Occupy Wall St.

vincegata

Let me remind you that Buffet's company got bailed out.

''Berkshire Hathaway, in which Buffett owns 27 percent, according to a recent proxy filing, has more than $26 billion invested in eight financial companies that have received bailout money. The TARP at one point had nearly$100 billion invested in these companies and, according to new data released by Thomson Reuters, FDIC backs more than $130 billion of their debt.'' http://blogs.reuters.com/rolfe-winkler/2009/08/04/buffetts-betrayal/ bigbadwolf Hippies hate vegetables? They like veggies in the abstract, just as they like nature in the abstract. But not if they have to do the dirty and detailed work that goes into growing veggies and maintaining nature bigbadwolf euroazn While that is funny and of course fair game, you have to realize that I could just as easily find a stupid Occupy protester and pair him with an intelligent Tea Partier EDIT: The best part is that they spell official "offical" LOL bigbadwolf ... you have to realize that I could just as easily find a stupid Occupy protester and pair him with an intelligent Tea Partier You could find many stupid Occupy-ers. But I don't think you could find an intelligent Tea Partier. euroazn I don't think you could find an intelligent Tea Partier. Why would you make such a brash claim with no evidence? There are plenty of standard libertarians out there that are just for a smaller federal government... bigbadwolf Why would you make such a brash claim with no evidence? There are plenty of standard libertarians out there that are just for a smaller federal government... Not the same thing (even if thinking might be along the same lines). When I think of Tea Partiers I think of people like this, or the Tea Partiers telling the government not to interfere with Medicare (source). But I won't quibble on the issue: have it your way. Incidentally, and changing the topic, a fine essay by Vijay Prashad on Occupy Boston: Pankaj Mehta, a theoretical physicist, invited me to speak at Occupy Boston as part of the Howard Zinn Memorial Lecture Series. The Series is the first offering of the Free School University, which is poised to start offering regular classes, and perhaps offering degrees. Such an exercise will permit us to think of the de-commodification of education, study that has not been turned into a product to buy and sell. Conversations at Occupy Boston revive ideas of free education. I broached it to those I met. The idea does sound ludicrous. However, many countries offer either free education or what amounts to free education (between 70 and 90 percent of the college costs paid for): Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and Turkey. The governments of Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom contribute between 55 and 70 percent of college costs (but not for long in Cameron’s England). The tuition and fees to all public institutions of higher education in the United States is somewhere in the ballpark of$25 billion (according to the Labor Institute). That is a small proportion of the cost of the wars ($7.6 trillion since 9/11) and of corporate tax breaks (of which, deferral on foreign income is by itself$1 trillion). The cost of higher education is a fraction of the $1.35 trillion to$3 trillion, which is range of the cost of the Bush and Obama tax cuts.

So much hidden money, so much enforced austerity.

Abdel

Economist
You could find many stupid Occupy-ers. But I don't think you could find an intelligent Tea Partier.

You have two types of Tea Partiers:

1) The Ron Paul Tea Partiers, the originals.

and then you have the phony ones:

2) The Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin type of Tea Partiers.

euroazn

Which ones are the ones that scream "Kill the [expletive]!!!" when asked whether a healthy young adult male who due to some accident goes into a coma and happens to not have health insurance should be put to death?
Although it sounds harsh, supposing that society pay for him, what would incentivize people to ever get health insurance? Because the thought process is that someone else takes care of the bill...

Abdel

Economist
Which ones are the ones that scream "Kill the [expletive]!!!" when asked whether a healthy young adult male who due to some accident goes into a coma and happens to not have health insurance should be put to death?

If it shocks you, take our own money and pay his medical bill. Or get with likely minded people and pay his bill.

euroazn

Look, I know you aspire to work on wall street and whatnot, but have you no morals or respect for human life whatsoever?

Forget Obamacare, the death panels you should be afraid of are comprised of YOU.
Are you talking to me or Abdel
I do have morals and it would absolutely pain me to see to him die! I'm just citing a huge problem that you haven't really answered. If we pay for his health than why should anyone individually pay for their health insurance if the government would take the tab anyway?

Abdel

Economist
Look, I know you aspire to work on wall street and whatnot, but have you no morals or respect for human life whatsoever?

Forget Obamacare, the death panels you should be afraid of are comprised of YOU.

You're missing the point.

It is a moral issue. We've already discussed this.

If a majority of people can decide what to do with your money because they think it's morale, then you're creating a dangerous precedant.

This means, in the future, a new generation of people can say: '' hey, we, as a majority, think it is morale to triple the income tax of all people named Alexei''. They are using the same argument as you do.

Look at Germany during the Nazi period: ''we are the majority and we think it is morale to kill all jews'', it is the same argument.

A society has to function on clear & sound principales.

Abdel

Economist
lol,

It is as if, you lay down arguments and I just get back at you by saying '' oh, this is non sense, you and your faux dilemmas'' without saying anything valid.

I'm not comparing Nazi Germany to Income tax. I'm comparing the principale that is being used in both situations wich is: ''we, as a majority, think it is morale to do this or that''.

And that is dangerous.

DStahl

You could find many stupid Occupy-ers. But I don't think you could find an intelligent Tea Partier.

I have yet to hear of a single intelligent Occupy protestor. They have no ability to form a cohesive argument, much less muster a formidable political movement.

On the other hand I have heard many intelligent Tea-partiers, including Ph.Ds. Obviously not all are intelligent, but if you haven't found a single one yet, I question the intensity of your search.

At the very least I can immediately identify the main point that Tea-partiers are trying to make, which is more than I can say for the Occupiers.

That fat multimillionaire buffoon, Michael Moore, is on CNN (Piers Morgan) at the moment, portraying himself as a champion of the 99%. A parasite on progressive causes. Heard that Susan Sarandon went to some Occupy in a chauffeur-driven limo -- and wasn't recognised. Limousine liberals like Sarandon and Moore are one more nail in the coffin of Occupy. The only thing 99% about Moore is the space he occupies in a room.

Abdel

Economist
That fat multimillionaire buffoon, Michael Moore

How about we end capitalism for his movies and socialise his profits and give them away to the common man

Abdel

Economist
I have yet to hear of a single intelligent Occupy protestor.

Here is one:

He's a Ron Paul type. I see a fair number of them among the Occupy-ers (but couldn't specify a percentage).

CMU MSCF Alum
Are you talking to me or Abdel
I do have morals and it would absolutely pain me to see to him die! I'm just citing a huge problem that you haven't really answered. If we pay for his health than why should anyone individually pay for their health insurance if the government would take the tab anyway?

you *do* not have to defend yourself against those who appeal to base emotions. you were right to point out that your question went unanswered. one of the main reasons why we are where we are is that politicians prey on the emotions of the populace, and that people, in groups, are not known to make intelligent decisions.

health care for all surely sounds wonderful and humane, until it comes time to pay the bill. despite what many people would like to believe, resources are actually finite.

social security? medicare? obamacare? i could go on, but it's pretty evident the road to ruin is paved with good intentions.

Replies
6
Views
988
Replies
0
Views
1K
Replies
14
Views
5K
Replies
0
Views
6K
Replies
4
Views
2K