign in executives. I am suggesting the federal government should pass laws that restore that right to shareholders.

 

[movie zombie]

[quote="Lula|1320376649|3053660. I'm suspicious that the reason more big businesses don't want to get out of the insurance-providing business is that it makes it more difficult for small businesses and startups to compete with the big guys. Stifling competition, you might say..[/quote]

catherine austin fitts has talked about this: one set of "regulations" for the big guys and REGULATIONS for small businesses and the rest of us that strangle. the big guys don't have to jump through the same regulatory hoops and/or think they're above it all and just break the law. the rest of us including small business owners get strangled by the regulations. and when the public becomes fed up with things and call for more regulations, the big businesses make sure those regulations don't apply to them.

i highly recommend listening to this woman. the inner workings of government is to line the pockets of one's friends......she was actually told this when she was in HUD.

 

[HollyS]

"Officials with the revamped ACORN office in New York -- operating as New York Communities for Change -- have fired staff, shredded reams of documents and told workers to blame disgruntled ex-employees for leaking information in an effort to explain away the group’s involvement in Occupy Wall Street protests."






Gee, what a surprise. Personally, I'm flumoxed and flabbergasted. Shocked, I tell you. Just shocked.

Oh, kids. It is organized. Just by the wrong people, for the wrong reasons. Do you really need to be hit over the head to understand?

 

[iheartscience]

"Officials with the revamped ACORN office in New York -- operating as New York Communities for Change -- have fired staff, shredded reams of documents and told workers to blame disgruntled ex-employees for leaking information in an effort to explain away the group’s involvement in Occupy Wall Street protests."






Gee, what a surprise. Personally, I'm flumoxed and flabbergasted. Shocked, I tell you. Just shocked.

Oh, kids. It is organized. Just by the wrong people, for the wrong reasons. Do you really need to be hit over the head to understand?

1. Your source isn't exactly unbiased.
2. Adbusters was actually the impetus behind the OWS movement.
3. Even if this were true (and I highly doubt it is), who cares? Fox News organized the Tea Party protests. It's not as if movements spring up magically without anyone organizing them.

 

[UnluckyTwin]

Oy. I'm going to have to stop reading this thread. If the people who are opposed to OWS can't even get one simple thing right, I have no hope that they'll ever reasonably understand the social, economic, and political issues involved. What is the one simple thing? THAT WE ARE NOT ALL JOBLESS, DRUM-BANGING, POT-SMOKING HIPPIES VANDALIZING AND DEFECATING IN PUBLIC WHILE LOOKING FOR A HANDOUT BECAUSE WE DON'T WORK OR PAY TAXES. No matter how much information there is in this thread, in the news, or online that MOST of us are employed and pay taxes (and heck, some of us are on your diamond forums and until now you considered us smart and "normal" people like you!), you people just refuse to listen. If I can't expect you to be open-minded enough to stop stereotyping and start opening your mind to little tiny pieces of factual information, I have no hope for you. When you actually are open to a good-faith conversation (Read: willing to admit you are wrong about something), I'll be back. I hope others will take the same step I am taking in refusing to continue engaging with people who are mean-spirited and refuse to budge on any little issue despite evidence to the contrary. Trying to argue with people who won't reason is like trying to administer medicine to dead people.