"This Is News from WORLD Magazine": Afghan war end date set, NAACP comes out for gay marriage - black pastors push back 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Occupy movement reaches critical stage
The Occupy Wall Street movement, after accumulating glowing press portrayals in September and October, has hit a wall and is desperately trying Thursday to break through. New York police arrested some 200 protesters on Tuesday and are likely to arrest more Thursday unless OWS stands down.
Across the nation, stories of killings and sexual assaults have arisen from protest camps in Dallas; Oakland, Calif.; Burlington, Vt.; and other cities. Police have arrested protesters or closed camp sites in Ohio, Oklahoma, Utah, Oregon, Texas, Florida, and California. Kalle Lasn, co-founder of Adbusters, the Canadian magazine that issued the initial call to occupy, acknowledged that “somehow we lost the high ground, we lost the narrative.” … MORE >>
back to top146 Comments to “Occupy movement reaches critical stage”
“post liberal” Now that’s an interesting concept. Does that mean they want a shortcut to change? Not all that hard work that a representative republic demands? Sorry. There’s no app for that.
Report comment to moderator
School tuition continues to sky rocket. And it will continue doing so so long as the govt lets kids take out exorbitant loans to pay for the over inflated tuition they hafta pay in order to get relatively worthless degrees. And how many private or public colleges account for what necessitates tuition hikes?
And the worthless degrees offer no hiring advantage in the post academic world. Outside a few academic majors that prepare students for things like medical lab technologist or registered nurse, you can get better preparation for the real world of work which lies ahead by watching “Dirty Jobs” with Mike Rowe.
It’s all Bush’s fault you know
Report comment to moderator
Post-liberal? Not another batch of neoConservatives!
Report comment to moderator
OWS has no real vision. Without a vision the people perish.
Report comment to moderator
Listening to the news while driving home just now, I thought the same thing as the headline. And I think we should be praying.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t recall WorldMag instructing the tea bag people to destroy a piece of their hearts in order to receive larger hearts. Maybe it’s because not enough of them were under 30 to give such an operation much chance of success.
And who is Olasky anyway to be telling people they have small hearts? All Evangelical argument boils down to ad hominem.
OWS is going to suffer many more PR problems on account of attracting people who live under bridges and young men from neighborhoods where they shoot each other. OWS will not be attracting the Koch brothers. So be it.
We have structural problems that only government can ameliorate.
If this is true, OWS may succeed. If this is false, PR problems don’t matter.
Report comment to moderator
Across the nation, stories of killings and sexual assaults have arisen from protest camps in Dallas; Oakland, Calif.; Burlington, Vt.; and other cities.
–
Should this shock anyone. This is the different between the far left meetings and protesting and the Tea Party…
Report comment to moderator
If this is true, OWS may succeed. If this is false, PR problems don’t matter.
Or…we may find out how close we really are to Syria.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop,
What do you think of the A. Sols quote (I chickened out on the spelling). And what do you see as the vision of OWS?
Report comment to moderator
I love Marvin Olasky. As he points out, this is a mission field – sheep without shepherds. They’re so caught up in rhetoric they’ve heard, they’re silly. As have we all been. Our battle is not against flesh and blood but the principalities that are trying to bring anything they can to a boil. Jesus defeated the principalities – He died for the people. He left it to us to establish HIS kingdom, the only true salvation for each man, woman and child. May we have the energy, passion and time these people have committed, to Occupy Earth with His Kingdom, by His grace.
Report comment to moderator
“Or…we may find out how close we really are to Syria.”
As close as “You may protest all you want for whatever you like, but you can’t steal other people’s property and endanger their safety to do it” is to gunning people down in the street.
That close.
Report comment to moderator
One of the few really searing political memories I have is enjoying the warm sunshine on a campus lawn in front of the admin building and learning, with disbelief in my heart, about Kent State.
Report comment to moderator
One of these days, Pentamom, one of your kids could be out there.
Democracy is messy and tolerance is vital.
Report comment to moderator
We know what the Syrians want. We don’t know what the OWSers want.
Report comment to moderator
There’s still an opportunity here for biblical evangelicals to minister, and go far beyond the kissing up to Occupy Wall Street that some leftist evangelicals have practiced.
—
The problem is those leftist evangelicals do not believe in GOd’s WOrd an are unable to reach these people for Christ. Those who believe in God’s Word will try to reach these lost souls, but these people are reject God’s Word to embarce false teaching.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t get the constant comparison of OWS to the tea party rallies/protests. The tea party didn’t congregate expressly to annoy other people with their presence. They were seeking each other out for information and support of certain issues. OWS are seeking each other out to intimidate decision makers into changing??? To be a foreboding presence? To share someone’s stash?
Report comment to moderator
Or…we may find out how close we really are to Syria.
—
NO it is going to show how close we are of dealing with a hamas type of group.. That resorts to attacking and killing people to get what they want.
Report comment to moderator
To compare OWS to the Arab Spring is insulting to all oppressed peoples in the Middle East and North Africa.
Report comment to moderator
– sheep without shepherds
—
clayvessel I believe they have shepherds, which are directing their steps to do more attacks and other evil things… While declaring them selves to be peaceful.
Report comment to moderator
PR, Syrians protesting for freedom should not be compared to fundamentalists. Two very different visions.
Report comment to moderator
One hesitates to leap into hasty generalizations, but here I go:
There have been numerous descriptions, comparison/contrasts with the TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY party folks and the Occupiers.
The TEA folks didnt move in and colonize any area. They came they saw they protested and then went home. TEA folks I believe have jobs and families they’re accountable to. Many TEA folks actually operate businesses!
I heard no reports of sexual assaults or other crimes at any TEA gathering. Many reasons come to mind for this. I think on avg the Occupier men are probably quite selfish and distinctly unchivalrous toward women as feminist endoctrination has made them to be after living the bulk of their lives in a profeminist milieu. Such dudes are likely to pull a McQueary at the sight of anyone being violated. Can’t be judgmental, mustn’t get involved etc.
The TEA guys and gals are a different kettle of fish. I’d imagine more TEA ladies have concealed carry permits than do the Occupier gals. The TEA ladies have probably even been to a pistol range moreso than the Occupier gals. And I just can’t see a TEA man ignoring anyone’s call for help if it was within earshot and he had the hearing aide turned up all the way!
Report comment to moderator
20: In support of that fact – the protestors in Syria are mainly Sunni, protesting a Shiite government. Iran’s government is Shiite – so the Syrian protestors have no connection.
Report comment to moderator
I wonder if anyone is doing ministry to the Occupiers? They seem quite confused about much of life and I doubt any truly have experienced Jesus as Lord and Savior.
Report comment to moderator
22
It is so sad how religion affects politics in the Arab countries. That American idea about religion being a private and personal thing? Sure wish that would catch on in the MidEast.
Report comment to moderator
23: I read about one small ministry, but nothing other than that. I hope and pray there was more.
Report comment to moderator
We know what the Syrians want. We don’t know what the OWSers want.
–
adios – we do know what they want.. They want free hands outs, they want the American People to pay for their education, they want to destroy this nation and what we have stood for all these years.. They want a Cuba / China type of government.
Report comment to moderator
adios –
Egypt protesters were backed by the Muslim Brotherhood, who are backed by Iran and Hamas..
Libya Rebels were were backed by the Muslim Brotherhood, who are backed by Iran and Hamas..
We do not know who are the backers of the Syrians yet.
Report comment to moderator
The size of the US economy has doubled since 1980, but wages have been stagnant during that time. The gains have gone to the people at the very top.
Large corporations commonly lay off their employees claiming a need to cut costs, and then pay their top executives millions of dollars or even tens of millions in salary and bonuses.
The list goes on. And we have been trying for decades to use the democratic process, and information and persuasion to change that state of affairs, to no avail.
So now, people are frustrated and taking their frustration to the streets as Wall Street just becomes more and more arrogant about its sense of entitlement to siphon all the wealth into its own pockets. They’ve used their power to lower their own tax rates, meaning that the revenue coming in has dropped and now we’re having to fund the government at a deficit and cut services (while the toadies of power in Congress blame it on Social Security and NPR’s budget.)
