Occupy !
- Thread starter DroidHost
- Start date
- Status
jadmperry
Well-known member
I can dig that
I suppose a more interesting issue is whether you agree with the idea that income inequality, to the extent it exists now, is a problem. (I think the 1%/99% distinction is not very helpful- you will always have a distribution curve and there will always be haves and have-nots...the real issue is the degree of inequality, the steep curve).
Take the issue outside of the context of the Occupy Movement. In the abstract, is the inequality a problem in your view? If not now, is there ever a point where it would be a problem? I think it is problematic in terms of both what this means for the "super poor" not having access to basic living standards, and also in terms of outsized impact of the very rich on the political process. (I concede big problems in how you define what group you are looking at...i.e., on a basic human level, I think that starving people in places all over the world is a shame and should be dealt with...but, I think this starts to move towards a different issue than wage/income/wealth distribution that I think is the focus of the Occupy Movement- or maybe I am wrong on that, at least to some people). It is also problematic to engage in "social engineering" and getting at how you fix this problem, to the extent it exists, is the big unanswered question. Who decides the optimal level of distribution of goods and services? Subsidies exist on one level or another, so we don't have a true "free market" anyway...so, the "fairest" solution would seem to me to do away with all subsidies- but I think that is a non-starter as those subsidies reflect either investments in externalities (like education) or value judgments about value of subsidies (like R&D credits for various industries). Those problems acknowledged, though, I don't think it means you don't address the bigger problem of inequality. Or at least try.
SchmitzIT
Well-known member
I totally agree that it's a travesty that in the 21 century, poverty still exists. At the same time, for as long as I remember, there have been starving children in Africa. Every year, money has been sent there by the cofferloads, and very little seems to have improved.
In my mind, that clearly indicates that that system does not work. Too much corruption, too much overhead, you name it.
I wholly support organizations attempting to make a change, and regularly, whenever my budget allows for it, donate to specific causes that I believe do good work. Others, that have proven that the redistribution mostly intends to line their own pockets (and the accounts of those are numerous. Big luxurious offices, directors raking in 100k+ a year, the UN putitng their "aid-workers" in 5 star hotels in Africa, have them driving around in big SUVs, you know the drill), I plain pass.
I just think the issue with foreign aid is that too many people seem to think that everything can be fixed by just blindly throwing money some way. That's simply idiotic in my mind. I'm much more in favour of the "teach a man to fish" mentality, and preferably so without whoever is doing the teaching lining his pockets all the way to the bank. At the same time, agressively deal with those attempting to divert aid from the true people suffering (local warlords, militants, dictators, and what not), and you might get stuff truly done. Educate people so they can provide for themselves, and can pass on their knowledge to others. Ensure they learn to provide income for themselves, rather than relying on a government body to pretend to do that for them.
The same, I'm sure can be done on local level. I cannot speak for the rest of the world, but in Holland certain political parties have a tendency to somehow get their totally incompetent members placed in very well-paying jobs. After an n amount of months, it will turn out these people were unfit to run this organization/city to begin with, and they'll be moved onto the next job, again, at salaries totally unachievable for "regular" people. At the same time these parties preach about solidarity, which in their opinion means stealing from the working and doshing it out lavishly to the lazy and undeserving.
The poor and needy, the ones that the social systems were designed for, are the ones truly suffering from this. THEIR money is being hijacked by the "elite" (not the enterpreneurs or businessmen who actually earned their money, but by people who never saw the inside of a company, who are just moving from one public function top another), as well as those trying to take advantage of the fact they might be able to get a bucketload of money for free.
The true evil is not in the 1%. The true evil is well-embedded within the 99%.
In my mind, that clearly indicates that that system does not work. Too much corruption, too much overhead, you name it.
I wholly support organizations attempting to make a change, and regularly, whenever my budget allows for it, donate to specific causes that I believe do good work. Others, that have proven that the redistribution mostly intends to line their own pockets (and the accounts of those are numerous. Big luxurious offices, directors raking in 100k+ a year, the UN putitng their "aid-workers" in 5 star hotels in Africa, have them driving around in big SUVs, you know the drill), I plain pass.
