What are the Goals of Occupy Wall Street?

[Zeonix]

Well yeah, but that's not what I asked. As an "uninformed European", I can't see any of the current candidates bring about any change. I was hoping for an American perspective.

My post had two parts. First, as Avenger stated, I think their front runners are, at best, Republicans manipulating and controlling what some people think is a genuine movement, but is actually a right-wing ploy to reinvent the GOP, either through pretending to be a movement that fights for the people, or by aligning the GOP and Tea Party in such a way that the latter are destined to fail, forcing its followers to vote for the former. What started as a liberal movement was co-opted by right-wing forces once Ron Paul lost his initial bid. At worst, they actually believe what they're saying. That's a can of worms I'm not ready to open yet.

Secondly, I absolutely believe their candidates could bring about great change. Change is not a word that has negative or positive connotations. It's neutral. But when I say change, I mean they could bring this country to its knees in such a way that a true awakening would be inevitable. Americans are generally quite docile so long as everything goes according to plan and everyone maintains a certain degree of comfort. When that disappears, a side of our nation that our worst enemies have only glimpsed is unveiled, and will be turned inward toward those who would do us harm and those we perceive have done us harm.

This nation doesn't remember what its like to be on the brink. I think we need to be reminded.

 

[-Origin]

Let me rephrase. Do you think any of the candidates (hell, or Obama himself) can bring about any positive change without an overhaul of the system itself? I'm not completely in agreement with the Occupy movement, but the sheer size of it seems to indicate that more and more people are not exactly pleased with the way things have been going. I'm not sure if just electing a new face with "new" ideas, on either side of the political spectrum, will really change things for the better. Do you?

 

[Zeonix]

Any of them can. Most of them won't. We can change the system and rebuild it from the ground up. That doesn't change the type of person that gravitates to positions of authority. To change the system one must change the nation, and to change the nation one must change the people. Are any of the candidates going to bring about positive change? Yes. Is it the kind of change you're vaguely talking about? Probably not.

In short, as a nation and as a people we need to be reborn. And like the Phoenix, we require fire.

 

[Avenger]

Is this when we launch the nukes, Zeo?

 

[-Origin]

Welp, sorry for being vague. Thanks for the answer.

 

[Zeonix]

Welp, sorry for being vague. Thanks for the answer.

It wasn't a shot at you. The concept of positive change varies greatly on the person asking for it. While some would ask for a benevolent government capable of taking care of the needs of its people, others would argue for no government with a populace that can take care of itself. A strong military vs. no military. Universal healthcare vs. private healthcare vs. superhumans.

You get the point.

 

[Chakra-X]

I have no issue with the super rich. You own a successful company and you made the right decisions, good on you. Or you inherited it, lucky you, enjoy it.

It's the gap between the top income earners/"job creators" that I do not think is quite fair. People can argue that the wealthy are not obligated to share their wealth and people should just try really really hard to get rich. But is the ground really that even? And who are the people that allow the company to keep running? Corporate profits and CEO income have been on a sharp incline since the 90s yet the median household income has stayed relatively flat. Why should banks, which needed to be bailed out through our money, sit on all the new profits and not invest? (I get the housing bubble may have shaken them up but now it's the opposite extreme).

And the whole idea that raising taxes on the rich hurts "small business owners" is **** to me, especially with the new millionaire tax, as opposed to the one that aimed at households at $250,000+. The trickle down economic strategy that making it cheaper and less risky to invest by lowering taxes for the rich works on paper,and I am sure there are companies that can take advantage of that. Yet taxes on the rich have been so low since the Reagan administration and I fault to see the benefit for the middle class, I only see graphs where corporate profit has dramatically improved.

 

[-Origin]

It wasn't a shot at you. The concept of positive change varies greatly on the person asking for it. While some would ask for a benevolent government capable of taking care of the needs of its people, others would argue for no government with a populace that can take care of itself. A strong military vs. no military. Universal healthcare vs. private healthcare vs. superhumans.

You get the point.

Is there a positive change that you personally would most like to see?

I have no issue with the super rich. You own a successful company and you made the right decisions, good on you. Or you inherited it, lucky you, enjoy it.

It's the gap between the top income earners/"job creators" that I do not think is quite fair. People can argue that the wealthy are not obligated to share their wealth and people should just try really really hard to get rich. But is the ground really that even? And who are the people that allow the company to keep running? Corporate profits and CEO income have been on a sharp incline since the 90s yet the median household income has stayed relatively flat. Why should banks, which needed to be bailed out through our money, sit on all the new profits and not invest? (I get the housing bubble may have shaken them up but now it's the opposite extreme).

And the whole idea that raising taxes on the rich hurts "small business owners" is **** to me, especially with the new millionaire tax, as opposed to the one that aimed at households at $250,000+. The trickle down economic strategy that making it cheaper and less risky to invest by lowering taxes for the rich works on paper,and I am sure there are companies that can take advantage of that. Yet taxes on the rich have been so low since the Reagan administration and I fault to see the benefit for the middle class, I only see graphs where corporate profit has dramatically improved.