The rising of OWS was predictable and justified, and rather than snarkily dismissing them as you do, you would be better served to spending some time thinking about why you think it’s ok that economic gains all go to the already rich and not to the people whose labor makes them possible.
Report comment to moderator
ADIOS – I don’t know “A Sols” or the quote you refer to.
It took decades for the American right to put a vision into focus (”government is the problem”) and finally connect that vision with political action to drive the government into default. I don’t think it will take Occupy that long. The process is just beginning. This is not a “critical stage” , it’s the start of an enduring movement.
I don’t think progressives/social democrats/leftist anarchists are that much into scapegoating our national troubles, beyond figurative references to fat cats and lobbyists, etc. We tend to blame public problems on public systems, not individuals. We do have faults and errors in our habits of soul, but scapegoating is not the characteristic vice of liberals. Social conservatives, on the other hand, do a lot of it (illegal aliens, islamofascists, welfare queens, surgeons, the jobless, mortgage defaulters, homeless, etc. etc. etc.). Social conservatives are the great exponents of the doctrine that personal responsibility and religious salvation correct all troubles. (If it were only that simple!)
Olasky is smart enough to know better, so when he accuses liberals of simply conducting hunts for evil individuals he’s either projecting or lying, or a little of both.
The vision of OWS is that “Plutonomy is the problem, government is the solution.”
Social conservatives will argue freedom. They will accuse OWS of “communism.” I believe the challenge of social democrats will be to persuade the 99% that they are free to chose not to continue to support plutonomy. Beyond that, I’d like to see the OWS movement persuade Amercians that our economy doesn’t suffer from a lack of freedom so much as a deficiency of fraternity. The labor union movement has valuable contributions to make. Lastly, we do need more freedom where freedom is most relevant — in our spiritual and cultural endeavors.
Report comment to moderator
The rising of OWS was predictable and justified, and rather than snarkily dismissing them as you do, you would be better served to spending some time thinking about why you think it’s ok that economic gains all go to the already rich and not to the people whose labor makes them possible.
–
OWS is the result of Mr. Obama and the Dem Party promoting class warfare. The OWS is the result of anti-american groups desire to destroy this nation.
Report comment to moderator
The size of the US economy has doubled since 1980, but wages have been stagnant during that time. The gains have gone to the people at the very top.
—
The Dem PArty have pushed higher tax’s which effect people pay checks and which stagnant wages.. They have pushed for high cost at the gas pump, which effect people pay checks and which stagnant wages..
It is big government programs that are taking people’s money that have stagnant wages.
Report comment to moderator
Here is what is causing stagnant wages.
You get .30 to .50 cent raise. But the Power Companies in order to meet MR. Obama enviromental rules must raise rates $8.00 more a month, water companies must raise their rates $5.00 more a month. Meanwhile the Dem Control States must raise tax’s to cover same sex benfits and other far left special interst programs.
Health Companies must raise their rates to cover the force coverages that the Dem Control States are demanding them to cover… That is not even address the cost of gas, which effects the cost of food.
Report comment to moderator
It is not big corp that is killing the wages but our of control spending by power hungry people like Mr. Obama and the fail leadership of the Dem Party at the Federal Level, State Level and City Levels.
Report comment to moderator
CONANTHLIBRARIAN wrote; “The size of the US economy has doubled since 1980, but wages have been stagnant during that time. The gains have gone to the people at the very top.”
When the size of the economy grows (thanks mostly to Reagan), gains go to people at the top, the middle and the bottom and that is just what haapened. During Reagan’s administration, African-Americans in particular made unprecidented gains. The size of the economy can grow and still not necessarily translate into significantly higher wages (that would add to inflation) but it can expand the work force and increase opportunity.
Large corporations (over 100 employees) employ 75 percent of the Ameican private sector (without which there could not even be a public sector). I am grateful.
Report comment to moderator
Our culture is fast losing its work ethic and replacing it with an entitlement (I deserve it) mentalisty. That is what is hurting us most.
Report comment to moderator
BIG education (from public elementary schools to public universities and higher education) is the most dangerously greedy and selfish sector in our time. Their costs and incomes and benefits have outpaced inflation rates over the last two decades in far excess of any other sector of work or service including big corporations. BIG education has been providing less and charging far far more for 2 or 3 decades now. There is perhaps no more greedy racket in the world. This greed along with government greed (often the same thing) is killing America. Some corporations are greedy too, but they are not being so with tax-payer funds–unless politicians apply cronie capitalism and opportunism to them for political gain which is also rampant.
Report comment to moderator
Here’s one of those directionless, misguided young people involved in the OWS protests: Retired Philadelphia Police Capt. Ray Lewis.
http://www.pixiq.com/article/retired-philly-cop-joins-occupy-wall-street-criticizes-nypd
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark: When the size of the economy grows (thanks mostly to Reagan), gains go to people at the top, the middle and the bottom and that is just what haapened.
Nope. That’s a lie that you’ve been fed and believed.
What happened in reality is:
Source: http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/feb2010/pi2010025_902249.htm
Report comment to moderator
Joel – what is happen is these out touch OWS desire to have the Government taken over and do the business of Corp… Which is what happen in Cuba, China and other anti-american nations.
These OWS people will turn more viloent as the months drag on.
Report comment to moderator
Also from that same article:
That’s 0.1 percent, Joel Mark. 1/10th of one percent for the ordinary working joe.
How much did executive compensation rise by in that same period? Among companies on the S&P 500, average compensation for the top 5 executives in each firm rose from $9.5 million in 1993 to $36.6 million in 2000 … nearly four-fold. That had dropped to $21.4 million by 2003, but that’s still more than double the 1993 figures.
Source: http://elsmar.com/pdf_files/Growth%20of%20Executive%20Pay.pdf
So ordinary worker pay rises by 1/10th of a percent while executive pay more than doubles, and you think that’s a good situation?
Report comment to moderator
#6 Scroop Moth
“I don’t recall WorldMag instructing the tea bag people…”
This is the same thing that the teachers union, UTLA, did that I always found objectionable, name calling. I don’t want to be part of a group that calls names.
Report comment to moderator
#6 Scroop Moth
“We have structural problems that only government can ameliorate.”
Suicide? You want the government to get rid of it’s self? Welcome to the Tea Party!
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner: I wonder if anyone is doing ministry to the Occupiers?
I nominate Pastor Roy.
Report comment to moderator
The growth of the economy benefitted a wide spectrum of Americans, from bottom to top in various ways and to various degrees. A rising tides lifts all the boats.
This is the truth that leftists cannot bear to admit because it undermines their fear-mongering and illegitimate class envy and class warefare rhetoric.
Report comment to moderator
Americans are entitled to their freedom to use their government to promote the general welfare.
Report comment to moderator
For example, here’s how African-Americans fared under the growth in the economy we enjoyed during the Reagan administration and beyond:
* From the end of 1982 to 1989, black unemployment dropped 9 percentage points (from 20.4 percent to 11.4 percent), while white unemployment dropped by only 4 percentage points.
* Black household income went up 84 percent from 1980 to 1990, versus a white household income increase of 68 percent.
* The number of black-owned businesses increased from 308,000 in 1982 to 424,000 in 1987, a 38 percent rise versus a 14 percent increase in the total number of firms in the United States.
* Receipts by black-owned firms more than doubled, from $9.6 billion to $19.8 billion.
A growing economy helped a lot of people as all levels. The rich got richer and the poor got richer. This is why overall economic quality of life factors including health and lifestyle factors have improved for all over the last century. Expanding prosperity generally touches us all.
Report comment to moderator
” All Evangelical argument boils down to ad hominem.”
Your statement contradicts itself- thus proving it is false. Wanna try a little harder?
Gotta love it– using ad hominem to disprove ad hominem.
WE have to do much better on this blog, and call out ststements that contradict themselves.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark: The facts show that, adjusted for inflation, the salaries of most ordinary workers increased by less than 1 percent over a ten year span, while the compensation of top executives more than doubled.
You give me, in #46, a list of unsourced assertions that, if true, only show that blacks improved their situations better than whites during the 1980s (your stats apparently end in 1990, so what about the most recent 21 years?)