I just think the issue with foreign aid is that too many people seem to think that everything can be fixed by just blindly throwing money some way. That's simply idiotic in my mind. I'm much more in favour of the "teach a man to fish" mentality, and preferably so without whoever is doing the teaching lining his pockets all the way to the bank. At the same time, agressively deal with those attempting to divert aid from the true people suffering (local warlords, militants, dictators, and what not), and you might get stuff truly done. Educate people so they can provide for themselves, and can pass on their knowledge to others. Ensure they learn to provide income for themselves, rather than relying on a government body to pretend to do that for them.
The same, I'm sure can be done on local level. I cannot speak for the rest of the world, but in Holland certain political parties have a tendency to somehow get their totally incompetent members placed in very well-paying jobs. After an n amount of months, it will turn out these people were unfit to run this organization/city to begin with, and they'll be moved onto the next job, again, at salaries totally unachievable for "regular" people. At the same time these parties preach about solidarity, which in their opinion means stealing from the working and doshing it out lavishly to the lazy and undeserving.
The poor and needy, the ones that the social systems were designed for, are the ones truly suffering from this. THEIR money is being hijacked by the "elite" (not the enterpreneurs or businessmen who actually earned their money, but by people who never saw the inside of a company, who are just moving from one public function top another), as well as those trying to take advantage of the fact they might be able to get a bucketload of money for free.
The true evil is not in the 1%. The true evil is well-embedded within the 99%.
jadmperry
Well-known member
So, it sounds like you agree that the poverty by itself is a problem...But what about inequality (whether now or if the distribution becomes more extreme than now)? (Let's leave the world-wide "true poverty" issue aside and focus on standards within, say "Western Democracies"....but, I do agree about waste and corruption and have seen some fairly gross expenditures on dubious things).
Is inequality in and of itself a problem? Ever?
If I followed your post correctly, you reserve blame for incompetent government workers/politicians, but don't see a real issue with the very rich. (Now, as an aside, I think the problems include individuals, but it is likely the corporations that shoulder the larger portion of blame for the problems...that is, the 1% seems to be focused on individuals- I suspect because people are smooshing together many issues, especially individual taxation, and end up not differentiating the issues between corporate rich and individual rich actors). But, don't you think the "rich" have an outsized impact on the government and resultant policies? If so, is that a problem?
To be clear, I am not pushing to punish rich individuals just because they are "rich." (I am also by no means a fervent "Occupier", I just think there are valid issues to look at in their concerns). If I had to give an overarching sort of statement about my views, I guess I would say I am for having optimal incentives for actors, at all levels, to be as productive as they can be without allowing them to impose negative and unintended externalities. I just worry that a steep spread of wealth and income is not healthy for society as a whole.
Is inequality in and of itself a problem? Ever?
If I followed your post correctly, you reserve blame for incompetent government workers/politicians, but don't see a real issue with the very rich. (Now, as an aside, I think the problems include individuals, but it is likely the corporations that shoulder the larger portion of blame for the problems...that is, the 1% seems to be focused on individuals- I suspect because people are smooshing together many issues, especially individual taxation, and end up not differentiating the issues between corporate rich and individual rich actors). But, don't you think the "rich" have an outsized impact on the government and resultant policies? If so, is that a problem?
To be clear, I am not pushing to punish rich individuals just because they are "rich." (I am also by no means a fervent "Occupier", I just think there are valid issues to look at in their concerns). If I had to give an overarching sort of statement about my views, I guess I would say I am for having optimal incentives for actors, at all levels, to be as productive as they can be without allowing them to impose negative and unintended externalities. I just worry that a steep spread of wealth and income is not healthy for society as a whole.
SchmitzIT
Well-known member
I agree with your last paragraph. And I don't doubt there's "rich" who got rich by pure exploitation (Khadaffi for example). And yet, there are also lots of rich people who got rich due to sheer hard work, and being able to spot opportunities, take risks, and reap the rewards for it. Some are rich because they simply built a superior system that provided major benefits to users (The Google guys come to mind).
Is it fair to basically force them at gunpoint to hand over part of their hard-earned money? Make no mistake about it. If a new tax is levied on me, and I refuse to pay it, some armed government person will come and take it from me, or throw me in prison.
