Total Posts:73|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Occupy is the epitome of what is wrong

DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2011 11:17:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Occupy movement is the epitome of what is wrong with the world. The world has become self absorbed, greedy, and envious. People only see how things effect them, and ignore the fact that everyone has the same problems(It's a fricken recession people).

Here is a quote from a 99er that proves my point
http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com...

29 years old & unemployed since right before Christmas 2010 {Merry Christmas!!} just because the boss didn't like me.

Probably because she is a bad employee. But hey, why add that.

NO job prospects & unemployment didn't cover my rent so I had to leave my home to rent it.

Hey, welcome to the recession.

NO health insurance either, so I pray my stomach aches aren't anything serious.

A fricken stomach ache.

I watch my family struggle to survive, watch my Aunt lose her right to bargain for job security, and my parents retirement disappear over GREED - while our great hope (Yes We Can) does nothing to stop it.

complaining about a bankrupt nation not being able to pay entitlements. Than calling them rights, to justify demanding for them. This chick is pathetic.

I am lucky to have no major debts, in fact, I am glad I did not go to college and strap 40k to my back. A degree doesn't mean much anymore.

She is glad she didn't try to educate herself beyond what is taught in the public high schools. That is rich. Studies show those with a degree have a better chance of finding a job, and each degree level makes a difference. That means more pay, and more job security. She doesn't want to invest she wants to be handed something.

I even left the US to be in a country that has public programs in place to feed the poor, transport their workers, free college & health care.

In other words, she left America to embrace socialism, and now is complaining about America.

I love America & hope that one day I can be proud of it again. Our systems have failed - it is time for change and revolution.

She needs to go back to her socialist country and leave us alone.

Personally, I don't think that Martin Luther King Jr. would have gave one sh*t about a memorial to him when there are so many suffering.

I don't think King wanted a memorial, I think he wanted to end segregation. Why is this white chick even bring up King, when talking about her economic situation?

We have been feeding this dying system for 30+ years. It is time to wake up and restore from the bottom up!

Since the 1980's? The only reason why she would possibly say 30+ years, is because she is 29. Again she is focused on herself.

Let's look at another one of these nuts.

I am 25 yrs. old. I have lived in the USA for 22 yrs. I was born in Mexico and brought over in search of a "BETTER" life. I work and pay taxes but i have NO rights. I am fortunate I have a job but i live in constant fear. I am an undocumented immigrant. I AM THE 99%.

In other words, she is not a citizen, she is a adult, and she has not attempted to file for citizenship; yet some how we should feel sorry for her because she can be deported any minute for breaking federal immigration laws, which were established for national security reasons.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2011 11:19:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/11/2011 11:17:26 AM, DanT wrote:
The Occupy movement is the epitome of what is wrong with the world. The world has become self absorbed, greedy, and envious. People only see how things effect them, and ignore the fact that everyone has the same problems(It's a fricken recession people).

Here is a quote from a 99er that proves my point
http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com...

29 years old & unemployed since right before Christmas 2010 {Merry Christmas!!} just because the boss didn't like me.

Probably because she is a bad employee. But hey, why add that.

NO job prospects & unemployment didn't cover my rent so I had to leave my home to rent it.

Hey, welcome to the recession.

NO health insurance either, so I pray my stomach aches aren't anything serious.

A fricken stomach ache.

I watch my family struggle to survive, watch my Aunt lose her right to bargain for job security, and my parents retirement disappear over GREED - while our great hope (Yes We Can) does nothing to stop it.

complaining about a bankrupt nation not being able to pay entitlements. Than calling them rights, to justify demanding for them. This chick is pathetic.

I am lucky to have no major debts, in fact, I am glad I did not go to college and strap 40k to my back. A degree doesn't mean much anymore.

She is glad she didn't try to educate herself beyond what is taught in the public high schools. That is rich. Studies show those with a degree have a better chance of finding a job, and each degree level makes a difference. That means more pay, and more job security. She doesn't want to invest she wants to be handed something.

I even left the US to be in a country that has public programs in place to feed the poor, transport their workers, free college & health care.

In other words, she left America to embrace socialism, and now is complaining about America.

I love America & hope that one day I can be proud of it again. Our systems have failed - it is time for change and revolution.

She needs to go back to her socialist country and leave us alone.

Personally, I don't think that Martin Luther King Jr. would have gave one sh*t about a memorial to him when there are so many suffering.

I don't think King wanted a memorial, I think he wanted to end segregation. Why is this white chick even bring up King, when talking about her economic situation?

We have been feeding this dying system for 30+ years. It is time to wake up and restore from the bottom up!

Since the 1980's? The only reason why she would possibly say 30+ years, is because she is 29. Again she is focused on herself.




Let's look at another one of these nuts.