Nothing that you say here challenges my information, and you’ve yet to explain why you think it’s ok that people working hard to make their companies succeed should be content with stagnant wages, while the people at the top enjoy robust growth.
Report comment to moderator
What has stood in the way of real gains and has caused income losses for many (rich and middle class and poor alike) over the last decade is irresponsible gov’t spending and huge deficits and debts building up to the point of terrifying job-creators and invsters. Plus, the housing bubble (blown up by irresponsible policies) burst took everyone down, including all levels.
CONANTHELIBRARIAN, you cannot honestly separate the impact of the economy from particular groups for partisan talking points. And statistics can be selectively abused in all direction by all sides. But the principle remains that a rising boat tends to lift all the boats and a falling tide tends to lower us all. There will always be exceptions and disparities, especially under socialism where disparities are opposed in rhetoric but enhanced action. There will always be the rich and the poor and the middle class and corruption will cause inequities and injustice (especially under socialist policies that ignore gov’t corruption).
Report comment to moderator
Even CONANTHELIBRARIAN admits that salaries (adjusted to inflation) at the lower end have increased. The percentages of wage increases cannot be controlled by the gov’t unless we give them the power to pick winners and losers and turn our backs on the same free market that gave us the growth in the first place.
And if wages have not increased equally at all levels, we still have the FREEDOM to train for another field or retool and seek jobs that do increase our wages. Freedom is a great thing! As I noted, a growing economy does not necessarily force all wages to go up but can also expand employment opportunities for more people, giving more people the opportunity to compete for higher income jobs. Let the competition begin!
Report comment to moderator
PR @27, The Muslim Brotherhood may have backed protests in Egypt, but they were/are not the sum and substance of the protests. The majority of the protesters are very concerned with MB influence. I met with a dozen or so of them this week. So to compare the protests of people desiring a free and open society to terrorists is disingenous.
Report comment to moderator
adios, The Muslim Brotherhood are the protesters and are the ones who will be in control of Egypt as well as Libya…
Report comment to moderator
Occupy Wall Street also do not want free and open society… They desire a close society control by the Government, in which the Government hands out every thing for free, while taxing any company that makes money.
Report comment to moderator
Just like Occupy Wall Street, those who over threw the Egypt Government, the people you see infront of the Reports are not the ones who are calling the shots…
Report comment to moderator
If you don’t like the difference in your salary and your boss’ start your own business.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark: What has stood in the way of real gains and has caused income losses for many (rich and middle class and poor alike) over the last decade is irresponsible gov’t spending and huge deficits and debts building up to the point of terrifying job-creators and invsters.
And why is that?
Several reasons, but one big one is that as more and more wealth has trickled up into the hands of a very few people, they’ve used the resulting political power to get lawmakers to lower their tax rates. Currently, the average wealthy person, when you analyze how much income is wage income and how much capital gains, pays a tax rate of about 17%. When Warren Buffet said his tax rate is less than that of his secretary, that’s what he meant.
That means a lot less money is going to the government, which means that expenditures which once were easily funded from revenues had to shift to debt spending.
And now, the same conservatives who brought about that state of affairs are trying to shift blame to the Democrats for “irresponsible spending.”
It is very much like the manager who cuts your salary by 15% and then criticizes you for having to pay your power bill with your credit card.
But none of that really affects private-sector income. As corporate taxes have gone down, wages for workers have increased by almost undetectably small amounts while pay for executives has soared. Stop dancing around it and tell me why you think that’s good.
And if wages have not increased equally at all levels, we still have the FREEDOM to train for another field or retool and seek jobs that do increase our wages.
I wonder if people who wave their hands and airily proclaim that you can always get a different job really understand how hard that is to do. Especially if you’re talking about a mid-career family provider trying to get an education and then start a new career in a different field.
It can be done, sometimes, by some people, but it’s hardly a universal cure and it’s very difficult.
Report comment to moderator
Hello, gas is going thur the roof, people water bills are going up, food pricies are going up.. Education cost are going up… State and Federal Goverments are spending more money then is coming in.
Report comment to moderator
An OWS answer to the problem tax’s, tax’s, tax’s and more Government Spending.. Which is Mr. Obama and the Dem party answer to all the problems of the world.
Report comment to moderator
KBells: If you don’t like the difference in your salary and your boss’ start your own business.
That might work for the first couple of people who try it, IF they have good financial backing and IF they’re good at managing a business and IF the market for whatever industry they’re in remains healthy enough to support several competitors.
How about the next thousand, or 5,000, or 10,000? Do you really think your snotty advice is a real solution for industries that employ large numbers of people?
I’m always amazed at the people who are themselves working wage earners acting as if people wanting better treatment in their employment are asking too much. Why are you so content to roll over and take it?
Report comment to moderator
“I wonder if people who wave their hands and airily proclaim that you can always get a different job really understand how hard that is to do.”
There’s part of the problem. People don’t like to do things that are hard. Hubby did it. He switch from editor to engineering in his late forties. He took classes, he took the crappiest jobs available to get experience, he freelanced and paid 33% percent tax and his own health insurance and we cut back and lived within our means. Now as editors are struggling to find work, he is employed.
Report comment to moderator
“NYPD Officer in ‘Stable Condition’ After Being Slashed at ‘Occupy’ Protest”
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/17/occupy-protestors-march-on-new-york-stock-exchange/#ixzz1dzbSHS77
Report comment to moderator
59. Hopefully you can hire some of those 1000’s and pay them what you think they deserve. My Family owns a small business. I was self employed until the tornado hit and will probably go back that way. I was amazed at how many people I worked with assumed that just being at a company for a number of years entitled them to a promotion or a raise. They thought that just showing up and doing the minimum required should get them ahead.
Report comment to moderator
It seems to me that the OWS people are demanding that people be forced to make unwise business decisions so they can have the American dream without sacrifice. Isn’t that how we got into this mess?
Report comment to moderator
“All Evangelical argument boils down to ad hominem.”
Your statement contradicts itself- thus proving it is false. Wanna try a little harder
From today:
1.They thought that just showing up and doing the minimum required should get them ahead.
2.People don’t like to do things that are hard
3.They desire a close society control by the Government, in which the Government hands out every thing for free
4.OWS desire to have the Government taken over… These OWS people will turn more viloent[sic]
5. Does that mean they want a shortcut to change? Not all that hard work
Report comment to moderator
The CBO report a couple of weeks ago showed with hard objective numbers that over the last 30 years the after tax incomes of the top 1% roughly tripled, while those of the rest of us was up around 30%.
Does anybody here really think that that happened solely because the 99% got so much lazier? And the top 1% worked that much harder than before?
Or are you willing to concede that some kind of structural change occurred?
Report comment to moderator
KBells: Sure, and there are plenty of other stories like yours. But there are many more people who aren’t in a position to do that. They lack the funds, or the management/business skills, or the risk-taking aptitude, to go into business for themselves, or they are in a market that doesn’t need any more sole-proprietor businesses.
People should be able to work for an employer and take part in the successes that their labor enables. Instead they work hard, get minimal raises or even salary cuts while the execs get mulit-million dollar bonuses, or even get laid off while the company doubles its profits.
That state of affairs is not sustainable, nor is it moral, just or fair. Why do you keep defending it?
Report comment to moderator
“So ordinary worker pay rises by 1/10th of a percent while executive pay more than doubles, and you think that’s a good situation?”
If you don’t like what you are paid, seek someone who will pay you more.
It’s THAT simple.
You’ve agreed to work for a wage. The Executive of any company owes you ZERO more than you have agreed to work for. Period.
And it is NOT relative to what he pays anyone else.
I don’t care if ONE guy has 2 trillion dollars. It IS NOT yours.
Get over it.
As a side note, what’s the ratio between work force and CEOs? In other words, if the work force has substantially grown, it’s average will not increase significantly, where as fewer CEOs in comparison would lead to a rise in average pay for CEOs.
We can manipulate numbers all day, but the only CEOs you should be worried about are the Bernie Madoffs that steal. The heads of a university that chose to look the other way when it came to child molestation and rape.
A CEO that makes 9 million a year, buys things. Big things, more things.
We whine and complain about athletes making millions, but the fact that they play gives vendors, merchants, reporters, and many others JOBS, because people BUY.