If you're simply lobbying for getting rid of corporate lobbying, then I would happily march with you (provided it's during a weekend and I will not have to carry any signs, dress up in odd costumes, or chant slogans. I seriously dislike that kinda stuff). For the US, that would be a great start. In our neck of the woods, such stuff is less obvious and perhaps also less thriving, but I do not doubt that it happens here as well.
As for total equality, I just do not see a realistic way to make that happen. People are different, value different things, have different trades and professions, which are valued different by others. I think I agree with Ayn Rand there as well:
Unless everyone suddenly somehow agrees that everything anyone else does suddenly is off equal value, there will be inequality, unless total equality is forced onto everyone. I'll not let that happen without a fight, though
Is it fair to basically force them at gunpoint to hand over part of their hard-earned money? Make no mistake about it. If a new tax is levied on me, and I refuse to pay it, some armed government person will come and take it from me, or throw me in prison.
If you're simply lobbying for getting rid of corporate lobbying, then I would happily march with you (provided it's during a weekend and I will not have to carry any signs, dress up in odd costumes, or chant slogans. I seriously dislike that kinda stuff). For the US, that would be a great start. In our neck of the woods, such stuff is less obvious and perhaps also less thriving, but I do not doubt that it happens here as well.
As for total equality, I just do not see a realistic way to make that happen. People are different, value different things, have different trades and professions, which are valued different by others. I think I agree with Ayn Rand there as well:
Unless everyone suddenly somehow agrees that everything anyone else does suddenly is off equal value, there will be inequality, unless total equality is forced onto everyone. I'll not let that happen without a fight, though
Morgain
Well-known member
I am quite concerned that so much of what I wrote has been misunderstood.
Jadmperry I never used the term "blame" and I never "pilloried" America. It's true that many of the modern dispossessed, are inclined to blame America. But that is natural if you have either lost your home, or your job, or your prospects of having either in the forseeable future, nor do you see any prospect of higher education. The prospects for young people without solid family backing, families who are better placed in niche economic places, are dire. so they are many of them angry and resentful. To such an attitude blame may be a language that fits the need.
What I said was that it was boring and inaccurate to reduce and twist the international topic of Occupy into a merely American story when it is much larger than mere America.
I also said that the model of the American economy is faulty and those that have copied it like the British are now far worse off than other European nations who did not. Perhaps I showed some blame there for my own idiotic British government but then as a British subject I'm entitled. 'Not in my name.'
I do feel sympathy for Americans who are worse off even than the British. Their prospects are not good and I have American friends.
Iceland is a red herring. Could have been any smaller economy.
Germany is more solid than any other European economy. Their banking is radically different to the UK and the USA - they don't merely debt farm. Plus they support manufacturing. As a result while they have suffered as all countries have (as you pointed out) they have not been affected nearly as much. Which is why they are the main bankroll for more bailout.
Your point "let's not be like America!!!" is certainly a powerful principle. Of course we don't want to be like America. Most Europeans feel like that anyway at least since WWII, plus a fair portion of Asians and definitely the Islamic Umma; but even more so since the American system failed. (Desire for material prosperity is not at all the same thing as desire to be like America.)
I think we need to distinguish here between blaming America which is an emotive reaction, and analysing how the American economic system in the last few decades, has failed, together with its copyists elsewhere such as the UK government (not the UK people).
That is the bogeyman if you insist on using that style of locating responsibility.
But the American system is not responsible for British failure - our Govt. chose to copy America (though there was also some coercion in it.) Nor is the American system responsible for all the rest. It has however had an enormous influence in creating failure.
Responsibility is not the same thing as blame. America is responsible for its own failure, together with a major impact on everyone else.
It is therefore crucially important that we do indeed ensure that we do not do it "like America."
In which your mini profile of "corporate responsibility, regulation, ... overall inequality" is a brilliant succincrt5 outline of what we need to avoid in the American system which has influenced other economies too much already. It's time to leave America to sort herself out and get on with doing things our own way. Which from 1945 - 1980s was pretty good.
Schmitz "A fraction of people claiming to represent or be the 99%, pointing the blame-finger at some imaginary enemy; the "1%".
I am not part of the 1%, ...."
