Occupy Rants, Flames, and NSFW

[Aadill]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Aadill]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

governmental-unanimity that doesn't currently exist for essentially anything

That is the problem.

[Hasbinbad]

Sorry for reposting, but this belongs here:

Originally Posted by Hasbinbad [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

For years, the city couldn't afford to feed the homeless in Oakland.

For the past two weeks, the mostly white, upper middle class people shown above have been feeding the homeless of not only Oakland but the majority of the transient population 3-4 cities out. They set up a feeding station on the lawn in front of Oakland city hall, and invited anyone to come eat nutritious, sustainable food for free. They paid for this out of their own pockets, as voted on by an assembly at large of the people gathered. They all did their own math, and figured out what they could afford to give every month without a serious cramp on their style, and that amount was more than sufficient to buy enough rice, tofu, and whatever fruity vegetables they could to give away for free. Real people (soccer moms, buisnessmen) dropped off bagloads of food to the hippies who didn't have jobs and thus were the cooks/servers.

This was set up to be maintained forever. It took about 3 hours and 200 people with jobs on their own dimes. This is a direct analogy of what the 99% movement is all about. Give to those of a lower class. Tax the rich more. You make a million dollars a year - AND THAT IS GREAT! GOOD JOB! YAY CAPITALISM! - but fuck you, you pay taxes for the privilege. If 200 or 2,000 local people can fucking figure out how to feed the fucking homeless people in their area, why can't the fucking city which is paid millions of dollars in taxes for the social welfare?

Yes I know the math. Yes I know the 1% do pay more taxes. It's not enough. The tax needs to be flatter, or have more regulation on capitalism. The disparity has led to this nationwide protest, and this is just the beginning. Even when the police put the people down the first few times and it seems like it will get better, they will keep the policies involved static, and the disparity will get worse. This will trigger the revolution.

So yeah. They were a bunch of dumbasses standing around. Look carefully. They aren't in all black or Guy Fawkes masks. They were just standing there. Listening. There was a P.A.. People were speaking based on their ability to speak ideas as voted on by their peers. There was order. It's a strange thing to watch man.

Of course Oakland doesn't like the majority of the transient populations of every city for miles camped at the door of city hall.. They shut it all down, built a fence. Tear gas was involed.

That fence is now gone.

The people are still there.

..and Oakland wants to sit down with this bunch of dumbasses.

[Aadill]

^ awesome.

[Aadill]

*not the tear gas part

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Hasbinbad [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Sorry for reposting, but this belongs here:

Serious question: at what point does it stop being the responsibility of the wealthy to provide for the less wealthy? What's the cut-off? What entitlements are "rights" and what are indulgences? Food, I think we all agree, should be provided by the government. Education, too. Shelter. Maybe even non-emergency health care.

But when do you say -- "OK, we're providing enough for the baseline citizen. Let's stop raising taxes on the rich"? Do citizens have a right to comfort? I'd argue that they don't. You have a right to survival and equality of opportunity -- not to comfort. In fact, you *should* be uncomfortable if you're unemployed. You should be uncomfortable until you're employed.

I'm not a big proponent of raising taxes on the rich. I'm not theoretically opposed to it, but in practice, the US government hasn't earned my faith. The government is inherently inefficient, and American welfare programs are largely unsuccessful. The money raised by taxes is more likely to be spent on administrative bullshit or defense than on lower classes.

I prefer less ambiguous measures. A significant raise in the minimum wage, for instance, is long overdue. It is impossible to live comfortably on current minimum wage. Reforming the tax code to eliminate loopholes is necessary. The wealthier you are, the easier it is for you to get out of paying taxes. That's backward. Taxes should be simple and unavoidable. Greatly increase regulations on financial institutions. And fixes are necessary for the health care and education systems in America, but I won't pretend to have the answers to those questions. Raising taxes is not even close to a solution to those problems.

[Recycled Children]

ITT: Commies complain want more commie things.!