When they no longer are worth 20 million, they are fired. When a CEO no longer leads his company forward, he gets FIRED.
Never in nature, nor in the Bible are you EVER entitled someone else’s things, esp their money. That is ENVY.
Report comment to moderator
“People should be able to work for an employer and take part in the successes that their labor enables. Instead they work hard, get minimal raises or even salary cuts while the execs get mulit-million dollar bonuses, or even get laid off while the company doubles its profits.
That state of affairs is not sustainable, nor is it moral, just or fair. Why do you keep defending it?”
The exec is running a multimillion dollar company. If the whole thing tanks, because he sucks, no one gets ANYTHING. If the company DOUBLES it’s profits, it can EXPAND. Which means more jobs to those who can take part in the labor they are capable of. But you haven’t really changed the old jobs much, so the pay raise isn’t going to be signficant. The CEO now has to oversee multiple areas as well, not just one area.
You honestly should take any intro business course. No business can sit idle, it must always push for growth. That means it’s profits go to expansion, not just pay increases.
Google started as an internet search engine. How many businesses are they involved in now??? How many jobs did they create because they took the profit and reinvested it?
Nintendo started as a playing card company.
Report comment to moderator
The Occupiers seem insistent that they be provided a job.
Do they read want ads? Do any college students?
Here’s a novel idea! Read the classifieds. See who is hiring and what they are needing/looking for in successful applicants. Then after you know what a prospective hire-er needs you simply go out, study and train to become.
Next question!!
Report comment to moderator
The Occupiers should look at the compensation packages Congressmen enact for themselves. All the anger should be taken from Wall St and re-aimed at the politicians feeding at the federal trough
Report comment to moderator
CONANTHELIBRARIAN,
The economy is not static nor does it operate on a one-way street of interaction. Capital can trickle up or down, depeneding on what people do. Capitalism is basicly what people do (under the rule of law) when left alone.
You can complain about money trickling up but when it does, it does not just stay there. It trickles down too as the capital is put to use and as jobs are created and services and goods are exchanged. Under captialism, such transactions take place on a win-win basis for both parties with mutual consent. Under capitalism, capital tends to go (up or down) to those who earn it and offer rewards and services for it. Fail to work or provide services and yes, capital may not come your way as much.
There is mor economic and social justice under free and fair mutual win-win terms. The vice we call greed that can corrupt capitalism can and does also corrupt socialism and communism even more.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: You could make that same exact argument in defense of real sweatshops.
How can you say that with a straight face? You think it’s actually just fine that American workers provide the labor that makes businesses successful and then get screwed over.
“Just get another job,” you say … like it’s something you can do with a snap of the fingers.
Do you actually live in the real world?
Report comment to moderator
Scroop: @29 I can’t find plutonomy in the dictionary. What in the heck do you mean?
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: Google started as an internet search engine. How many businesses are they involved in now??? How many jobs did they create because they took the profit and reinvested it?
How much of that would they have done without their employees? Why do you think their employees should consider it fair to be laid off after enabling that success?
“Just get another job!” Easy easy, right?
Report comment to moderator
#73: I’d guess Scroop meant plutocracy. I also would guess that you know that.
Report comment to moderator
Then you think I’m smarter than I am because I didn’t know that. Now I’m going to have to look that one up.
Report comment to moderator
I suppose a plutocracy could theoretically run a socially beneficial economy, but that seems unlikely. They would prefer a plutonomy.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn and Joel Mark, another point: Your argument defending the plutocrats would hold water only if it had always been that way. You’re suggesting that the imbalances that I and the OWS people are complaining about is just the normal course of business.
It isn’t true. Until about 1979, the growth of income for Americans was about the same across all groups. Then there was s sharp split and the income of the top 1% began to grow much, much faster than everybody else.
1947-1979:
Bottom 20 percent of the income distribution: 118 percent increase
Second-to-bottom 20 percent: 100 percent increase
Middle 20 percent: 111 percent increase
Second-to-highest 20 percent: 114 percent increase
Highest 20 percent: 99 percent increase
Highest 5 percent: 86 percent increase
1979-2008:
Bottom 20 percent of the income distribution: 7 percent decrease
Second-to-bottom 20 percent: 6 percent increase
Middle 20 percent: 11 percent increase
Second-to-highest 20 percent: 23 percent increase
Highest 20 percent: 49 percent increase
Highest 5 percent: 73 percent increase
Highest 1 percent: 224 percent increase
Something changed, and what you’re arguing as just the way business has to work just isn’t so.
Report comment to moderator
PR @52, Where are you getting your information? I don’t mean to be rude, but you are either being decietful or ignorant in your assertions. I go to Egypt often. I personally know many of the protest organizers. That is where I am getting my information. Who informs you?
Report comment to moderator
“How can you say that with a straight face? You think it’s actually just fine that American workers provide the labor that makes businesses successful and then get screwed over.”
You agreed to work for a wage. That is not a screw over.
Screw over is when you do not get what you agreed to work for.
“Easy easy, right?”
Nothing is easy Conan. Do you think it’s easy running a billion dollar company? Do you think it’s easy to continue to pull a profit so you can keep from laying off jobs, to give raises, to expand?
What rock do you live under?
Do you not understand how many hours upon hours a week a business owner has to put into his business for it to be successful?
Yes, comparative to that, it is just as “easy” to pick up a phone and call other companies and tell them you are worth more than what you are being paid, and that they need to hire you instead because you will improve their company just as much.
Report comment to moderator
adios – media reports, reports from Christian’s on the ground…. Also look at who is gain power….Also right now the Christain Churches as facin major issues. It is all pointing to the MB…
Report comment to moderator
I go to Egypt often. I personally know many of the protest organizers. That is where I am getting my information
—
Understand that you may know people on the group.. but you also know that when it comes to groups like MB, Hamas.. People are very careful what they say, for fear of being over heard by the wrong people
Report comment to moderator
You agreed to work for a wage. That is not a screw over.
I agreed to be hired at a certain wage. If I’m still making the same wage (adjusted for inflation) 15 years later, while my labor has contributed to my company’s profits tripling, I am being screwed over.
I’m not talking about a snapshot in time, I’m talking about trends over decades.
And yes, I agree that business owners and executives deserve to succeed and have their incomes grow, when they run their businesses well. but their laborers also have a right to the same expectation.
You’re also ignoring the executives who destroy their businesses and still get paid millions of dollars while their employees stand in the unemployment lines. This happens routinely in America.
It’s odd how often in these discussions the conservatives’ sympathies are entirely with the wealthy, seeing the human beings who work hard for their employers as just another set of widgets, an expense to be managed and reduced when possible .. rather than as honest, honorable people who deserve fair pay for their work.
Report comment to moderator
Who are “The Christians on the ground” you are talking to? I didn’t say MB is not a problem, but they are not the bulk of the protesters. They are a faction in Egypt, they are not all of Egypt. Anyone who says otherwise has never been there. I was with Egyptian pastors this week who are working with the protesters and the provisional government. They have great hope for their country. They are wise as serpents yet harmless as doves. Should I go tell them some pastor from a church in US says you have it all wrong guys? I am not reading reports I am working with Egyptians.
Report comment to moderator
Btw, I talked to these Egyptians here in the States. They were not afraid of being overheard. They are troubled, however, by how wrong headed some US thinking is.
Report comment to moderator
These are godly men. One is the best preacher I have ever heard. Ever. He has risked his life many times in his 30 years in the pastorate. He is not afraid, nor is he unaware of the obstacles his nation faces.
Report comment to moderator
If I’m still making the same wage (adjusted for inflation) 15 years later, while my labor has contributed to my company’s profits tripling (as unlikely as this combination is), I have myself to blame for not searching out my options and taking my own fate into my own hands. My sympathies are with the honest worker but that does not translate into empowering the government to enforce its will over emplowers, businesses and the private sector. I want the USA to remain a free coutnry.
If I have contributed to my company’s profits, then I have justly earned my salary and done my job well, showing myslf worthy of my wages and their ongoing trust. If I don’t get the raise I am worthy of and have reasonably asked for, I can take my talents elsewhere and thus punish the company justly.