You misunderstand the 1% and 99% language. It merely labels the richest few who have been vastly increasing their profits, and still are, at the expense of the 99% - us. Who are paying the bill.
Banks and big corporates are STILL increasing pay at the top - by huge amounts, plus paying massive bonuses. While the majority of ordinary people go without - without homes, jobs, health or dignity. That is something to point the finger about and it's crude and simple.
1) I do not subscribe to their mantra of simply pointing my finger at someone else and expecting that person to fix **** for me.
We as ordinary people cannot fix it. But by using various protest methods, petitions, campaigns, the media and symbolic occupation, we can push our governments to bring in sensible controls. Without which the next crash is going to make the last one look like a walk in the park.
2) I'm frankly too busy supporting my family to stay away from work to "protest".
I sympathise. Me I'm too afraid of police violence, not being vigorous enough to run or fight any more. But we can do other things - campaigns, petitions, letters to MPs, spreading ideas ...
Because you see your ability to support your family is now seriously at risk. So you, I, we do really need to act.
In Poland your attitude was called the Little Solidarity. Then the big Solidarity movement developed very much from actions like Occupy and change happened.
Once an economic system starts to break down it collapses surprisingly fast. Which has begun.
Jadmperry I never used the term "blame" and I never "pilloried" America. It's true that many of the modern dispossessed, are inclined to blame America. But that is natural if you have either lost your home, or your job, or your prospects of having either in the forseeable future, nor do you see any prospect of higher education. The prospects for young people without solid family backing, families who are better placed in niche economic places, are dire. so they are many of them angry and resentful. To such an attitude blame may be a language that fits the need.
What I said was that it was boring and inaccurate to reduce and twist the international topic of Occupy into a merely American story when it is much larger than mere America.
I also said that the model of the American economy is faulty and those that have copied it like the British are now far worse off than other European nations who did not. Perhaps I showed some blame there for my own idiotic British government but then as a British subject I'm entitled. 'Not in my name.'
I do feel sympathy for Americans who are worse off even than the British. Their prospects are not good and I have American friends.
Iceland is a red herring. Could have been any smaller economy.
Germany is more solid than any other European economy. Their banking is radically different to the UK and the USA - they don't merely debt farm. Plus they support manufacturing. As a result while they have suffered as all countries have (as you pointed out) they have not been affected nearly as much. Which is why they are the main bankroll for more bailout.
Your point "let's not be like America!!!" is certainly a powerful principle. Of course we don't want to be like America. Most Europeans feel like that anyway at least since WWII, plus a fair portion of Asians and definitely the Islamic Umma; but even more so since the American system failed. (Desire for material prosperity is not at all the same thing as desire to be like America.)
I think we need to distinguish here between blaming America which is an emotive reaction, and analysing how the American economic system in the last few decades, has failed, together with its copyists elsewhere such as the UK government (not the UK people).
That is the bogeyman if you insist on using that style of locating responsibility.
But the American system is not responsible for British failure - our Govt. chose to copy America (though there was also some coercion in it.) Nor is the American system responsible for all the rest. It has however had an enormous influence in creating failure.
Responsibility is not the same thing as blame. America is responsible for its own failure, together with a major impact on everyone else.
It is therefore crucially important that we do indeed ensure that we do not do it "like America."
In which your mini profile of "corporate responsibility, regulation, ... overall inequality" is a brilliant succincrt5 outline of what we need to avoid in the American system which has influenced other economies too much already. It's time to leave America to sort herself out and get on with doing things our own way. Which from 1945 - 1980s was pretty good.
Schmitz "A fraction of people claiming to represent or be the 99%, pointing the blame-finger at some imaginary enemy; the "1%".
I am not part of the 1%, ...."
You misunderstand the 1% and 99% language. It merely labels the richest few who have been vastly increasing their profits, and still are, at the expense of the 99% - us. Who are paying the bill.
Banks and big corporates are STILL increasing pay at the top - by huge amounts, plus paying massive bonuses. While the majority of ordinary people go without - without homes, jobs, health or dignity. That is something to point the finger about and it's crude and simple.
1) I do not subscribe to their mantra of simply pointing my finger at someone else and expecting that person to fix **** for me.