I am 25 yrs. old. I have lived in the USA for 22 yrs. I was born in Mexico and brought over in search of a "BETTER" life. I work and pay taxes but i have NO rights. I am fortunate I have a job but i live in constant fear. I am an undocumented immigrant. I AM THE 99%.

In other words, she is not a citizen, she is a adult, and she has not attempted to file for citizenship; yet some how we should feel sorry for her because she can be deported any minute for breaking federal immigration laws, which were established for national security reasons.

Lol.
Occupy is the epitome of uselessness.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Pacey5714
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2011 3:48:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I see how you choose to ignore people who have legitimate concerns and choose to post on people you portray as whining. Occupy does sever a purpose and people do have a right to be upset. Our nation is catering to the wealthy while middle and lower class continuously lose jobs. Education funding is being cut because some officials see it as a expendable fund. Banks are allowed by our federal government to be financial irresponsible and take risks with no repressions except having our government throw more money at them. Now I am not saying we need complete revision, but the corruption and obvious favoritism on the 1% while relying on the middle class need to end. Not drastically, but they need to have a appropriate tax that accurately takes a percentage back of their earnings as they do for the rest of us.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2011 4:21:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/11/2011 3:48:15 PM, Pacey5714 wrote:
I see how you choose to ignore people who have legitimate concerns and choose to post on people you portray as whining. Occupy does sever a purpose and people do have a right to be upset. Our nation is catering to the wealthy while middle and lower class continuously lose jobs. Education funding is being cut because some officials see it as a expendable fund. Banks are allowed by our federal government to be financial irresponsible and take risks with no repressions except having our government throw more money at them. Now I am not saying we need complete revision, but the corruption and obvious favoritism on the 1% while relying on the middle class need to end. Not drastically, but they need to have a appropriate tax that accurately takes a percentage back of their earnings as they do for the rest of us.

If you want to talk favoritism, the government favors the bottom tax bracket more than anything.

The government favors the bottom 30% the most, and the top 1% the second most.
Everyone in between is piped.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2011 4:30:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/11/2011 3:48:15 PM, Pacey5714 wrote:
I see how you choose to ignore people who have legitimate concerns and choose to post on people you portray as whining. Occupy does sever a purpose and people do have a right to be upset. Our nation is catering to the wealthy while middle and lower class continuously lose jobs. Education funding is being cut because some officials see it as a expendable fund. Banks are allowed by our federal government to be financial irresponsible and take risks with no repressions except having our government throw more money at them. Now I am not saying we need complete revision, but the corruption and obvious favoritism on the 1% while relying on the middle class need to end. Not drastically, but they need to have a appropriate tax that accurately takes a percentage back of their earnings as they do for the rest of us.

Geeze

Top 1% are investors, businessmen, high skilled workers, etc.

They are well educated, highly skilled, and intelligent people....

Furthermore, "fair share" is a subjective thing... If you define fair share as paying the same percentage in taxes as everyone else, the top 1% is paying more than their "fair share", as they are paying a much higher percentage than everyone else, even after taking payroll taxes, state and local taxes, etc. into account

You can say that 0% is a "fair share".... you can say 100% is fair share... But, the whole "fair share" arugment thing is too subjective to be taken seriously, as everyone has a different definition of "fair share"

The effect of super higher tax rates on the rich is to keep high skilled workers from coming to America, while some that are in America will leave... nobody that could keep their money elsewhere would stay here... and, of course, the wealthy are more mobile than anyone else.

You also have a lot more tax evasion, as there is more incentive to dodge taxes... there is a reduction in labor supply at the top, which is very valuable in many cases

You see businesses hiring and reinvesting less, as they have less capital and less possible gain... Why risk capital in an investment if you are going to lose 70% of the possible gain?

Same goes for entrepeunerial activity and all kinds of investment

So, taxing the rich at a high is a profoundly impractical thing to do... it won't raise much, if any, reveue... but, it will send productive people away and make them contribute less to society.
President of DDO
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2011 4:40:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/11/2011 11:17:26 AM, DanT wrote:
The Occupy movement is the epitome of what is wrong with the world. The world has become self absorbed, greedy, and envious. People only see how things effect them, and ignore the fact that everyone has the same problems(It's a fricken recession people).

There I was worried about shia and sunni terrorism.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2011 4:51:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/11/2011 4:30:23 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
Top 1% are investors, businessmen, high skilled workers, etc.

So, taxing the rich at a high is a profoundly impractical thing to do... it won't raise much, if any, reveue... but, it will send productive people away and make them contribute less to society.

The top 1% of income earners in this country earn $380,000 or more a year. Can you name one "skilled" occupation that pays this much and truly contributes to society?

Yes, we do need to be concerned about keeping productive people here in the US. The productive people are the ones doing the work and making the actual difference, not the ones riding their cooperate jets reaping absurdly massive benefits for everyone else's contributions.