Am I understanding the whole "trickle-down" term right, when I say that the idea is that companies will receive taxcuts, giving them more money to invest, becoming bigger companies, requiring more work and therefore "creating jobs"?

 

[Zeonix]

I'd like us to put imperalism on ice for 50 years and turtle, allowing us to rebuild the nation and invest in our people. Focus on educating Americans, regardless of age. Focus on scientific achievement. Focus on being the best America that we could ever hope for. I'd like to see us rid ourselves of anyone and anything that does not benefit the nation or its people. If you work against progress, you are a problem, and we solve our problems. Those who lie for personal gain will find my sword between their eyes. Those who would divide my nation would find my knife-hand dividing their chest. Once we've regained our prestige and walk once more along the golden path, I'd like to see us offer Canada a chance to merge nations. And when that union is formed, I'd like the same to happen with Mexico. And with time, I'd like to see us extend that offer to South America. Once our hemisphere is united under one rule, I'd like to see us remove imperialism from the freezer, and offer the world a chance to be part of something greater than themselves. A chance to no longer be divided, but One, as humanity should be.

And when we are denied that union, I'd like us to show the world just how far we've come in the last however many years. I'd like us to show the world what the American Union can do when it no longer restrains itself, as it did in the 20th and 21st centuries.

And I'd like it if we won.

 

[Chakra-X]

Am I understanding the whole "trickle-down" term right, when I say that the idea is that companies will receive taxcuts, giving them more money to invest, becoming bigger companies, requiring more work and therefore "creating jobs"?

Yeah pretty much it's the idea that the benefits for those at the top will eventually see positive effects through cause and effect for those at the middle and bottom. Tax cuts and incentives for company owners and businesses should automatically mean more jobs and higher wages, but that phenomenon does not really seem to be happening at all when the past 20 years are looked at as whole.

@Praetor

If Canada refuses such an offer, do we force them or just entice them eventually just by proving ourselves?

 

[Zeonix]

That's because trickle-down economics is the closest thing you can get to bull**** without actually having someone write a paper on actual bull ****.

@Chakra's edit: We'd do what we normally do when we want something from Canada: Pay off their leaders.

 

[-Origin]

Then why is it still being hailed as the greatest thing ever by so many people (I'm tempted to say Republicans but I'm not sure that's accurate)? Haven't the facts clearly and unequivocally proven that it doesn't work?

For example;

We're at a tipping point now. Everyone needs to pay something. And so I take a page from Ronald Reagan and the economic miracle that was wrought in the 1980s. Reagan flattened the tax rates and he simplified them.

Are they just sticking their fingers in their ears going "lalalala can't hear you"?

 

[Zeonix]

Then why is it still being hailed as the greatest thing ever by so many people (I'm tempted to say Republicans but I'm not sure that's accurate)? Haven't the facts clearly and unequivocally proven that it doesn't work?

For example;



Are they just sticking their fingers in their ears going "lalalala can't hear you"?

Basically, when an official in the GOP/Tea Party (which was co-opted for the purpose of bolstering gop support) says something, the opposite is true.

 

[Grega]

Then why is it still being hailed as the greatest thing ever by so many people (I'm tempted to say Republicans but I'm not sure that's accurate)? Haven't the facts clearly and unequivocally proven that it doesn't work?

Cause its exploitable. Quite easily exploitable. See if i only invest 50% of the cash i retain from the tax cuts i have the other 50% for myself. While smaller companies have problems with smaller tax cuts due to them being an uncertainty due to their size.

Its a system aimed at bigger companies who can exploit it while at the same time making it harder for smaller companies to get to competitive.

What i say is only true because of human nature. If it wernt for greed the system wold work nicely, but so would communism. Human nature has the ability to corrupt every system.

So far id agree most with Zeo and his idea of imperialism eventually uniting the entire planet (id just wish it wouldnt have that "America the great" undertone to it XD). The problem would be getting an emperor that cant be corrupted by power ^^

 

[Zeonix]

Jesus, what is with you and communism, Grega?

 

[Grega]

Jesus, what is with you and communism, Grega?

Whats wrong with using the so called "most corrupt system in human history" as an example. Especially since its pretty much the most fair to people on paper.

Im no communist supporter mind you but that only because i know how people can abuse it. Im more of a socialism type of person. You know mixing the best of both communism and capitalism.

So yea anything wrong with using it as an example when i know what kind of reputation it has?

 

[Zeonix]

Communism has never worked. Capitalism has. Socialism has.

 

[Halion]

Communism has never worked. Capitalism has. Socialism has.

Socialism stops functioning when it becomes communism. Much like capitalism stops functioning when it works its way into becoming fascism, something that I fear is already happening, or has already happened around us.

 

[-Origin]

Are you sure you know what any of those words mean?

 

[Grega]

Communism has never worked.

Thats exactly why i use it as a reference so often. It cant work if the peoples greedy mindset doesnt change. And on the other side pure capitalism is nothing more than corporate anarchy. Same thing, different side of the coin.

Or must i really stress again that im using extremes to point out that getting a middle ground is what needs to be done.