This issue has less to do with class envy and warfare and more to do with HOW MUCH power the public sector can or should weild over a free people.
Report comment to moderator
adios there has been reports of the Christian and their churches being target in Egypt.
Report comment to moderator
There have been. These are some of the targeted pastors, but that is a wholly different point. And the MB targeting churches is a seperate issue from the protesters.
Report comment to moderator
“your argument defending the plutocrats would hold water only if it had always been that way. You’re suggesting that the imbalances that I and the OWS people are complaining about is just the normal course of business.
Something changed, and what you’re arguing as just the way business has to work just isn’t so”
Actually nothing has really changed. Liberals fail to research more than to the end of their noses.
The 20s after the recession in 1920-21, boomed. For a time anyway. The top 1% accrued most of the gains, like you argue now.
But it’s a similar symptom. The fed printed money…inflated the dollar, and who is the first to accrue it? The peeps at the top of course.
Which boomed the economy for a time…until the demand dropped off and they were left holding the left overs that were worthless. So what did they do in response, redistribute wealth, which only made the economy worse until WWII came along, and significant demand returned.
So why does it look like in the last decade that the top 1% had all the wealth gains? Because the fed has been printing money since the tech crash really. So we boomed briefly, and crashed again. But what many of them hold is just inflated printed dollars. It’s practically not viable thanks to the fed.
One other thing you don’t account for considering the 80s, is the deflation that occurred. No, people didn’t gain more money, but the value of the money went up, so their money went farther. I don’t need a pay raise, if the money I’m already paid can buy 2 apples instead of 1 now.
Further, the computer age dawned. Our quality of life has significantly risen since the 70s thanks to it. So where as we may not get paid more compared to the top 1%, our quality of life overall has still gone way up.
Report comment to moderator
And the MB targeting churches is a seperate issue from the protesters.
—
I do not see it that way.. I see them as one and the same.. Just like those at OWS people an the Dem are the one and the same… Now I will yeild that because I am look at it from the out side and you seem to be looking at it from the in side…. I will surrender
Report comment to moderator
“If I’m still making the same wage (adjusted for inflation) 15 years later, while my labor has contributed to my company’s profits tripling, I am being screwed over.”
So your saying that your initial pay isn’t a wage that is based on increasing the companies returns in the first place?
Would the Packers owe Aaron Rogers more money, just because he won the Super Bowl?
When he signed his contract, it was ALREADY expected of him to do his best, at that wage.
He can ask for more all he wants, but the Packers don’t owe him anything extra.
He had agreed to work for a wage. He made a good return on that for his team.
So when he goes to ask for a pay raise, the Packers can decide whether to pay him what he is worth NOW. Or they can let him move on. But they owe him NOTHING for his previous work, as that wage was already agreed upon. Nor do they have to increase his wage.
“You’re also ignoring the executives who destroy their businesses and still get paid millions of dollars while their employees stand in the unemployment lines. This happens routinely in America.”
Am I?
Why would that be the case? You think Bernie got away with it? They don’t.
If you implement poor business practices, you reap what you sow in the end. If you pay your workers poorly, they WILL go elsewhere. There is another company that wants the good workers.
Ford found that if he paid his workers more, they worked harder, he didn’t have to waste money on training new workers, as his turn over rate was significantly reduced saving more money in the end.
Sure, businessmen can be shrewd or even a Scrooge. Or if you like Spongebob…a Mr. Crabs. But it’s still not your money. You agreed to work for them. You trade your time for a wage. They are not bound to you in any way other than what you agreed upon.
Read Matthew Ch. 20
13 “But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? 14 Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15 Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’
“It’s odd how often in these discussions the conservatives’ sympathies are entirely with the wealthy, seeing the human beings who work hard for their employers as just another set of widgets, an expense to be managed and reduced when possible .. rather than as honest, honorable people who deserve fair pay for their work.”
Is anyone more or less honest or honorable than another? So how are we playing favorites?
Are you saying those without money compared to those with, are more righteous by default?
The principles in which you begin destroy your argument.
The rich are no better than the poor, or vice versa. Both are men and women. And we have no right to covet or envy someone else, simply because they have money.
What makes one more or less honorable is a measure of what one does with their money, not how much they have of it or how much they give to us.
You destroy your own honor and integrity when you envy what is theirs.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn @92: I don’t think parables about the kingdom of heaven are any arguement for CEOs denying wage raises. In fact, James 5:1-4 would seem to say just the opposite: “Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you… Behold, the hire of the labourers who have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth: and the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord of sabaoth.”
Your view of business seems somewhat idealized. I watched my father get – illegally in one case, but he couldn’t afford the legal fees – terminated from two large companies because of his age. He has since been unable to find steady work. There are many more people like him. This doesn’t mean I envy rich CEOs of unjust companies at all, not after reading James, but I definitely don’t view them as heroes either.
Report comment to moderator
#90: None of that is responsive to anything I said. Whether the tide was going up or down, historically (starting from the end of WWII) it affected everybody roughly proportionally … income went up or down for the poor, the middle and the rich at rates within a few percentage points of each other, close to the same.
That changed starting in 1979, when the wealthiest earners broke away from everybody else and began getting richer at much faster rates, and that continues today.
And your comment about the fed printing money is also not germane … if what the rich have is “just inflated printed dollars,” then that’s also what you and I have, and doesn’t speak to the fact that they’ve gained them much more quickly than you and I have.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: So your saying that your initial pay isn’t a wage that is based on increasing the companies returns in the first place?
If I recall, you’re a college student, right? Are you studying to become one of the 1%? Because that or really impressive naivete are the only things I can think of to explain your blase attitude toward working people not having the same right to enjoy the increase of wealth their labor produces as the people at the top of the organization.
Yes, my initial pay is set based on what my skills are worth on the market at the time I’m hired, and my contribution to the company, which at the beginning is zero. Over time, my skills improve, my contribution grows, and I have a reasonable expectation that my income will rise in real terms based on that.
Do you actually think there are people who are 40 and 50 years old who are happy to work for what they made when they were 25? Assuming you don’t become a multi-millionaire CEO, are you going to be happy to work for years and years at your entry-level salary?
Report comment to moderator
“Sure, and there are plenty of other stories like yours. But there are many more people who aren’t in a position to do that. They lack the funds, or the management/business skills, or the risk-taking aptitude, to go into business for themselves, or they are in a market that doesn’t need any more sole-proprietor businesses.”
So they have no skills, no business sense, they don’t want to take a risk and they’ve made a bad career choice and you wonder why they aren’t getting any where.
Report comment to moderator
KBells #62: “I was amazed at how many people I worked with assumed that just being at a company for a number of years entitled them to a promotion or a raise. They thought that just showing up and doing the minimum required should get them ahead.”
But…not every employee just shows ups and does the minimum. Many work hard and do an excellent job even though that job may be menial. And then they’re told, “No raises this year.”
Report comment to moderator
#83, From what I am hearing you say, would it be an honest assessment to say that you are bitter? Please do not answer on here, but just to youself. There is a fantastic way out of bitterness if you but want it.
All sins can be traced back to 3 root causes- Pride, Bitterness, and Moral Impurity.
If you contiue in bitterness, it will follow you where ever you go. Even to that high paying job that you want. Meaning: you’ii be bitter there too.
Report comment to moderator
#63 Here’s a few quotes that I find insightful.– The noticeable trend is that rather than realize one’s own inadequacies, it is easier to blame someone who is successful.
Opportunity is missed by most people because it usually comes dressed in overalls and looks too much like work. Thomas Edison
Report comment to moderator
97. And if the company tries to reward the hard workers, one of the mediocre ones will find out and sue.
Report comment to moderator
So, we’re supposed to believe that it’s the fault of the police? Really? The Tea Party rally in DC had thousands and thousands of people, no rapes, no arrests, no garbage.
There’s a difference between the two groups, and it ain’t the police. Nor is it the difference in salary.
Report comment to moderator
KBells: So they have no skills, no business sense, they don’t want to take a risk and they’ve made a bad career choice and you wonder why they aren’t getting any where.
Seriously? That condescending tripe is your answer?
I’m talking about people who are working for a living. Not everyone is cut out to be a business owner. And the economy doesn’t need everybody to be a business owner. Businesses need employees to carry out the work.