Opportunity to be successful is what drives innovation and productivity. The only opportunity available to highly skilled workers is to go out and work for some company kissing a$$ for 30 years to keep up with your bills, just to get laid off because they decided to downsize. This is not motivating, and does not drive innovation and productivity.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2011 5:24:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/11/2011 4:51:18 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/11/2011 4:30:23 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
Top 1% are investors, businessmen, high skilled workers, etc.

So, taxing the rich at a high is a profoundly impractical thing to do... it won't raise much, if any, reveue... but, it will send productive people away and make them contribute less to society.

The top 1% of income earners in this country earn $380,000 or more a year. Can you name one "skilled" occupation that pays this much and truly contributes to society?

Yes, we do need to be concerned about keeping productive people here in the US. The productive people are the ones doing the work and making the actual difference, not the ones riding their cooperate jets reaping absurdly massive benefits for everyone else's contributions.

Opportunity to be successful is what drives innovation and productivity. The only opportunity available to highly skilled workers is to go out and work for some company kissing a$$ for 30 years to keep up with your bills, just to get laid off because they decided to downsize. This is not motivating, and does not drive innovation and productivity.

The office jobs are more important than feeble minded lefties could ever hope to understand.

CEO Job Responsibilities

The primary responsibility of the CEO is to direct the company, inside and out, to align with his or her vision for the company's future. This includes guiding other executives and high level officers along a main objective and working to increase business outside of the company. Secondary responsibilities are often determined by the size of the company and the business sector it represents. The CEO is required to balance objectives internally and externally in order to strengthen and sustain the company.

CEOs are often required to represent their company. The position often comes with a high level of public visibility. Therefore, they are typically required to attend important events such as public meetings, international conferences, and public events.

Budgeting is often another area where CEOs may be responsible or at least provide input. In larger organizations, a Chief Financial Officer (CFO) typically handles the financially-related aspects of the company. In that case, the CEO may work closely with the CFO to prepare the budget. CEOs commonly analyze the risks involved before making any major purchase or investment and advise or report to the board as to the potential for return on the investment.

CEO Training and Education Requirements

There is no predetermined course of study for CEOs. Formal education varies as much as the responsibilities do. However, many CEOs have at minimum a bachelor's degree and significant experience. Many CEOs are chosen from within the organization due to experience in their respective industries. When CEOs are chosen from outside the company, they are usually required to have extensive experience in a related industry.

One important quality CEOs must possess is the ability to work with people and resolve or prevent conflict. The position often requires highly refined interpersonal skills as well as the ability to communicate publicly. Public speaking is a skill commonly found in CEOs. CEOs must also be able to take in a large amount of information and develop a big-picture perspective in order to make precise and strategic decisions about the direction of the company.

Another important observation is that many CEOs achieved the position from entrepreneurship. That means they originally started a company that grew large enough from inception to give the founder the position of CEO due to size, stability, or going public. For example, the world's longest running CEO, Milton Pierce, founded a security company, Guardian Alarm, as a young teenager in 1930.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2011 5:33:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/11/2011 4:51:18 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/11/2011 4:30:23 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
Top 1% are investors, businessmen, high skilled workers, etc.

So, taxing the rich at a high is a profoundly impractical thing to do... it won't raise much, if any, reveue... but, it will send productive people away and make them contribute less to society.

The top 1% of income earners in this country earn $380,000 or more a year. Can you name one "skilled" occupation that pays this much and truly contributes to society?

Yes, we do need to be concerned about keeping productive people here in the US. The productive people are the ones doing the work and making the actual difference, not the ones riding their cooperate jets reaping absurdly massive benefits for everyone else's contributions.

Opportunity to be successful is what drives innovation and productivity. The only opportunity available to highly skilled workers is to go out and work for some company kissing a$$ for 30 years to keep up with your bills, just to get laid off because they decided to downsize. This is not motivating, and does not drive innovation and productivity.

I hate to be rude, but your comment seems to indicate an extreme ignorance of basic economic principles.

It seems to all be based on the old, discredited, marxian labor theory of value. This theory of value states that all commodoties have an inherent value, that is objective.

In fact, value is completely subjective... it is based on societies needs and preferences, and this is reflected in the price.

This relates to CEO pay and the top "1%" in that the pay they receive is based on the value society puts on these things... A CEO that makes $10,000,000 makes that amount of money because people are willing to pay that much for his servuce... which, in the case of CEOs, is rare and vital... its all about supply and demand

Very few people have the skills to be CEO, but we need to have CEO's.... that is what CEO pay reflects

Investors... you are basically saying they contribute nothing... thats not at all true... capital is needed to start up businesses and reinvest in the economy... so, ya

So, stop reading OWS signs and open up an economics text book....
President of DDO
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2011 2:47:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/11/2011 5:33:29 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
I hate to be rude, but your comment seems to indicate an extreme ignorance of basic economic principles.