We as ordinary people cannot fix it. But by using various protest methods, petitions, campaigns, the media and symbolic occupation, we can push our governments to bring in sensible controls. Without which the next crash is going to make the last one look like a walk in the park.
2) I'm frankly too busy supporting my family to stay away from work to "protest".
I sympathise. Me I'm too afraid of police violence, not being vigorous enough to run or fight any more. But we can do other things - campaigns, petitions, letters to MPs, spreading ideas ...
Because you see your ability to support your family is now seriously at risk. So you, I, we do really need to act.
In Poland your attitude was called the Little Solidarity. Then the big Solidarity movement developed very much from actions like Occupy and change happened.
Once an economic system starts to break down it collapses surprisingly fast. Which has begun.
Morgain
Well-known member
Schmitz - "I don't doubt there's "rich" who got rich by pure exploitation (Khadaffi for example). And yet, there are also lots of rich people who got rich due to sheer hard work, and being able to spot opportunities, take risks, and reap the rewards for it. Some are rich because they simply built a superior system that provided major benefits to users (The Google guys come to mind)."
It's not about whether inequality happened through hard work (merit) or by unscrupulous methods. THat's important on one level.
On the stricdtly economic level it's irrelevant. What matters is the relative equality gap.
The greater inequality is the sicker people get - more aggression, more drugs alcohol, hopelessness, actual poor health physically. (The Spirit Level shows the statistics.) This is the (recent) American system of a "free economy" which has failed.
Like you I do not favour trying to achieve 'true equality.' That is stifling and merely conceals inequality making it a major source of corruption and hypocrisy as in the USSR.
But there is a middle way where portions of the wealth at the top is used to invigorate and protect those lower down.
As an example of invigoration Britain 1945 - the 1980s paid all university students who got good entrance exams, both their fees and a maintenance allowance. The quality of our education was second to none, ditto our achievements in research and invention.It was an intelligent and creative society that did pretty well in business too though not after the foreign model was brought in in 1979.
As an example of protection we had a world renowned health service. We produced the healthiest generation ever known who sadly are likely to outlive quite a few of our children and grandchildren.
The economic model for this period was a "mixed economy" where capitalism was moderated and guided.
Yes there were problems. When not?
But it's a choice between who robs us
Would I rather have a large part of our money taken off us by a small elite who banks it and gambles with it with no concern for the poor and the vulnerable?
Or would I rather have a large part of our money taken off us by public bureaucracies, in part inefficient and corrupt, but they are the agencies that collect our rubbish, provide education health and transport services?
It's not about whether inequality happened through hard work (merit) or by unscrupulous methods. THat's important on one level.
On the stricdtly economic level it's irrelevant. What matters is the relative equality gap.
The greater inequality is the sicker people get - more aggression, more drugs alcohol, hopelessness, actual poor health physically. (The Spirit Level shows the statistics.) This is the (recent) American system of a "free economy" which has failed.
Like you I do not favour trying to achieve 'true equality.' That is stifling and merely conceals inequality making it a major source of corruption and hypocrisy as in the USSR.
But there is a middle way where portions of the wealth at the top is used to invigorate and protect those lower down.
As an example of invigoration Britain 1945 - the 1980s paid all university students who got good entrance exams, both their fees and a maintenance allowance. The quality of our education was second to none, ditto our achievements in research and invention.It was an intelligent and creative society that did pretty well in business too though not after the foreign model was brought in in 1979.
As an example of protection we had a world renowned health service. We produced the healthiest generation ever known who sadly are likely to outlive quite a few of our children and grandchildren.
The economic model for this period was a "mixed economy" where capitalism was moderated and guided.
Yes there were problems. When not?
But it's a choice between who robs us
Would I rather have a large part of our money taken off us by a small elite who banks it and gambles with it with no concern for the poor and the vulnerable?
Or would I rather have a large part of our money taken off us by public bureaucracies, in part inefficient and corrupt, but they are the agencies that collect our rubbish, provide education health and transport services?
Kim
Well-known member
Well said Shan
I think we have a prime example of why people are so damn angry and are out on the streets.. right here at Xenforo, with the lawsuit situation.
