Occupy !

[jadmperry]

Try it now and let me know if you can see the photos of the Occupy Wall Street protest.

Works. Thanks!

 

[Kim]

Try it now and let me know if you can see the photos of the Occupy Wall Street protest.

Yep, perfect now! Thanks

 

[Kim]

Try it now and let me know if you can see the photos of the Occupy Wall Street protest.

Great photos! Really give a good sense of what it is like to be there.

and man.. look at all those dangerous terrorists and menancing agitators... off with their heads!!!

 

[jadmperry]

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/26/updates-on-occupy-protests-nationwide/?hp

This article reports that one of the protesters in Oakland, a twice deployed Marine, was shot in the head by a police fired weapon (sounds like it may have been some type of non-lethal weapon) and suffered a fractured skull.

This is a real shame...I have a hard time imaging how this use of force would be justified (though, it is unclear if this was an intentional use of the weapon or negligence).

 

[grant sarver]

Except that the facts don't quite mesh...

• 51% pay no taxes
• Entitlement spending is the vast majority of the budget
• The annual federal deficit exceeds the combined wealth of the top 20 of wage earners
• The answer be politicians is to tax the rich

And yet when the income tax was instituted 100 years ago, it was meant to only tax the top 50%, that's nothing new, just a red herring. The tax only started at $3000 (about $60,000 today). "Entitlement" is a euphemism for Social Security and Medicare used to make it sound like welfare.

 

[Forsaken]

And yet when the income tax was instituted 100 years ago, it was meant to only tax the top 50%, that's nothing new, just a red herring. The tax only started at $3000 (about $60,000 today). "Entitlement" is a euphemism for Social Security and Medicare used to make it sound like welfare.

Not like people actually earned social security or anything. .

 

[Kim]

off with their heads.. and their entitlements!

 

[Fred Sherman]

Not like people actually earned social security or anything. .

No, they haven't. And here's why.

In 1968, the federal government, elected by those of retirement and near retirement age, decided that the social security trust fund would be moved into the general fund and was promptly spent.

Now, try this. Go down to your local bank and open a vacation savings account. Then six months later, tell them you're withdrawing the money because you need it in your checking account to cover some bills and from now on, all your deposits will be made to that account as well. The go back 6 months later and try to withdraw money from your vacation account and see what the bank says.

Ladies and gentlemen, thats what the duly elected government of today's retirees did and they allowed it. Thats why those of us who are working today will be retiring later, because OUR SS payments are going to them because they spent theirs.

These are the harsh realities that America has to come to terms with unless our plan is to just print more money every time we need it.

Thats why simple slogans and pithy platitudes aren't of any value. Here's the reality. This is no answer to the problem. Its beyond the point of being reparable. The US will decline because we mismanaged our finances. China is the new global power broker.

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/26/updates-on-occupy-protests-nationwide/?hp

This article reports that one of the protesters in Oakland, a twice deployed Marine, was shot in the head by a police fired weapon (sounds like it may have been some type of non-lethal weapon) and suffered a fractured skull.

This is a real shame...I have a hard time imaging how this use of force would be justified (though, it is unclear if this was an intentional use of the weapon or negligence).

Sadly, it sounds like the protesters turned violent, the police responded with non-lethal force and it was a tragic accident. No one on either side should exploit his death. I doubt either side intended for this to happen.

And yet when the income tax was instituted 100 years ago, it was meant to only tax the top 50%, that's nothing new, just a red herring. The tax only started at $3000 (about $60,000 today). "Entitlement" is a euphemism for Social Security and Medicare used to make it sound like welfare.

The idea of social security as it was originally intended is not welfare, but the reality of how it is funded and managed today is very much a welfare program. Worse even, because at least welfare is means tested. (Yes, I part ways with conservatives on that because it isn't a contribute to/withdraw from program as it once was)

 

[grant sarver]

Guess what Fred; I pretty much agree with your assessment. I just don't like the term "entitlement". It's correct, but it conveys a different meaning.

I would like to speak to the idea that the rich get rich on the backs of the working class. And I welcome any critical analysis. A real world example for me comes from when I was an employer. Every dollar I paid in wages was a dollar that did not go in my pocket. I paid relatively high wages for my industry, but it was pretty much enlightened self-interest. Gave me a larger pool of workers, and to some extent, increased productivity and attendance.

 

[Fred Sherman]

And that is an example to you of "the rich getting rich on the backs of the working class"? If so, nothing short of a socialist utopia is going to satisfy you.

People possess certain skills and those skills have a value. The value is based upon the difficulty of the skill, the number of people available who have that skill and the experience level of the person.

Those skills have a maximum value. The only way to achieve that maximum value is as an independent contractor. Most people sell themselves short of their maximum value for security. An employer provides certain benefits that self-employment doesn't. A large percentage of small businesses are independent contractors.

A business owner who pays a decent wage isn't getting rich off his employees, he's getting rich off himself. Who determined the strategy of your company? You did, right? What about your anchor customer - every small business has one when they start out - who's relationship was that? Yours, I bet. Who made the financial calls - how much to devote to marketing, how much to reinvestment, how many employees to have on payroll. You again? All a risk. Make the wrong decision, and the business fails.

Who was personally liable for the debt of and judgements against your company? You again, right? Were you ever in a tight spot financially? I know I was in 2009 as the economy caught up with IT. My employees didn't lose sleep and develop and ulcer, but I did. They didn't have to decide who got let go, but I did. I was the villain for firing their friends, they never saw me as the hero who saved the company.

