Occupy Wall Street better defend its identity

[respect]

Power tends to corrupt and money is power. The ability to distribute vast amounts of wealth on behalf of the public is a rather significant responsibility.

Correct. A corrupt Fed would be bad news, although it would not take long for it to become obvious if it were.

I'm sorry but it cuts both ways. Whoever controls this money has significant power and influence. When they start handing out money in a manner that is outside of its normal operations it ought to raise suspicion and apparently it did just that (congress forced the Fed to reveal who the payments were going to.)

Right. But let's not pretend congress's actions were related to this specific program. Some are lunatics like Ron Paul, others want more power for themselves. Paul has been introducing this for years and has little trouble getting a lot of support, especially in the House, just not quite enough to pass it. But this has been being debated annually, long before the housing meltdown.

And the congress has always had significant oversight of the Fed, just not enough for Paul and his ilk's liking.

But none of this addresses the salient points I raised.

What specifically would you like addressed?

 

[respect]

You admit the civil suits. That there is indication of wrong doing isn't just in Taibbi's mind. A number of links have been posted regarding civil suits and even settlements. So this pretension that it was all innocent is just so much BS.

A civil judgement does not necessarily mean criminal wrong doing. I am curious to see real evidence of criminal behavior that could stand up in court and result in a conviction.

 

[applecorped]

“Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we're being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I'm liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That's what's insane about it.” --John Lennon

Here's a couple more:

"I've never voted. I've never voted yet although I could have voted for the last ten years."

"I want to see the plan. I want to know what you’re going to do after you’ve knocked it all down. I mean, can’t we use some of it? What’s the point of bombing Wall Street?"

 

[RandFan]

Correct. A corrupt Fed would be bad news, although it would not take long for it to become obvious if it were.

Argument by assertion. No. There is nothing axuomatic about that contention.

What specifically would you like addressed?

{sigh} Why do I bother? I'll re-post it.

 

[respect]

And required an act of congress to make transparent.

This is a small potatoes sidenote to what congress was after.

 

[RandFan]

Here's a couple more:

"I've never voted. I've never voted yet although I could have voted for the last ten years."

"I want to see the plan. I want to know what you’re going to do after you’ve knocked it all down. I mean, can’t we use some of it? What’s the point of bombing Wall Street?"

And your point?

 

[applecorped]

 

[RandFan]

I'm waiting?

 

[applecorped]

I'm sure you are. For what I'm not sure. While you're waiting please enjoy some more Lennon quotes:

“If there is such a thing as a genius, I am one."



"I really thought that love would save us all."

 

[RandFan]

I'm sure you are. For what I'm not sure. While you're waiting please enjoy some more Lennon quotes:

“If there is such a thing as a genius, I am one."

"I really thought that love would save us all."

I wanted to give you the opportunity to explain yourself. Oh well, your point would appear to be ad hominem poisoning the well as best as I can tell. Kinda like pointing out the idiotic things Newton said to discredit other reasonable things he said. If that's not your intention then you can let us know. Otherwise I think it's safe to go with that.

BTW: I'm not saying the quotes are idiotic. Some might find them arrogant and/or naive though.

 

[respect]

Someone can't monetarily benifit from a low interest loan? Really?

You can gain money in many ways, is your boss giving you welfare when he gives you your paycheck?

What nonsense.

 

[applecorped]

I wanted to give you the opportunity to explain yourself. Oh well, your point would appear to be ad hominem poisoning the well as best as I can tell. Kinda like pointing out the idiotic things Newton said to discredit other reasonable things he said. If that's not your intention then you can let us know. Otherwise I think it's safe to go with that.

BTW: I'm not saying the quotes are idiotic. Some might find them arrogant and/or naive though.

LOL! Thanks.



You're doing great.

 

[Brainster]

Check out the thuggery in DC. Love the folks chanting "peaceful" as they're shoving around the folks trying to get in the door and the security guard who's just doing his job. Knocking down an elderly woman? These folks need to get the business end of a billy club.

Update: Knocking down two elderly woman. Scum.

 

[RandFan]

You can gain money in many ways, is your boss giving you welfare when he gives you your paycheck?