We have a recklessly irresponsible corporation, fuelled by immense amounts of un-justified, largely un-earned money gathered in the most useless and unproductive manner, taking a frivolous and frankly cruel swipe at a smaller and better competitor comprising 3 hard working, talented individuals.... just because they can, because our systems allow them to use their wealth to great harm.
I think we have a prime example of why people are so damn angry and are out on the streets.. right here at Xenforo, with the lawsuit situation.
We have a recklessly irresponsible corporation, fuelled by immense amounts of un-justified, largely un-earned money gathered in the most useless and unproductive manner, taking a frivolous and frankly cruel swipe at a smaller and better competitor comprising 3 hard working, talented individuals.... just because they can, because our systems allow them to use their wealth to great harm.
Digital Doctor
Well-known member
Interesting analogy.
The economic situation will probably continue to flounder. But the primary culprit is the ineffective, "over-lobbied" government. S&P downgraded the America's rating on it's sovereign debt and quoted the political situation as a major factor.
Time to Merge the Legislature and the Executive Branch to enable the .gov to "Get Things done" (GTD).
I suspect the only way to change government *MEANINGFULLY* would be for American citizens to shut down Washington until changes are made. I have a feeling it may beneficial and inevitable. I also think it is easy to do. As soon as "the Middle Class" gives up on Washington ... there will be some catalyst ... and then a few million people will show up in Washington, with eviction notice in hand, and then change will happen.
I think this Occupy Movement was essentially a prelude. It'll die down, but after the 2012 election when it is easy to show that Washington isn't working ... Occupy 2: Reloaded: will be not be a Wall Street thing, it'll be a Washington thing. [Occupy 3: Revolution - may be needed to finish it off].
Digital Doctor
Well-known member
jadmperry
Well-known member
Not sure what reform would impact the present situation, though. Most tort reform have to do with limitations on punitive or non-economic damages. That would not change anything about the case against XF.
Carlos
Well-known member
It scares me that everyone wants to shut down either freakin' Washinton, or... the Fed.
How are any of us going to live?
How are any of us going to get a job?
How are any of us going to be able to get a medical benefit?
How are any of us going to be able to get a SSI check as it is now? I think the SSI system needs a reform, in itself. Not just the SSI checks, the whole freakin' system, there is too much fraud going on right now it's astronomical.
These fraud situations not only destroys your life, but it also comprimises your life, as in your identity to the government. And thieves think it's funny.
Not I! I think it's SAD! There is so many homeless people right now that they could use some of that SSI benefit.
How are any of us going to live?
How are any of us going to get a job?
How are any of us going to be able to get a medical benefit?
How are any of us going to be able to get a SSI check as it is now? I think the SSI system needs a reform, in itself. Not just the SSI checks, the whole freakin' system, there is too much fraud going on right now it's astronomical.
These fraud situations not only destroys your life, but it also comprimises your life, as in your identity to the government. And thieves think it's funny.
Not I! I think it's SAD! There is so many homeless people right now that they could use some of that SSI benefit.
Digital Doctor
Well-known member
Good point, Tort reform wouldn't fix this problem.
Agreed.
Carlos: the shut down may have some short term drawbacks, but when change is required to improve a problem, there is no point in denying the need.
Carlos: Washington has alot of work to do (as you outlined) and can't get anything done. It seems as if Washington is now structured so poorly it isn't designed to work for the people anymore. Essentially, that can't change unless there is some revolution. It will be a largely peaceful revolution - similar to Egypt.
Over the Spring and Summer I heard Obama saying time and time again about Arab governments need to respect the rights of the people. Well, his turn to "respect the people" will come.
I would say something that probably will happen and will delay any Revolution would be the upcoming Democratic Landslide victory. If the House and the Senate are still divided in 2012, Spring 2013 would be the time for Occupy: Washington.
SchmitzIT
Well-known member
I assure you I perfectly understand the 99%/1% rhetoric. The reason it is deliberately not specified further is to ensure that there will be multiple ways it can be explained. Thus, whenever anyone challenges the "calculation", it can easily be stated that that person did not understand the true meaning. It's almost political.