It seems to all be based on the old, discredited, marxian labor theory of value. This theory of value states that all commodoties have an inherent value, that is objective.

In fact, value is completely subjective... it is based on societies needs and preferences, and this is reflected in the price.

This relates to CEO pay and the top "1%" in that the pay they receive is based on the value society puts on these things... A CEO that makes $10,000,000 makes that amount of money because people are willing to pay that much for his servuce... which, in the case of CEOs, is rare and vital... its all about supply and demand


Very few people have the skills to be CEO, but we need to have CEO's.... that is what CEO pay reflects

Investors... you are basically saying they contribute nothing... thats not at all true... capital is needed to start up businesses and reinvest in the economy... so, ya

So, stop reading OWS signs and open up an economics text book....

My comment does not imply what you think it does, it apparently went way over your head. The value of labor relating to supply and demand is kindergarten economics, spare me the lecture. Never did I say or imply anything about this. My comment is regards to your apparent view that the top 1% are the ones we should value in our society.

You claim that the top 1% includes skilled workers. CEO's are not skilled workers. A skilled worker is someone who is very good at a trade, such as an engineer or computer technician. The point of my comment is that these are the people who should be valued in our society. Not the ones who reap the benefits from their accomplishments.

Investors do not contribute anything inherently valuable to our society. If all of our engineers or computer technicians suddenly disappeared, we would be in big trouble. If all of our investors disappeared, their money would still be there, and will find its way to the hands of someone else who will invest with it. Investors are replaceable, skilled workers are not.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2011 2:49:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/11/2011 5:24:33 PM, DanT wrote:
The office jobs are more important than feeble minded lefties could ever hope to understand.

CEO Job Responsibilities

The primary responsibility of the CEO is to direct the company, inside and out, to align with his or her vision for the company's future. This includes guiding other executives and high level officers along a main objective and working to increase business outside of the company. Secondary responsibilities are often determined by the size of the company and the business sector it represents. The CEO is required to balance objectives internally and externally in order to strengthen and sustain the company.

CEOs are often required to represent their company. The position often comes with a high level of public visibility. Therefore, they are typically required to attend important events such as public meetings, international conferences, and public events.

Budgeting is often another area where CEOs may be responsible or at least provide input. In larger organizations, a Chief Financial Officer (CFO) typically handles the financially-related aspects of the company. In that case, the CEO may work closely with the CFO to prepare the budget. CEOs commonly analyze the risks involved before making any major purchase or investment and advise or report to the board as to the potential for return on the investment.

CEO Training and Education Requirements

There is no predetermined course of study for CEOs. Formal education varies as much as the responsibilities do. However, many CEOs have at minimum a bachelor's degree and significant experience. Many CEOs are chosen from within the organization due to experience in their respective industries. When CEOs are chosen from outside the company, they are usually required to have extensive experience in a related industry.

One important quality CEOs must possess is the ability to work with people and resolve or prevent conflict. The position often requires highly refined interpersonal skills as well as the ability to communicate publicly. Public speaking is a skill commonly found in CEOs. CEOs must also be able to take in a large amount of information and develop a big-picture perspective in order to make precise and strategic decisions about the direction of the company.

Another important observation is that many CEOs achieved the position from entrepreneurship. That means they originally started a company that grew large enough from inception to give the founder the position of CEO due to size, stability, or going public. For example, the world's longest running CEO, Milton Pierce, founded a security company, Guardian Alarm, as a young teenager in 1930.

Congratulations, you know what a CEO is. Now is there a point to you "response"?
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2011 3:14:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The OP restated "it's a recession" several times, as though this is some sort of normal condition that everyone should accept. Part of the OWS concern is that there's some perceived "recession," while a given class remains completely immune to such economic follies.

Simply rejecting the protestors with some arrogant predisposition does not add to your case. There is nothing the OP stated that was at all interesting or compelling. It was an appeal to what appears to be a popular preexisting view.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2011 3:31:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Millions of skilled workers if not coordinated efficiently by the 1% CEO's, will find it extremely hard to globally market their services.
TheTruthAnalyst
Posts: 312
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2011 10:38:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/12/2011 2:47:13 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/11/2011 5:33:29 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
I hate to be rude, but your comment seems to indicate an extreme ignorance of basic economic principles.

It seems to all be based on the old, discredited, marxian labor theory of value. This theory of value states that all commodoties have an inherent value, that is objective.

In fact, value is completely subjective... it is based on societies needs and preferences, and this is reflected in the price.

This relates to CEO pay and the top "1%" in that the pay they receive is based on the value society puts on these things... A CEO that makes $10,000,000 makes that amount of money because people are willing to pay that much for his servuce... which, in the case of CEOs, is rare and vital... its all about supply and demand


Very few people have the skills to be CEO, but we need to have CEO's.... that is what CEO pay reflects

Investors... you are basically saying they contribute nothing... thats not at all true... capital is needed to start up businesses and reinvest in the economy... so, ya

So, stop reading OWS signs and open up an economics text book....