I have a hard time taking you seriously.
Report comment to moderator
From what I am hearing you say, would it be an honest assessment to say that you are bitter?
Not a bit. This isn’t about me. I’m doing ok.
It’s about the ridiculous attitude that working people should be happy to have jobs at all, and that it’s perfectly fine for a wealthy few to suck up all the gains in wealth produced by the labor of the workers.
That seems to be a-ok to many people here, and I find it astonishing.
Report comment to moderator
It would seem that OWS became what they were protesting. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/17/the-daily-show-occupy-wall-street-video_n_1099207.html
Report comment to moderator
“Occupying” Wall Street isn’t going to change anything. Changing Congress, holding its feet to the fire will. But these OWS clowns think they are going to alter how big corporations operate with these “protests.” Seriously, what do these people have that the corporations need? Nothing.
Report comment to moderator
This is happening because the OWS people felt it was a-ok to let their government mortgage their future so they could have things they didn’t work for — and now all of us and all of our children and grandchildren will suffer. Because the OWS people still have the same expectation: that the govt. will take care of them with money it doesn’t have. The OWS people are just plain stupid.
Report comment to moderator
This is happening because the OWS people felt it was a-ok to let their government mortgage their future so they could have things they didn’t work for — and now all of us and all of our children and grandchildren will suffer. Because the OWS people still have the same expectation: that the govt. will take care of them with money it doesn’t have. The OWS people are just plain stupid.
Report comment to moderator
PR, Pray for our Egyptian breathren. They dream of a free day.
Report comment to moderator
Seriously, they are protesting private companies by taking over public property. They hurt small business to try to force big business to do their bidding.
Report comment to moderator
OSW – disposable useful idiots.
Report comment to moderator
FIVES55 #47 – Please look again at my assertion, “All Evangelical argument boils down to ad hominem.” The subject of my sentence is “argument.” Therefore, my assertion is argumentum ad argumentationem, not ad hominem, as you concluded incorrectly.
Logical fallacies exist, and pointing them out is not ad hominem.
For example, your post #98 is ad hominem. Whether or not the writer whom you address is bitter has nothing to do with the validity of the argument the writer made. Notice, I’m criticizing your post, not you.
Report comment to moderator
SOCIAL WORKER – OED online since 2006. If you don’t subscribe, you can find plenty of uses of “plutonomy” in current lit.
http://www.salon.com/2010/10/05/lind_america_plutonomy/
Report comment to moderator
NJL: This is happening because the OWS people felt it was a-ok to let their government mortgage their future so they could have things they didn’t work for — and now all of us and all of our children and grandchildren will suffer.
OWS people like retired Philadelphia Police Capt. Ray Lewis?
Keep on defending plutocracy, NJL, KBells, Thorn, et al. Fight against your own interests and for the super wealthy, who don’t care two twigs about you.
A lot of people are starting to realize how badly we’ve been hoodwinked for the past three decades, and we’re increasingly unwilling to roll over and take it from the power brokers — on Wall Street AND on Capitol Hill.
Have fun over there on the wrong side of history.
Report comment to moderator
Occupy whatever is costing U.S. taxpayers very big bucks. To generalize, they could not care less.
Report comment to moderator
“One of these days, Pentamom, one of your kids could be out there.”
If my kids haven’t learned that, while protest is appropriate, they can’t just take over other people’s property and act like it’s theirs for no reason other than to make a point, I’ll have messed up long before that, and it will be their own folly.
I support the right of the occupiers to complain about whatever it is they think they’re complaining about (which is apparently about 112 different issues per 100 people) but when they’re allowed to remain for two months and then asked to leave a place where they had no inherent right to be in the first place, I won’t consider that “unjust.”
If they start getting shot at because of it, of course that’s unconscionable. But that was precisely my point — that’s NOT what’s happening, nor is there any indication it will.
Report comment to moderator
#109, #114: Yep. And with good reason.
Look, protests are big, visible, noisy and messy. But they don’t come out of nowhere. They come when people have spent years quietly trying to work through the system and getting nowhere doing so.
We’ve been living for more than 30 years now under a system where the richest people have pulled far away from everybody else in how fast their wealth grows. And, no, that is NOT just a necessary part of capitalism — it was not the case through most of the 20th century.
A lot of us who started our careers early in that period feel cheated and lied to. We watched our parents benefit from the healthy economic growth of the ’40s and ’50s to prosper and do better than their parents had done. We were led to believe that our economy was robust and healthy and that we would benefit similarly.
Instead, we started working as the super rich were manipulating the laws with the help of cronies to siphon the wealth that we worked to create into their pockets.
And thus, we saved diligently in our 401(k)’s, being told that was the way to prepare to retire in our late 60s and enjoy our remaining years in comfortable leisure.
Instead, our accounts lost money or broke even and we find that today we have no more money in those accounts than we would have if we’d simply taken the same money an put it into a regular savings account.
We worked hard, being told that if we did, and if we refined our skills, and if we contributed to the growth of our employers, we’d see our pay increase. Those of us who couldn’t afford to own a home and raise a family at 25 would certainly be able to at 30 or 35 if we worked hard, we were told.
Instead, many of us found that our raises barely matched inflation, and many of us even found ourselves laid off in the name of cost savings, while the owners of our companies pocketed millions.
All through all this, people tried to encourage change through the system and found that the money won every time.
So now, a lot of people who have had enough of that are turning out to gather in parks for weeks to be heard. It will cost the government money and it will inconvenience businesses. Tough. If the system — aided by sycophants such as you guys — had not been exploiting ordinary people for so long, it wouldn’t be necessary.
Report comment to moderator
“Your view of business seems somewhat idealized.”
Not so Phos, merely addressing man’s response to man. It will not be us judging how a man with money, uses his money.
Nor should we be envious because a man with money, chooses to pay someone else more, for less work.
The James passage discusses “fraud”. The Bernie’s of the world.
The Matthew passage isn’t a fraudulent rich man. He gave what was agreed upon, and then choose to give more to others.
Report comment to moderator
OWS are just blindy following their marching orders from people who hate and desire to see this Nation destroy.
Report comment to moderator
“None of that is responsive to anything I said. Whether the tide was going up or down, historically (starting from the end of WWII).”
Like I said, liberals don’t research past their own noses. The 20s are very relevant. It was the last time that 1% of the population made the largest gains vs. the rest of the population. They held most of the “wealth”.
WHy? Because of easy money.
“if what the rich have is “just inflated printed dollars,” then that’s also what you and I have, and doesn’t speak to the fact that they’ve gained them much more quickly than you and I have.”
Yes, it is what we have to. Our dollars are affected by their easy money all the same. And it’s simple reason that they can gain that more quickly being rich already and having the connections, no how, and pathways to getting it quicker.
“If I recall, you’re a college student, right?”
Nope, engineer for the last 5 years.
“Because that or really impressive naivete are the only things I can think of to explain your blase attitude toward working people not having the same right to enjoy the increase of wealth their labor produces as the people at the top of the organization.”
Where did I say they don’t.
Having the right to ask for more money, work harder, do your own thing, etc is economic freedom. But on the same token, so does the other guy whether rich or poor. Just because he has more than you, or gets paid more for less work, doesn’t entitle you to his results.
But you also haven’t shown that one’s labor has increased in any sort of technical or experiential way that demands higher pay anyway.
If the McDonald’s owner, makes enough with his first store, to open a 2nd, it’s still McDonald’s. The level of skill needed is still low. His wealth increases, provided both stores continue to produce. But the labor force doesn’t need a pay raise just because he owns two stores that do the same thing.
“Do you actually think there are people who are 40 and 50 years old who are happy to work for what they made when they were 25? Assuming you don’t become a multi-millionaire CEO, are you going to be happy to work for years and years at your entry-level salary?”
If i’m still doing entry level work, what argument would I have? If you’ve pushed the same button for 20 years, you haven’t progressed, so why should you be paid more?
When I was 25, I was making about half of what I make now.
If I’m still in this job when I’m 40, that isn’t my company, bosses, or owners fault. That’s my fault.
Report comment to moderator
Conan,
You are forgetting a lot about the last 30 years.