[Darwoth]

waaah i am a lazy sack of shit that took three times as long as it should have to get my degree, which by the way was for a useless liberal arts topic of which little/no jobs exist for. this coupled with my piss poor life management skills and desire to party like a teenager into my late 20s instead of lay a solid foundation for my life means that i am back living with my parents raiding their refrigerator at 30 years old and am a hundred grand in debt.

since i am a freeloading piece of shit with no job or ambition i shall gather with thousands of equally worthless sacks of shit in the town square demanding those not as stupid as me forgive my debts that i accrued on my own and give me some handouts to boot, i shall somehow say it is bush's fault and pretend like i am part of a "movement"

i am the 99% (of whats wrong with the fucking country)

[aresprophet]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Serious question: at what point does it stop being the responsibility of the wealthy to provide for the less wealthy? What's the cut-off? What entitlements are "rights" and what are indulgences? Food, I think we all agree, should be provided by the government. Education, too. Shelter. Maybe even non-emergency health care.

That's exactly the kind of serious question that we haven't been asking for the last two decades. Instead the national dialogue has revolved around how we can sustain our current society while asking less and less of everyone (but particularly of the well-off).

Is a 40% top tax bracket enough? 50%? 70%? Hell 90% worked just fine post-WWII, would that be appropriate now?

OWS is making people think about this kind of thing, and that's good because we've been pretending we can get along just fine while ignoring the realities of what it takes to support our society.

But when do you say -- "OK, we're providing enough for the baseline citizen. Let's stop raising taxes on the rich"? Do citizens have a right to comfort? I'd argue that they don't. You have a right to survival and equality of opportunity -- not to comfort. In fact, you *should* be uncomfortable if you're unemployed. You should be uncomfortable until you're employed.

"Uncomfortable" and "destitute" are vastly different things, but only a few thousand dollars a year apart for most people. Hell I'm gainfully employed and I'm still "uncomfortable", if you define comfort as having more than a few dollars a week in disposable income.

Making poor people suffer turns more poor people into criminals; placating them costs a relative pittance compared to the Big Five of the federal budget (which are, in no particular order, Keeping Old People Alive, Keeping Poor People Alive, Killing Brown People, Keeping Old People Alive (redux), and Keeping Other Governments From Repossessing Half Our Country).

I'm not a big proponent of raising taxes on the rich. I'm not theoretically opposed to it, but in practice, the US government hasn't earned my faith. The government is inherently inefficient, and American welfare programs are largely unsuccessful. The money raised by taxes is more likely to be spent on administrative bullshit or defense than on lower classes.

None of this is true. Not a sentence of it. The money spent on defense and welfare is largely a fixed amount (at the federal level anyway), federal government programs often outperform the private sector in terms of administrative overhead, and the "efficiency" of government is a non-issue when you consider that it is meant to fill roles that the private sector will not, cannot, and should not. It's not there to make money, it's there to perform certain essential functions regardless of efficiency.

Your distrust in government is not necessarily misplaced, but it is for the wrong reasons. Politicians who ignore their central duties in favor of their election campaigns, who argue in bad faith, who block good legislation to score points, and who are more beholden to lobbyists and donors than the electorate are the problem. It is no coincidence that the OWS protests are about precisely this, and share your concerns about government's ability to perform. They're just doing it for the right reasons.

It is also no coincidence that the political party who has been most defined by the above flaws over the last 15 years or so is the one that is preying on your fears about government to win your vote.

I prefer less ambiguous measures. A significant raise in the minimum wage, for instance, is long overdue. It is impossible to live comfortably on current minimum wage.

I thought "comfort" wasn't something we were supposed to guarantee? I'd rather live on welfare than slave for 40 hours a week on minimum wage, but that's not the reason we have high unemployment.

Reforming the tax code to eliminate loopholes is necessary. The wealthier you are, the easier it is for you to get out of paying taxes. That's backward. Taxes should be simple and unavoidable.

The capital gains tax is the most egregious example in world history of taxes being reshaped to greatly favor those who have over those who have not. "Loppholes" by and large are the byproduct of the kind of initiative you claim to support, and any attempt to eliminate them is generally an attempt to impose a heavily regressive tax that fucks over anyone who isn't super-wealthy (see national sales tax, flat tax, Fair Tax, see any GOP tax proposals since Reagen was inaugurated)

Greatly increase regulations on financial institutions. And fixes are necessary for the health care and education systems in America, but I won't pretend to have the answers to those questions. Raising taxes is not even close to a solution to those problems.