My comment does not imply what you think it does, it apparently went way over your head. The value of labor relating to supply and demand is kindergarten economics, spare me the lecture. Never did I say or imply anything about this. My comment is regards to your apparent view that the top 1% are the ones we should value in our society.

You claim that the top 1% includes skilled workers. CEO's are not skilled workers. A skilled worker is someone who is very good at a trade, such as an engineer or computer technician. The point of my comment is that these are the people who should be valued in our society. Not the ones who reap the benefits from their accomplishments.

Investors do not contribute anything inherently valuable to our society. If all of our engineers or computer technicians suddenly disappeared, we would be in big trouble. If all of our investors disappeared, their money would still be there, and will find its way to the hands of someone else who will invest with it. Investors are replaceable, skilled workers are not.

Are doctors and lawyers not valuable?

Your argument about investors being replaceable is ridiculous. Investing isn't something you can just do if you have money... it's difficult, stressful, takes a lot of time and work, and a long time to learn how to do profitably. Skilled workers are just as replaceable as investors.

You say, if all our investors disappeared, but their investments were still there(the product of what they do would still be there if they disappeared), then you would have to compare that to all our technicians disappearing, but the maintenance(the product of what they do) would still be there.

No, for a fair comparison, get rid of all investors and their money. Pull it out of the markets. Yeah, that wouldn't hurt at all.
Vote For Truth. Vote For Pie.
Truth-Pie 2012 (member FDIC)
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2011 11:07:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/12/2011 3:31:22 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
Millions of skilled workers if not coordinated efficiently by the 1% CEO's, will find it extremely hard to globally market their services.

That's complete nonsense.

Marketers market, Advertise advertise. CEO's simply sit on money, because they believe they're entitled to due to some abstract ownership of a conceptual organization. Indeed, it is bullshtt. Welcome to the OWS school of thought.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2011 11:15:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/12/2011 10:38:16 AM, TheTruthAnalyst wrote:

Are doctors and lawyers not valuable?

The vast majority are not in the upper 1 percent ($350k+).

Your argument about investors being replaceable is ridiculous. Investing isn't something you can just do if you have money... it's difficult, stressful, takes a lot of time and work, and a long time to learn how to do profitably. Skilled workers are just as replaceable as investors.

Nonsense. You make no indication as to why, you're simply stating it because you want to believe it.

You say, if all our investors disappeared, but their investments were still there(the product of what they do would still be there if they disappeared), then you would have to compare that to all our technicians disappearing, but the maintenance(the product of what they do) would still be there.

No, you wouldn't. The difference is that investors are only necessary to those that already have money that want to help grow their money by helping someone else who has money. This can relate to either a single investor or an organization investing other people's, laymen's, money. What's extra hilarious is that laymen don't have the same access to this money. The vast majority of them that will apply for loans or grants will be rejected, because the bank has no problem holding, or even using their money, but it has a big problem giving it back. That would be why there's so many charges, that would be why most of them are hidden, and that would be why most large banks have lost a class-action case, most recently, Bank of America last year.

No, for a fair comparison, get rid of all investors and their money. Pull it out of the markets. Yeah, that wouldn't hurt at all.

No, it wouldn't. It would only help.

Rich people need to learn to be responsible for themselves rather than being so exploitive. It would do wonders if they had to pay their own way rather than rely on the money of their cronies and society.

Some of you are so pathetically brainwashed. Why do you care whether rich people are held accountable for their irresponsibility and selfishness? This is for the benefit of us.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2011 11:21:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/12/2011 3:14:50 AM, Ren wrote:
The OP restated "it's a recession" several times, as though this is some sort of normal condition that everyone should accept.
It's Normal phenomenon, which is treated every time as if it's something new and devastating.

Since America first began, we have had at-least one recession every decade, sometimes, we have had multiple recessions. The first recession was known as the panic of 1792. In the decades of the 1890's and 1860's we had 3 recessions.

It's not unusual.

Part of the OWS concern is that there's some perceived "recession," while a given class remains completely immune to such economic follies.

Which isn't true. When the upper class is forced lay off workers, and their sales decrease, and their stocks go down, they lose money. Just as our working class has a decline in their standard of living, so does our rich. Being rich is subjective. In most third world countries, our working class would be as rich as kings. There decline in standard of living is just as intolerable as your decline. It's not how much you start with, it's the extent of the decline which causes you to suffer.

Simply rejecting the protestors with some arrogant predisposition does not add to your case. There is nothing the OP stated that was at all interesting or compelling. It was an appeal to what appears to be a popular preexisting view.