And during those tough 6 months, my employees got paid. I was the one I did not pay or cut payment to 50%.

And who was your top salesman? Because I can tell you with 100% certainty that I am our top salesman and our best technical expert.

So no, I reject the "evil corporate owners" image the loony left paints because I've seen those owners. I am one of those owners and it is so far divorced from reality as to be laughable if it wasn't for the constant drumbeat of the Washington socialists egging them on.

 

[Rho Delta]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Fred Sherman]

Funniest thing I've seen all day.

 

[Fred Sherman]

This is almost as funny:

Occupy Wall Street kitchen staff protesting fixing food for freeloaders

The Occupy Wall Street volunteer kitchen staff launched a “counter” revolution yesterday -- because they’re angry about working 18-hour days to provide food for “professional homeless” people and ex-cons masquerading as protesters.

For three days beginning tomorrow, the cooks will serve only brown rice and other spartan grub instead of the usual menu of organic chicken and vegetables, spaghetti bolognese, and roasted beet and sheep’s-milk-cheese salad.

They will also provide directions to local soup kitchens for the vagrants, criminals and other freeloaders who have been descending on Zuccotti Park in increasing numbers every day.

To show they mean business, the kitchen staff refused to serve any food for two hours yesterday in order to meet with organizers to air their grievances, sources said.

As the kitchen workers met with the “General Assembly’’ last night, about 300 demonstrators stormed from the park to Reade Street and Broadway, where they violently clashed with cops.

Officers made at least 10 arrests when rowdy demonstrators refused to get out of the street and stop blocking traffic. A dozen cops on scooters tried to force them back to the sidewalk.

There were no reported injuries.

The demonstrators said they were angry over the violence in Oakland.

After making their way to Union Square, many of the protesters returned to Zuccotti.

The Assembly announced the three-day menu crackdown announced earlier in the day -- insisting everybody would be fed something during that period.

Some protesters threatened that the high-end meals could be cut off completely if the vagrants and criminals don’t disperse.

Unhappiness with their unwelcome guests was apparent throughout the day.

“We need to limit the amount of food we’re putting out” to curb the influx of derelicts, said Rafael Moreno, a kitchen volunteer.

A security volunteer added that the cooks felt “overworked and underappreciated.”

Many of those being fed “are professional homeless people. They know what they’re doing,” said the guard at the food-storage area.

Today, a limited menu of sandwiches, chips and some hot food will be doled out -- so legitimate protesters will have a day to make arrangements for more upscale weekend meals.

Protesters got their first taste of the revolt within the revolt yesterday when the kitchen staff served only peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and chips after their staff meeting.

Organizers took other steps to police the squatters, who they said were lured in from other parks with the promise of free meals.

A team of 10 security volunteers moved in to the trouble-prone southwest section of Zuccotti Park in a show of force to confront them.

“We’re not going to let some members of this community destroy the whole movement,” a volunteer said.

Some arguments broke out as the security team searched tents -- but no violence erupted.

Overall security at the park had deteriorated to the point where many frightened female protesters had abandoned the increasingly out-of-control occupation, security- team members said.

Rumors swirled that one homeless man had pulled a knife in a dispute the night before -- and that there had been yet another case of groping.

But protesters and a cop on duty told The Post that most of the crime goes unreported, because of a bizarre “stop snitching” rule.

“What’s happening in there is staying in there,” said the cop.

So lets summarize:
A subset of the protesters are protesting against the protesters (who are protesting against those who they claim benefit by exploiting other) because they are being exploited and overworked by the protesters.

The organizers, who are protesting that the poor are getting poorer and the rah are getting richer are going to deny food to "provide food for 'professional homeless people and ex-cons masquerading as protesters" (AKA the real poor), because they jeopardize their "high-end meals" of "organic chicken and vegetables, spaghetti bolognese, and roasted beet and sheep’s-milk-cheese salad" might get cut off. In order to take care of themselves and the real poor among them, they'd have to eat PB&J!

Is the hypocrisy of this lost on anyone?

 

[grant sarver]

And that is an example to you of "the rich getting rich on the backs of the working class"? If so, nothing short of a socialist utopia is going to satisfy you.

So there's no middle ground?

 

[grant sarver]

 

[grant sarver]

If so, nothing short of a socialist utopia is going to satisfy you.

Socialist is easy, it's that "Utopia" part where it gets tough.

 

[John]

This should make everything perfectly clear.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Fred Sherman]

So there's no middle ground?

I think what we presented as the typical business owner experience *IS* the middle ground, but you offered it up as an example of the rich exploiting the worker. Do you really feel you did something wrong?

 

[grant sarver]

I'm real conflicted in this whole thing. I don't like giveaways anymore than Fred. I started with nothing and bet it all . I did well. Not everyone can do the same. I believe that in a country as rich as ours, no one should go without food or medical care or decent housing.

My daughter is a junior executive in a financial services firm. She makes 20 rimes what I made working my butt off, sometimes 18 hours a day. Heck, her bonus is more than I made! I made tangible goods, she makes decisions. Her sister is a special education teacher and earns a pittance by comparison. But, we all have food on the table and roofs over our heads. That was my parents minimum standard.

 

[grant sarver]

I think what we presented as the typical business owner experience *IS* the middle ground, but you offered it up as an example of the rich exploiting the worker. Do you really feel you did something wrong?

No, I was just exploring where the idea that the rich get rich at the expense of the poor comes from. There is some truth in it.