We are now much more in a world market. Therefore have to compete with foreign countries that have a much lower pay scale. This has put much of the tendency toward lower wages for the bottom rungs. The alternative is moving the whole businesses oversees.
The next thing is the tendency to larger businesses. Two main things that are pushing this that I can come up with on the cuff are
1) Increased regulation and the cost to comply – especially for the small businessman.
2) Technology advances and their costs that only work when spread out over more product.
Your liberal big government fixes, like the sub-prime fiasco, don’t work.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: Like I said, liberals don’t research past their own noses. The 20s are very relevant. It was the last time that 1% of the population made the largest gains vs. the rest of the population. They held most of the “wealth”.
And what happened at the end of the 20s? Say around October of 1929?
Report comment to moderator
FuzzyFace:
First, I haven’t said one word about “big government fixes.” Other than maybe reinstating some of the regulations on the financial industry that were repealed over the past few decades.
The fact that we’re in a global economy raises a troubling prospect if the only way to succeed is to LOWER our own standards to make us more competitive .. race to the bottom.
You really happy with that conclusion?
Report comment to moderator
“We’ve been living for more than 30 years now under a system where the richest people have pulled far away from everybody else in how fast their wealth grows.”
And you aren’t assessing why that is.
It is not enough to just say they are rich, thus they should give me their money.
“Instead, we started working as the super rich were manipulating the laws with the help of cronies to siphon the wealth that we worked to create into their pockets.”
Really?
If any of these CEOs or others have committed crimes, charge them. Bring them to court.
You realize that 1% of the population in America is still 3 million people. You mean that 3 million people go around manipulating the laws just to steal money from you? Really?
You do not live in reality. You can not stereotype the rich based on one Bernie Madoff. Do we stereotype the rest of college football coaches because one Joe Paterno looked the other way?
No.
“We watched our parents benefit from the healthy economic growth of the ’40s and ’50s to prosper and do better than their parents had done. ”
So, despite a lack of dramatic increase in income, we own two cars on average. We have multiple tv’s. We even just spent 400 MILLION on a VIDEO GAME. We buy iphone’s and ipods during a recession.
Are you kidding me with this garbage that we haven’t increased in wealth and quality of life?
“If the system — aided by sycophants such as you guys — had not been exploiting ordinary people for so long, it wouldn’t be necessary.”
Really? Why be insulting?
Who is exploiting? Name them!!
Report comment to moderator
reinstating some of the regulations on the financial industry
—
How about we stop the Dem Party and OWS from destroying this nation and turning us into another European State or surrendering us to the fail United Nations.
Report comment to moderator
What is happen is the failed Education System from High Schools to College and on up. Have spent years attack and demonizing and blame the United States of American and the way we do business as the problems of World. The end result is we have a Presendient that has been involced with Church that attack and demonizing and blame the United States of American and the way we do business as the problems of World. Who believes just like the OWS Protesters. The United States of American and the way we do business is the problems of World and this Nation
Report comment to moderator
the OWS Protesters are doing what they have been taught to do and are following the lead of Mr. Obama class warfare and speeches.
Report comment to moderator
“And what happened at the end of the 20s? Say around October of 1929?”
You don’t read much do you?
Take a look at just about every recession in american history. It’s almost always over real estate.
When you print easy money, where do people put it, real estate.
What you have in 1929 is largely because European countries had recovered from WWI, and the demand for America goods dropped, leaving all the over investment in agriculture worthless. That extra easy money, in response to the 20-21 recession, encourages the over investment. Yes you boom for awhile, but only so long as the demand lasts.
It was compounded by tariff wars, redistribution, and more easy money during the 30s.
What ended it, was the large demand in WWII again.
You see similiar issues with the housing boom. Lots of easy money, with the demand fall out.
You can see what’s also about to happen, because they haven’t learned.
Where is all the new printed money going to go?
Two places currently.
1. Green energy companies – This won’t be viable though as there just isn’t demand already
2. Medical industry – Huge demand here, and it’s what the Obamacare bill was all about…pushing all the easy money into health care.
You will see a boom in the economy in the coming years, followed by another crash. Only this time it’ll be the only other substantial industry…Medical.
Report comment to moderator
“The fact that we’re in a global economy raises a troubling prospect if the only way to succeed is to LOWER our own standards to make us more competitive .. race to the bottom.”
That’s a false premis too.
Intel has said the reason they won’t build in California for instance is not because of the lowering of health or safety standards or labor costs, but because it’ll cost 1 billion more than building in China due to other government imposed issues in California.
All states for instance have to abide by OSHA, so why does Texas steal away business from California? It’s not because of lack of health and safety standards.
So you can compete with China without lowering standards.
What you can’t do is hamstring your industries, just because they make money. That’s STUPID.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t know why you’re arguing with me (and insulting me). Apparently we agree that the current economic situation is unsustainable and heading for a crash.
What I don’t understand, then, is why you’re so disdainful of the one group of people trying to call attention to that and effect change before it happens.
“The fact that we’re in a global economy raises a troubling prospect if the only way to succeed is to LOWER our own standards to make us more competitive .. race to the bottom.”
That’s a false premis too.
Intel has said the reason they won’t build in California for instance is not because of the lowering of health or safety standards or labor costs, but because it’ll cost 1 billion more than building in China due to other government imposed issues in California.
All states for instance have to abide by OSHA, so why does Texas steal away business from California? It’s not because of lack of health and safety standards.
So you can compete with China without lowering standards.
OK. So why did IBM go to China instead of Texas?
What you can’t do is hamstring your industries, just because they make money. That’s STUPID.
Then it’s a good thing nobody’s suggesting that.
Report comment to moderator
I get that you’re trying to blame borrowers for taking their “easy money” and buying property with it. But you can’t fairly ignore the lenders who talked people into borrowing far more than they could afford, and those who turned bad loans knowingly made into “securities” and sold them, again knowing they were very risky, to investors.
When I bought my house in 2001, I was told that the amount I could afford to borrow was about three times what I eventually did borrow. I am by nature risk-averse, so I borrowed what I needed to buy a modest home and no more. While there is a certain amount of responsibility on the borrowers who believed the lies, you can’t absolve those who told the lies — but the right seems to want to.
Report comment to moderator
Since groups like ACORN were forcing banks to give loans to people who could not affoard them. They also need to be looked at for the causing problem… An since Mr. OBama and the Dem Party are part of ACORN. Well then then Mr. OBama and the Dem Party need to be looked at for the causing problem…
Report comment to moderator
This is the key reason for the protests, and for the sympathy for the protestors from me and others. Most of the people here will not care, but too bad … you will be remembered as being on the wrong side of history.
And no, the movement is NOT looking for a big government solution. They recognize that government is the other part of the problem:
You can applaud that system and sneer like KBells at those who are unwilling to quietly endure it anymore, but I think the tide is turning.
http://www.yesmagazine.org/people-power/this-changes-everything-how-the-99-woke-up
Report comment to moderator
“I don’t know why you’re arguing with me (and insulting me).”
Where did I insult you?
“What I don’t understand, then, is why you’re so disdainful of the one group of people trying to call attention to that and effect change before it happens.”
What’s disdainful?
“OK. So why did IBM go to China instead of Texas?”
Because China needs jobs too.
Or are they not entitled to compete for Intel or IBM?
“Then it’s a good thing nobody’s suggesting that.”
But that’s what occurs esp in states like California.
The more you redistribute, the more you over tax, the more you siphon away money through fees, you start to hamstring businesses and consumers.
You can’t take from CEOs just because they make more than you, just because you don’t think they are generous enough.
The moment you regulate generosity, is the moment it is no longer generosity.
“But you can’t fairly ignore the lenders who talked people into borrowing far more than they could afford, and those who turned bad loans knowingly made into “securities” and sold them, again knowing they were very risky, to investors.”
Talking about how bad the Joker is, is not relative in the discussion to how bad the Penguin is or Cat woman.
Why, when I say that the Joker is bad, do you then accuse of me of implying that the Penguin is a good guy?
Stop being irrational.
“While there is a certain amount of responsibility on the borrowers who believed the lies, you can’t absolve those who told the lies — but the right seems to want to.”
Not at all. Where did I do that?