That is your opinion.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2011 11:22:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/12/2011 11:21:01 AM, DanT wrote:
At 12/12/2011 3:14:50 AM, Ren wrote:
The OP restated "it's a recession" several times, as though this is some sort of normal condition that everyone should accept.
It's Normal phenomenon, which is treated every time as if it's something new and devastating.

Since America first began, we have had at-least one recession every decade, sometimes, we have had multiple recessions. The first recession was known as the panic of 1792. In the decades of the 1890's and 1860's we had 3 recessions.

It's not unusual.

Part of the OWS concern is that there's some perceived "recession," while a given class remains completely immune to such economic follies.

Which isn't true. When the upper class is forced lay off workers, and their sales decrease, and their stocks go down, they lose money. Just as our working class has a decline in their standard of living, so does our rich. Being rich is subjective. In most third world countries, our working class would be as rich as kings. There decline in standard of living is just as intolerable as your decline. It's not how much you start with, it's the extent of the decline which causes you to suffer.

Simply rejecting the protestors with some arrogant predisposition does not add to your case. There is nothing the OP stated that was at all interesting or compelling. It was an appeal to what appears to be a popular preexisting view.

That is your opinion.

I mean their
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2011 11:23:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/11/2011 5:24:33 PM, DanT wrote:

The office jobs are more important than feeble minded lefties could ever hope to understand.

LOL, I'm not a leftist, but let's review.

CEO Job Responsibilities

The primary responsibility of the CEO is to direct the company, inside and out, to align with his or her vision for the company's future.

Lol? That isn't very important. "Have an idea and tell people to follow you." An organization can work together to pursue the same goal without some zealot spearheading it.

This includes guiding other executives and high level officers along a main objective and working to increase business outside of the company.

Alright, so far, we only have the importance of what CEOs think and how they're important to each other and managers right below them.

Secondary responsibilities

LOL, and that's all they do! They sit around and be important for themselves! xD

are often determined by the size of the company and the business sector it represents. The CEO is required to balance objectives internally and externally in order to strengthen and sustain the company.

This practically has no meaning at all. Watch:

"The organization is required to balance objectives internally and externally in order to strengthen and sustain the company."

"The teacher is required to balance objectives internally and externally in order to strengthen and sustain the curriculum."

Meaningless, hifalutin statement.

CEOs are often required to represent their company.

Everyone in a company is required to represent the company to an extent. So what? :\ Millions to billions for having a face?

The position often comes with a high level of public visibility.

False. I don't remember the last time I saw a CEo on Tv representing his or her company.

Therefore, they are typically required to attend important events such as public meetings, international conferences, and public events.

Public meetings, public meets again, and then, internal meetings? Oh noes!!

Budgeting is often another area where CEOs may be responsible or at least provide input.

Lol. Whereas, otherwise, they simply allow accountants to do their job.

In larger organizations, a Chief Financial Officer (CFO) typically handles the financially-related aspects of the company. In that case, the CEO may work closely with the CFO to prepare the budget.

Almost became important, then was immediately diluted. :P

CEOs commonly analyze the risks involved before making any major purchase or investment and advise or report to the board as to the potential for return on the investment.

Once again, everything important apparently required guidance.

CEO Training and Education Requirements

There is no predetermined course of study for CEOs.

However, many CEOs have at minimum a bachelor's degree and significant experience.

I think, really, this is all that needs to be said.

Thanks for really driving the OWS point home.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2011 11:31:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Rich people need to learn to be responsible for themselves rather than being so exploitive. It would do wonders if they had to pay their own way rather than rely on the money of their cronies and society.:

Most rich people got rich after having spent decades struggling. Not everyone who is rich was born with a silver spoon in their mouth, and are they not allowed to enjoy the fruits of their labor? I don't understand the need or purpose to denigrate wealthy people prima facie, yet everyone who works does so to amass wealth.

Some of you are so pathetically brainwashed. Why do you care whether rich people are held accountable for their irresponsibility and selfishness? This is for the benefit of us.:

Who is "us" in this context, and what is the benefit?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2011 11:39:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/12/2011 11:15:01 AM, Ren wrote:
At 12/12/2011 10:38:16 AM, TheTruthAnalyst wrote:

Are doctors and lawyers not valuable?

The vast majority are not in the upper 1 percent ($350k+).

The good ones are. I know plenty of doctors, some of which are renowned professors in the upper 1%. Those are the best doctors, with valuable skills,that surpass the doctors who make less money. I also know some crappy doctors with lousy salaries. Their salaries were earned, for better or for worse.

Your argument about investors being replaceable is ridiculous. Investing isn't something you can just do if you have money... it's difficult, stressful, takes a lot of time and work, and a long time to learn how to do profitably. Skilled workers are just as replaceable as investors.

Nonsense. You make no indication as to why, you're simply stating it because you want to believe it.

That's a opinion. Your not much better in your argument strength.