Non responsive and disingenuous. We are talking about welfare. You questioned whether welfare could be in the form of a loan. THE ANSWER IS YES.

 

[RandFan]

LOL! Thanks.

Yeah, fallacy is funny to some.

You're doing great.

Thanks. I appreciate it. I avoid fallacy and I think that goes a long way.

 

[WildCat]

And this is relevant because?

Irrelevant question. If the ratio of migrants to natives is largely static then it's pointless.

My concern or lack thereof is not relevant to the question at hand.

Of course, you want to complain about the wage gap while at the same time importing foreign workers to keep unskilled labor wages as low as possible. And you are incapable of seeing the hypocrisy.

One more time, let's accept your premise for arguments sake. Given the hypothetical that we could stop any future legal and illegal immigration what would result?

And now you go right to the strawman! Or perhaps you could link to my post where I gave the "hypothetical that we could stop any future legal and illegal immigration".

Well, that would decrease the supply of workers and increase wages. But the increase would reach a point of equilibrium and would not stop the long term downward trend. As I have said at least twice now and as you have ignored at least twice now, it would be at best a stop gap measure. If the system hasn't changed in regards to workers over the last 20 years then it's not relevant to the current trend.

Except this is doable and would lift millions out of poverty, whereas your plan... wait, you don't have any plan at all, do you?

 

[RandFan]

Check out the thuggery in DC. Love the folks chanting "peaceful" as they're shoving around the folks trying to get in the door and the security guard who's just doing his job. Knocking down an elderly woman? These folks need to get the business end of a billy club.

Update: Knocking down two elderly woman. Scum.

It's disgusting. Glad that's not the sentiments and behavior of everyone or even most. Sadly there will be these exceptions to provide ammunition for those who are not really interested in the problems the protestors are attempting to bring to the public's attention.

 

[RandFan]

Of course, you want to complain about the wage gap while at the same time importing foreign workers to keep unskilled labor wages as low as possible. And you are incapable of seeing the hypocrisy.

There is none.

And now you go right to the strawman! Or perhaps you could link to my post where I gave the "hypothetical that we could stop any future legal and illegal immigration".

It was MY hypothetical. Sheesh. We've known each other a long time. Can we dial it back a notch or two?

Except this is doable and would lift millions out of poverty...

A.) It Wouldn't stop the trend. B.) While I don't advocate illegal immigration we've done better in the past with it. It would at best be a stop gap measure. Your point is a red herring. And I'm not necassarily against it. You can't show where I ever said I'm against changes to our immigration policy. So that's just not true.

...whereas your plan... wait, you don't have any plan at all, do you?

I've known you a long time. I didn't think you would stoop to that but it's not true and I think you know better. I have advocated a plan. Return to the policies that worked in the past. I advocated the Republican plan that they commissioned and later rejected. I advocate the recommendations of David Stockman (Reagan's budget director). I advocate passing Obama's job plan.

I apologized to you when I was wrong. I'd appreciate you respond in kind.

 

[stilicho]

....

Look, seriously, please stop. I'm not asking for you to agree with me. Either make a coherent argument backed by something more than links that don't agree with you and appeals to unknown texts without citations that require me to take your word for it, or just stop. Remember the first rule of holes.

If you think Ike's words weren't hijacked (including by you) then that's your choice. You are welcome to read any number of his biographies or treatments. I just finished Jordan's Brothers, Rivals, Victors, probably the dozenth book on, about, or by Eisenhower and nowhere in any of them is found anything but a backwards looking fondness for disarmament (eg Washington 1922), an intense accommodation of the very "complex" he allegedly warned you about (eg over 15% GDP spent on defence under his own administration), and reminiscences about the goals and intent of the Nye Commission and other throwbacks to an earlier and more naive time for the US.

Your failure to understand context is not surprising.

 

[Neally]

It's disgusting. Glad that's not the sentiments and behavior of everyone or even most.

Odd how all the negative incidents are characterized as "exceptions" and that somehow you know the true intentions of "most" of the protesters.

Sadly there will be these exceptions to provide ammunition for those who are not really interested in the problems the protestors are attempting to bring to the public's attention.

Actions speak louder than words sometimes.