It’s great you didn’t take a max credit line. I didn’t either when I purchased my house 2 years ago. I got one for half of what they offered me loan wise.
But it’s not that I’m excusing any lender. I’m taking it farther back. Who is in charge of education in this country? The government. Who regulates business? The government. Who prints excess money when they feel like it? The government.
The precedent for borrowing was established by none other than the government and heavily since the 70s (and before frankly). Nearly every congressman is a multimillionaire. Why is OWS not Occupying their front lawns?
The 1% of the 1% gave a 750 billion dollar bailout to 1% of the 1%…
The right is simply taking it to the root of the issue. The problem begins with the government, and this false notion that borrowing/credit etc is the way to go.
The NYSE is a flea market. Marching on wall street will yield nothing. You are being led around by the same 1% of the 1% that sold people into risky loans.
Report comment to moderator
“you will be remembered as being on the wrong side of history.”
Conan,
Dave Ramsey’s net worth in 2010 was 55 million.
He pays almost 40% in taxes…
He’s in the 1%. They pay taxes, they don’t get bailouts when they fail. 99% of companies don’t.
“You can applaud that system and sneer like KBells at those who are unwilling to quietly endure it anymore, but I think the tide is turning.”
How is it turning? By marching on Wall Street you’ve done EXACTLY what the 1% of the 1% want you to do. Sure the practices need to change, but you aren’t focused on who can actually do any changing.
It’s not tax breaks causing problems. It’s the money tree called the fed and the buddies they share it with.
They promise the bailouts to whatever industry they shake hands with, and you and I and the people see nothing but the results of bad economics.
Yes we can fully agree with you that the tide needs to change.
But the only way this changes is if you force the government to stop running a deficit and pay down their debt. If you elect men with wisdom who will not use their position to promote their own wealth against the people’s. If you stop letting the government manipulate the market.
You need a free market. And a free market is not one that doesn’t protect against criminals, but it is one that is free of government manipulation just as much as it is free of Bernie Madoff manipulation and even lenders who hide the risk of max borrowing.
Report comment to moderator
The people protesting are not saying that tax breaks for the wealthy are the only problem. Read the article I posted in #132 .. it’s corporations AND government that have created the problem.
But no, it’s not just the availability of credit to consumers that’s allowed the income of the top to rise 275% and that of the bottom to rise only 18% in the same time period.
Report comment to moderator
Conan says:
‘…why you’re so disdainful of the one group of people trying to call attention to that and effect change before it happens.’
We are not disdainful of the OWSers for ALSO called attention to the problems – many of which were aired by conservatives. What we decry is their and your wealth distribution and extra regulation (false) solution.
If you were referring to the changes in regulations brought about by the liberals to allow and push the subprime crisis I’ll agree that we need to go back to the sound economic policies we had before. But the drastic increase in regulation that is happening now by the Obama admin is very destructive to our unstable economy. If that is the regulation you are proposing I’m aggin it.
Report comment to moderator
It’s no wonder people are upset—from the Tea Party to OWS. The corrupt alliance between big corporations (including unions) and government HAVE, for the most part, created the economic upheaval the nation is facing. The political parties have not done their job of balancing the various interests of the citizenry, since both parties have been purchased—and mostly by the same pots of money. We’re pretty much under a bi-partisan, quasi-Fascist rule already: the frog has been cooked. I doubt the situation will be rectified and reset without a worse financial crash, and possibly bloodshed.
But even with such instability, there are still things that individuals can do to survive well. We should encourage ourselves and those around us to educate themselves and develop practical skills as best we can. There are free public resources like the library, or community colleges, if one has access and can pay for it. Also, the local Chamber of Commerce has free resources for people trying to start businesses. The SBA has shrunk a lot since I was involved with it, but there are still organizations like SCORE that offer free business financial counseling to start-ups and small businesses in urban areas.
Perhaps churches could also help in some ways. There are many small business owners in churches, and they might be willing to share their time to help organize a resource center of sorts.
There are free or low cost resources available, but people have to learn to be persistent in searching for them. And that’s not easy. Sometimes we make the mistake of thinking that the persistence and the searching for resources are not relevant to the success of the business itself. But I don’t think that’s true. If you can’t persevere in the quest for what it is you need, whether it’s finding a job or creating a business, it’s doubtful you will be successful in the endeavor itself.
Intelligent, diligent searching and persisting are two of the most essential skills we’re going to need. And you don’t have to have money to acquire them. The sooner the folks Occupying Wall Street figure that out, the sooner we can have a coherent conversation about it. If that happens, we might discover we have more in common.
Report comment to moderator
FuzzyFace: Again … I am not advocating a “big government” solution. Neither am I interested in partisan sniping. The predicament in which we find ourselves has bipartisan roots and has been three decades in the making.
Debra: I agree completely.
Report comment to moderator
Debra: I am pretty sure we’ve entered a long-term economic decline, due to several reasons: The vast income inequality that OWS protests is part of it, as is the government’s profligate spending. We’ve also overshot the ability of energy sources to power continued expansion.
The contraction is already underway, as we’re seeing in rising unemployment. I think that while there may be short term reversals where things look better, the overall trend for the next few decades is going to be downward.
As a result, I think most of us will not be able to count on retiring … 401(k) investments are more likely to lose money than gain, and Social Security is much less secure than we grew up thinking it would be.
Therefore, learning skills — some for greater self-sufficiency and some for earning income in one’s later years — is a vital thing to spend money and time on doing now.
The reason the OWS movement matters is not because they’re right in every particular – of course they’re not — but because they’re calling attention to the corporate side of the corrupt alliance you describe, and that’s something that neither of the bought-and-paid-for political parties is willing to do. Out of Washington we hear a lot of talk about government spending and very little about corporate behavior. And whenever anyone does criticize corporations they can count on being called “socialist” and worse just for raising the issue.
We need somebody visibly pointing to the other side of the equation in a way that can’t be ignored, and since nobody in Washington is doing it, OWS has become necessary.
Report comment to moderator
Since groups like ACORN were forcing banks to give loans to people who could not affoard them . .
This is a lie.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop is right. ACORN didn’t have that power. It was our Feds liberal policy enabling and encouraging banks to do it. The liberals enabling ACORN to stuff voting rolls was a separate issue.
Report comment to moderator
Fuzzyface is half-right. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, in an effort to minimizing a form of discrimination called “redlining,” forbade banks to eliminate whole neighborhoods from their lending, and instead consider individual borrowers for creditworthiness. That is, you couldn’t be turned down just because you lived in a neighborhood with a lot of bad credit risk people, the bank had to determine whether you personally were a bad risk.
The half he omits is how eagerly unscrupulous lenders went for a chance to make a quick buck by misleading borrowers and then defrauding the later buyers of the worthless mortgage-backed securities.
Oh wait, except it turns out the CRA had nothing to do with it:
http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/community_reinvestment_act_had_nothing_to_do_with_subprime_crisis.html
Report comment to moderator
The CRAs were not primarily about redlining; that’s just how they were sold. They were actually a series of compromises between big bank lobbyists and community organizers (for want of a better term) in which each could profit their particular constituencies at the expense of sound financial judgment, and as it turns out, at the expense of the welfare of the entire country. Community organizers brought home the bacon for their folks, and so did the banking lobbyists. There are no good guys in this mess. Nor innocent neither. Time to pay the piper.
Report comment to moderator
Debra: Either way, 80% of the subprime loans involved in the crisis were made by institutions not subject to CRA, according to the Business Week article I linked.
It also does seem absurd, doesn’t it, to blame a law passed in 1977 for a crisis that happened thirty years later.
Blaming the CRA doesn’t wash.
Report comment to moderator
Democrats have practically built their entire identity on blaming the laws of last the last two centuries for most of the current ills of entire populations. Suddenly a law passed 30 years ago has no relevance whatsoever. That would be funny if I cared enough to laugh. I don’t.
What has become increasingly obvious is that nothing ‘washes’ for a Democrat demagogue unless it involves blaming the opposition. So what else is new…besides the dubious claim to be a ‘moderate conservative’.
Be well anyway.
Report comment to moderator
Ha! You, complaining about people who insist on blaming the opposition? That’s rich.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!