Fred Sherman
Well-known member
It'll never happen. First, the idea of merging the legislative of executive branches is ridiculous, dangerous even. It brings the US one step closer to tyranny. No one person can ever be trusted with that much power. When you start talking about no just changing the Constitution, but fundamentally changing the basic structure of the US government, you've willingly taken a seat in the lunatic fringe seat and set yourself up not just for failure, but if you truly believe your timeline, for death. Not the death of a movement, but true, bloody, violent death.
Second, shutting down the government won't be easy. Do you believe that the Washington DC police, the Secret Service, FBI and US military will let rabble squatters anywhere near the seat of government? Hell no. They'll be allowed to protest in the National Mall or somewhere close, but don't confuse Washington with Madison. The thought is simple and accurate, one or two terrorists mixed in with the hippies is enough to kill them all.
Third, your idea on revolution is death, pure and simple. Here's why - you face the US military. Yeah, I know, you believe that they'll never fight back. It'll be like Yeltsin on the tanks or Tiananmen Square. But you'll be wrong and won't understand until it is too late. what will happen is a forced dispersal. The protesters will turn violent, as they have in the past and then what will occur next will be like Kent State on steroids. The military will not back down because you are the enemy. Not their enemy, but an enemy of the Constitution which they have sworn to uphold against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I told you that idea of merging the branches would come back to bite you in the ass and this is where is chomps down and shakes like a pitbull.
If they make themselves into an enemy of the Constitution, there is no where to hide and no mercy coming from the military once if becomes violent. They will have made themselves into domestic terrorists and will be treated that way. You think I'm wrong? We've had a battle plan for that scenario for almost 150 years. And occasionally, in secret, that plan is exercised.
You are, in fact, advocating domestic terrorism, to the point where, if anyone took you seriously instead of seeing it for the harmless rhetoric that it is, your post is enough to land you in hot water.
But wait, there's more:
Remember that I said a plan exists? http://www.justice.gov/olc/docs/memomilitaryforcecombatus10232001.pdf
One they are terrorists, then the US of military force is authorized.
You should also consider reading 10 USC Chapter 15.
Is this exercised? You bet.
We'll stick with Wikipedia or it will get really weird fast:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Garden_Plot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rex_84
Now read about Operation Vibrant Response. Most of what you'll read in the media is that it concerns a domestic CBRN event - which is true. That is part of its scope. But that isn't the complete story. Vibrant Response is what we call an "echelon above division" plan. What that means is it is a domestic corp level response plan. Let me put that into perspective. the US army, worldwide, constitutes only 4 active corps. A corp is a war fighting unit. What I mean by that is you don't assign a corps to a war, you assign a war to a corp.
So how do you feel now?
Operation Garden Plot is the latest revision of a plan that has been around since 1864. Rex 84 was written by Lt. Colonel Oliver North. The two, in combination, empowers the US Army North Corp to direct military actions against domestic terrorists. The Patriot Act loosely defines domestic terrorist and gives the President authorization to implement actions under his CinC powers. The only thing that stands in opposition to that is...
The Legislative branch.
Still think they need to be merged? Still think it would be easy to do? Maybe not so naive anymore?
Fred Sherman
Well-known member
Let not your heart be troubled. In 2012, the adults will take back the Senate and the Presidency and end this socialist idiocy.
Fred Sherman
Well-known member
I'll let the image speak for itself.
Ramses
Member
Yep, for soldiers the United States are a paradise.
Also for:
- Investment Banker
- Weapon industry
- hangmen
- jail staff
- weapon fanatics / gun lovers
etc.
But at all, nothing to be proud about.
Regarding to your image, sad it's only possible to receive education if you sells your soul to the army.
jadmperry
Well-known member
Dislike
Not sure what your post is trying to say, but it sounded pretty insulting to Soldiers. I can think of few other vocations that involve as much selfless service as the military.
Disagreement with posters is fine (and I sure have had my difference of views with Fred). But that should not give rise to slamming all Soldiers. Too bad you feel that way.
Fred Sherman
Well-known member
There is also another option. The one that pays the tuition for my daughters - parents who have planned for, saved and sacrificed to put their kids through school. I can't tell you how disheartening it is for me to hear parents say their their responsibility ends when they turn 18 and if the kids want to go to school, they can get a student loan.
Bulls**t. Your responsibility to your children ends when you achieve room temperature.
- Status
Similar threads
- Question
- Suggestion