Yes, actually, it is. Because you can't throw hundreds of billions of dollars (in the case of health care trillions of dollars) at problems without those dollars coming from somewhere.

[Hasbinbad]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Serious question: at what point does it stop being the responsibility of the wealthy to provide for the less wealthy? What's the cut-off? What entitlements are "rights" and what are indulgences? Food, I think we all agree, should be provided by the government. Education, too. Shelter. Maybe even non-emergency health care.

But when do you say -- "OK, we're providing enough for the baseline citizen. Let's stop raising taxes on the rich"? Do citizens have a right to comfort? I'd argue that they don't. You have a right to survival and equality of opportunity -- not to comfort. In fact, you *should* be uncomfortable if you're unemployed. You should be uncomfortable until you're employed.

I'm not a big proponent of raising taxes on the rich. I'm not theoretically opposed to it, but in practice, the US government hasn't earned my faith. The government is inherently inefficient, and American welfare programs are largely unsuccessful. The money raised by taxes is more likely to be spent on administrative bullshit or defense than on lower classes.

I prefer less ambiguous measures. A significant raise in the minimum wage, for instance, is long overdue. It is impossible to live comfortably on current minimum wage. Reforming the tax code to eliminate loopholes is necessary. The wealthier you are, the easier it is for you to get out of paying taxes. That's backward. Taxes should be simple and unavoidable. Greatly increase regulations on financial institutions. And fixes are necessary for the health care and education systems in America, but I won't pretend to have the answers to those questions. Raising taxes is not even close to a solution to those problems.

You're smart until your last sentence.

I guess everyone is going to have a different line, but since you quoted me, my line is right about here (in approximate order of importance):

Shelter. Food. Medicine (really great healthcare for all people). Defense (actual defense, not "defense" as a euphemism for being a colonial empire). Education (preschool-doctorate). Infrastructure (better roads, highways, bridges, public transit, emergency services [police, fire, ems, disaster response], better water & power systems). Public works & entertainment (monuments, spectacles [4th of July, NYE], speeches & debates).

I'm probably forgetting something, but that's the jist.

Most of these are things that #1 we already provide in some form, or at least purport to provide, and that #2 are provided in countries with higher (flatter) taxes on the rich, which are still somehow able to provide enough incentives to corporations to stay there despite the higher taxes (defeating the argument which states that the money will run if taxes are raised).

I'm not proposing to put Shaquiniquila - mother of 9 children - up at The Ritz. I agree that it should be uncomfortable to ask for assistance. I agree that the current systems in this country have failed miserably. That is no fucking excuse for letting people go hungry but for the charity of strangers. Those people shouldn't have to beg on the streets while the fat cats cruise their helipad-equipped yachts on Uncle Sam's dime.

That shit is fucking ridiculous. We hook the banks up with billions, and that's cool, but when it comes to obtaining enough money to scrape by, you bitches wanna cry foul. It's cool to throw hundreds of billions of dollars on the military so that they can go do some shit in some other country, but it's near-impossible for someone who has worked their entire life in the trades and has ended up actually disabled and poor in this country to get any assistance for being really disabled or really being poor. I know lots of stories like that, and I'm sure if you think about it you do too.

I'm not talking about trailer trash freeloaders or EBT trading crackheads. They actually have an easier time of it because there are so many private outreach programs set up for abused women etc. to supplement the shitty government program.

No private outreach programs set up for 45 year old blue collar guys without the ability to work.

Meanwhile the CEO's apply their cost/benefit analysis to whether or not to squeeze every dime out of the customer through engineered faults (WHY THE FUCK AREN'T CELL PHONES WATERPROOF???) and planned obsolescence or actually try to provide a good product that will last. They decide fuck you, put some colored lights on it, you'll buy it anyway.

..and thus the people take the streets.