You say, if all our investors disappeared, but their investments were still there(the product of what they do would still be there if they disappeared), then you would have to compare that to all our technicians disappearing, but the maintenance(the product of what they do) would still be there.

No, you wouldn't. The difference is that investors are only necessary to those that already have money that want to help grow their money by helping someone else who has money.

investors are the back bone of the economy. When jobs are created, it's because a business man invested in more labor. When something is invented (such as the light-bulb), it is funded by investors. When medicine is being discovered, investors fund the research. When a company expands, and thus brings in foreign trade, it is expanded through investments.

This can relate to either a single investor or an organization investing other people's, laymen's, money. What's extra hilarious is that laymen don't have the same access to this money. The vast majority of them that will apply for loans or grants will be rejected, because the bank has no problem holding, or even using their money, but it has a big problem giving it back.

uh, loans, and grants are not giving back money owed. It's giving new money. You are a bit confused. If you are denied a loan, it's because you are a financial risk. If you are denied a grant, it's because you don't meet the qualifications, as stipulated by the person who owns the money.

That would be why there's so many charges, that would be why most of them are hidden, and that would be why most large banks have lost a class-action case, most recently, Bank of America last year.

No, for a fair comparison, get rid of all investors and their money. Pull it out of the markets. Yeah, that wouldn't hurt at all.

No, it wouldn't. It would only help.

Rich people need to learn to be responsible for themselves rather than being so exploitive. It would do wonders if they had to pay their own way rather than rely on the money of their cronies and society.


They rely on money they earned, through investments, and through their careers.

Who's money does food stamp precipitants rely on? Oh that's right, they rely on the tax payer's money. And who pays most of the taxes? Oh that's right, the rich.

Some of you are so pathetically brainwashed. Why do you care whether rich people are held accountable for their irresponsibility and selfishness? This is for the benefit of us.

Because the government is meant to benefit the entire community, not just one group of people, not just the poor, and not just the rich. They are meant to benefit everyone. When you target the rich, you open others up to be targeted as well. Once a government becomes destructive of it's own role, it continues to degrade, and it's extremely hard to reverse the degradation of government. The government's role is to protect the life, liberty, and property, of the entire community, not just the majority.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2011 12:04:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I love how the OP picks a fight with some random person who is not even a part of DDO and cannot defend herself. Yawn @ the useless rant with points I find considerably easy to refute.
President of DDO
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2011 12:30:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/12/2011 12:04:37 PM, Danielle wrote:
I love how the OP picks a fight with some random person who is not even a part of DDO and cannot defend herself. Yawn @ the useless rant with points I find considerably easy to refute.

There is not much to defend. Their complaints are pathetic.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2011 6:41:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/12/2011 10:38:16 AM, TheTruthAnalyst wrote:
Your argument about investors being replaceable is ridiculous. Investing isn't something you can just do if you have money... it's difficult, stressful, takes a lot of time and work, and a long time to learn how to do profitably. Skilled workers are just as replaceable as investors.

I know what investors do. My father was an investor, mostly in real estate for over 30 years. When he passed away in 2007 he left his estate to his family, which I am still managing today. After over 4 years of dealing with all of the issues that come along with his properties and everything else, I know what they go through. My fathers contributions, while great for himself and great for his family, did very little for society which was the point of everything I have said (if you paid attention).

The people who built the grocery store, and the day care center etc on those properties, the people who made the products to be sold in those stores, the people who kept the places clean and ready for business are the ones who truly contributed. My father was simply the one who put up the money. Without all of those people, he would have been nothing.

You say, if all our investors disappeared, but their investments were still there(the product of what they do would still be there if they disappeared), then you would have to compare that to all our technicians disappearing, but the maintenance(the product of what they do) would still be there.

Investors do not bring money into society, investors accumulate money from society. Get rid of investors and money will still be there. Skilled workers bring their skills into society. Get rid of them and society will no longer have the skills they brought.

BTW doctors are skilled workers. And in fact are probably the most valuable contributors in our society.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2011 7:15:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/12/2011 6:41:15 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/12/2011 10:38:16 AM, TheTruthAnalyst wrote:
Your argument about investors being replaceable is ridiculous. Investing isn't something you can just do if you have money... it's difficult, stressful, takes a lot of time and work, and a long time to learn how to do profitably. Skilled workers are just as replaceable as investors.

I know what investors do. My father was an investor, mostly in real estate for over 30 years. When he passed away in 2007 he left his estate to his family, which I am still managing today. After over 4 years of dealing with all of the issues that come along with his properties and everything else, I know what they go through. My fathers contributions, while great for himself and great for his family, did very little for society which was the point of everything I have said (if you paid attention).

The people who built the grocery store, and the day care center etc on those properties, the people who made the products to be sold in those stores, the people who kept the places clean and ready for business are the ones who truly contributed. My father was simply the one who put up the money. Without all of those people, he would have been nothing.

without the money they would have no job to do. There would be no point in investing, if one does not see a return. If there is no investments, there is no funding, without funding there is no progress, and there is no jobs.


You say, if all our investors disappeared, but their investments were still there(the product of what they do would still be there if they disappeared), then you would have to compare that to all our technicians disappearing, but the maintenance(the product of what they do) would still be there.

Investors do not bring money into society, investors accumulate money from society.

Investors bring money into a society by funding jobs and projects.

Get rid of investors and money will still be there. Skilled workers bring their skills into society. Get rid of them and society will no longer have the skills they brought.

Get rid of investors, and you get rid of funding.

BTW doctors are skilled workers. And in fact are probably the most valuable contributors in our society.

What about the hospital's investors? What about the doctors who invest in starting a private practice?

Do those doctors become evil because they became investors?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2011 7:17:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/12/2011 6:41:15 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/12/2011 10:38:16 AM, TheTruthAnalyst wrote:
Your argument about investors being replaceable is ridiculous. Investing isn't something you can just do if you have money... it's difficult, stressful, takes a lot of time and work, and a long time to learn how to do profitably. Skilled workers are just as replaceable as investors.

I know what investors do. My father was an investor, mostly in real estate for over 30 years. When he passed away in 2007 he left his estate to his family, which I am still managing today. After over 4 years of dealing with all of the issues that come along with his properties and everything else, I know what they go through. My fathers contributions, while great for himself and great for his family, did very little for society which was the point of everything I have said (if you paid attention).

The people who built the grocery store, and the day care center etc on those properties, the people who made the products to be sold in those stores, the people who kept the places clean and ready for business are the ones who truly contributed. My father was simply the one who put up the money. Without all of those people, he would have been nothing.

You say, if all our investors disappeared, but their investments were still there(the product of what they do would still be there if they disappeared), then you would have to compare that to all our technicians disappearing, but the maintenance(the product of what they do) would still be there.

Investors do not bring money into society, investors accumulate money from society. Get rid of investors and money will still be there. Skilled workers bring their skills into society. Get rid of them and society will no longer have the skills they brought.

BTW doctors are skilled workers. And in fact are probably the most valuable contributors in our society.

Ahhh, good ole fashioned economic ignorance
President of DDO
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2011 7:21:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Why has this become about investors?

The point is that the majority of wealth is generated by the majority, but it's held and controlled by a minority. That, in and of itself, is a problem.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2011 7:56:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/12/2011 7:21:45 PM, Ren wrote:
Why has this become about investors?

The point is that the majority of wealth is generated by the majority, but it's held and controlled by a minority. That, in and of itself, is a problem.

Do any of you OWS retards understand that investors are actually important for the economy?
President of DDO
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2011 8:12:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/12/2011 7:21:45 PM, Ren wrote:
Why has this become about investors?

The point is that the majority of wealth is generated by the majority, but it's held and controlled by a minority. That, in and of itself, is a problem.

Well look at the bottom tear of income earners, it is the ignorant, and the unintelligent. Look at the top tears and you see intelligent, educated men.

The people got to the top tears because they invested. They invested in college, they invested in an idea, they took the risk, and they reaped the rewards.

Now look at the 99ers in OWS
one said
I am glad I did not go to college and strap 40k to my back.

Another said
I am a college graduate that spent the last several years working for non-profits along with my wife. At the height of our careers in this field we earned a grand total of $12.00 an hour each... My wife and I both lost our jobs over a year ago. Non-profits have cut their hiring and operate on shoestring budgets.

These people either don't invest in a college degree, or they invest in a degree that doesn't open doors for them.

I see wanted ads all the time for people with degrees; but if you don't get the right degree, you wasted a munch of money, that you won't see any returns on. These people should have had a V8.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2011 8:25:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/12/2011 7:56:00 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 12/12/2011 7:21:45 PM, Ren wrote:
Why has this become about investors?

The point is that the majority of wealth is generated by the majority, but it's held and controlled by a minority. That, in and of itself, is a problem.

Do any of you OWS retards understand that investors are actually important for the economy?

They only care about grunts, who are as replaceable as light-bulbs. They don't understand that the guy signing their paycheck is the reason they have a job to begin with.

Useful idiots and bleeding hearts don't care about facts, they care about the movement. Even if the movement they are part of has no defined purpose or goal, such as OWS.

OWS has no set goals, or purpose, its just a gathering of people shouting inconsistent rants, on how the word needs to do for them, and provide for them.

There are people shouting for open boarders, there are people shouting antisemitic remarks against Jews, there are people promoting communism, there are people demanding free college, there are people demanding benefits for the transgendered. There are people demanding money for AIDs patients. There are people who want anarchy, and there are people there just for the sake of rebelling.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle