Occupy Wall Street

[Buck]

TWU OCCUPIES WALL STREET​

 

[Buck]

NY Neighbors are tired

 

[Bob Owens]

I understand that the rich control most of everything. That also includes rich Democrats as well as Republicans. This is nothing new. Do you not believe that George Soros has a political hand in the pot? Quill: Who is the Quill of today? Labor does not have a labor leader anymore. The unions are more interested in attending OWS than getting a contract for it's members.

Why do the unions consistantly look to the Democratic Party as the solution to everything, including the use of mandated dues for politics, without the consent of the member?

I think I've stated on numerous occasions that I think we need a viable labor party in this country and that both parties are in the pockets of Corporations. As long as we are limited to two parties with the same master we will be subjected to Good Cop Bad cop. Neither is a true advocate, one pretends to be and the other makes it obvious that hes not.

The Unions shied away from OWS at first, they were dragged into by TWU Local 100 and a few others.

Quill of today? Sadlly, there isnt one, besides you would reject him/her if there was.

 

[Frank Szabo]

... snip



Quill of today? Sadlly, there isnt one, besides you would reject him/her if there was.

Surely it's not that hard to find a member of the Communist Party to replace Quill, is it?

As long as we are limited to two parties with the same master we will be subjected to Good Cop Bad cop. Neither is a true advocate, one pretends to be and the other makes it obvious that hes not.

When politicians are controlled by outside forces and lobby money (bribes), this is the inevitable result. There are few options available re: fixing the problem but the Founders did foresee how this could be an issue later on as people lost interest in their government choosing to allow it to "govern" itself.

A remedy was included in the US Constitution but, unfortunately, few have the balls to make use of that provision anymore. It's still under daily attack by this party that pretends to be the friend of the workers, or should I say "useful idiots?"

 

[Frank Szabo]

Bloombberg is full of shite! 40 to 50 K ? Maybe the ground keepers at the country club these bankers frequent or the janitor at JP Morgan make that amount. Bankers are the main problem, however the real problem is not at Wall Street (which is a legalized numbers racket) but two blocks north at 33 Liberty Street. 33 Liberty Street is where the private bank known as the Federal Reserve is located; the Occopy Wall Street crowd need to move there! The Federal Reserve is as "Federal" as Federal Express. In order for the the U.S. government to feed its insatiable appetite for money (in order to support the military industrial complex and all the corporate welfare) it borrows money from the Fed through the issuance of interest bearing bonds. Its a pretty lucrative con game. The Fed creates "money" out of thin air, backed by nothing, lends it to the U.S. treasury and the interest is paid by the U.S. tax payer in the form of the income tax. It is no coincidence that the Fed and the income tax were established in the same year, 1913. OCCUPY THE FED!

I think more should be done re: the FED other a simple occupation, but ...

 

[Buck]

I think I've stated on numerous occasions that I think we need a viable labor party in this country and that both parties are in the pockets of Corporations. As long as we are limited to two parties with the same master we will be subjected to Good Cop Bad cop. Neither is a true advocate, one pretends to be and the other makes it obvious that hes not.

The Unions shied away from OWS at first, they were dragged into by TWU Local 100 and a few others.

Quill of today? Sadlly, there isnt one, besides you would reject him/her if there was.

It is not beyond me to rise to a new Quill. Why you have to indicate that I would rise against to the next leftist, is just ignorant. If the person has what the country or what unionism needs, then I see no reason not to accept them. I may express myself as one who is aligned with the right, but I do listen to reason. I believe I have that right as a citizen of this country, as do you. Grant me those rights that you grant yourself. My original question had to do with the use of dues for political activities without the members permission. You just turn it into your crusade for the OWS. That is fine, but that has nothing to do with the use of union dues without the members permission in a closed shop environment. By the way I agree that you have on many occasions that a viable labor party is needed. But for me, the Democratic Party is not that group. There is to much garbage associated with either party, which makes the choice of political leadership a very hard decision. If there is one thing that does bother me about labor history, it is today's unions, and especially in the New York area seem to live for that past and cannot rally beyond that history to achieve what is needed. I have the utmost respect for what you are trying to accomplish for the members at the TWU, however the base cause of the union falsely jumping on the bandwagon of the OWS without acknowledgment that is for their political gain.

 

[Frank Szabo]

I read a short article about one of the protesters camped in the park - he brought his MacBook or whatever portable computer with him and it was stolen. He whined and moaned about it but hey - isn't the "redistribution of wealth" what these kids are protesting for?

Sounds to me like that's exactly what happened and like most others who have things taken from them, he wasn't a happy camper - then again, he probably shouldn't have left his momma's basement living quarters, either.

 

[Bob Owens]

I read a short article about one of the protesters camped in the park - he brought his MacBook or whatever portable computer with him and it was stolen. He whined and moaned about it but hey - isn't the "redistribution of wealth" what these kids are protesting for?

Sounds to me like that's exactly what happened and like most others who have things taken from them, he wasn't a happy camper - then again, he probably shouldn't have left his momma's basement living quarters, either.

Well If big corporations were just stealing laptops then maybe things would not be so bad, but they arent. They are stealing Pensions and Benefits and robbing people of a livable wage so their owners, typically other corporations, can accumulate never seen before accumulations of wealth. They are stealing the politcal process that thousands of people died to put and keep in place by swamping it with money so the candidates are indebted to them. Its a process that no longer works for the people.

If AA ever decides to send your job to some third world country I have to wonder, will you still be a cheerleader for Big Corporations and their tactics?

Look at AA, they brought in over $6 billion the last quarter, they brought in more in just three quarters this year than they did the whole year less than ten years ago and they did it with a lot fewer Airplanes and employeees. Their revenues are up but Arpey doesnt like to talk about that, instead he talks about how slow the Economy is growing. Look around you, does AA seem to be behaving like we are in a recession? Sure maybe they are on a pre-BK spending spree but its been this way for many years.

These people, the ones who initiated the OWS movement are doing what the Unions should have done way before things got this bad. While I dont agree with every message that the media reports from the group I support and applaud them.

 

[Frank Szabo]

Well If big corporations were just stealing laptops then maybe things would not be so bad, but they arent. They are stealing Pensions and Benefits and robbing people of a livable wage so their owners, typically other corporations, can accumulate never seen before accumulations of wealth. They are stealing the politcal process that thousands of people died to put and keep in place by swamping it with money so the candidates are indebted to them. Its a process that no longer works for the people.

If AA ever decides to send your job to some third world country I have to wonder, will you still be a cheerleader for Big Corporations and their tactics?

Look at AA, they brought in over $6 billion the last quarter, they brought in more in just three quarters this year than they did the whole year less than ten years ago and they did it with a lot fewer Airplanes and employeees. Their revenues are up but Arpey doesnt like to talk about that, instead he talks about how slow the Economy is growing. Look around you, does AA seem to be behaving like we are in a recession? Sure maybe they are on a pre-BK spending spree but its been this way for many years.

These people, the ones who initiated the OWS movement are doing what the Unions should have done way before things got this bad. While I dont agree with every message that the media reports from the group I support and applaud them.

Who's a cheerleader for corporations? I only pointed out the irony.

The real issue is "who" is in control of the government - per the US Constitution it's supposed to be the people by means of elections but the Federal Government was highjacked by special interests long ago as was the twu.

Do you really want to fix the problems with government and return the control it to the people, Bob? Simple protests won't work as protests don't pay off those who make policy. A sixties-style pig-in that by all accounts is turning into its own manner of "corporate" mess isn't going to be paid a bit of attention except maybe to laugh at the fools that think this will do some good. Change will only be accomplished by the same mechanism that keeps the majority in line now and that's actually making it plain to the problem children they will lose what they now have if they continue. FYI - the elite figured out after the French Revolution that allowing the common man just enough that he fears its loss is the best way to control him.

Provision was made in the US Constitution granting the means for the people to do retify this problem but, unfortunately, there are few with the balls to act before the clown in DC and his fellow asshats get that taken away also.

 

[Buck]

That is correct. I believe there is remedy in the Constitution, however I am as guilty as the next person not knowing and fully understanding the US Constitution. I believe that the Constutution allows for a redress of grievances.

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Redress

redress v. 1. To set right, remedy or rectify. 2. To make amends for. n. 1. Satisfaction for wrong done; reparation. 2. Correction. [<OFr. redresser.] Source: AHD

 

[strikeforce]

Well If big corporations were just stealing laptops then maybe things would not be so bad, but they arent. They are stealing Pensions and Benefits and robbing people of a livable wage so their owners, typically other corporations, can accumulate never seen before accumulations of wealth. They are stealing the politcal process that thousands of people died to put and keep in place by swamping it with money so the candidates are indebted to them. Its a process that no longer works for the people.

If AA ever decides to send your job to some third world country I have to wonder, will you still be a cheerleader for Big Corporations and their tactics?

Look at AA, they brought in over $6 billion the last quarter, they brought in more in just three quarters this year than they did the whole year less than ten years ago and they did it with a lot fewer Airplanes and employeees. Their revenues are up but Arpey doesnt like to talk about that, instead he talks about how slow the Economy is growing. Look around you, does AA seem to be behaving like we are in a recession? Sure maybe they are on a pre-BK spending spree but its been this way for many years.

These people, the ones who initiated the OWS movement are doing what the Unions should have done way before things got this bad. While I dont agree with every message that the media reports from the group I support and applaud them.

How many democratic leaders have you seen supporting the OWS movement??? Dems and Repubics are bought and paid for by OUR tax dollars, consumption and union dues. Can anyone out there honestly say that they TRUST their elected officials and INTL union officers???? So what makes YOU believe any of these goofs are looking out for OUR best interests? They're NOT!

If there was somebody out there WE can trust.....have each middle class worker in the US donate $10, even $100 and create a middle class lobbying group to lobby on behalf of the middle class worker. Problem is....finding somebody WE can all TRUST!!!

 

[Bob Owens]

How many democratic leaders have you seen supporting the OWS movement??? Dems and Repubics are bought and paid for by OUR tax dollars, consumption and union dues. Can anyone out there honestly say that they TRUST their elected officials and INTL union officers???? So what makes YOU believe any of these goofs are looking out for OUR best interests? They're NOT!

If there was somebody out there WE can trust.....have each middle class worker in the US donate $10, even $100 and create a middle class lobbying group to lobby on behalf of the middle class worker. Problem is....finding somebody WE can all TRUST!!!

OK ??

I would hope that pretty much everyone agrees that "Citizens United vs FEC" and corporate personhood needs to be addressed. Its one thing when dealing with property issues (such as allowing corporations access to the courts and owning property) but another to allow Corporations, which could be under foreign ownership and control to have free access to our political and legislative system. Corporations should not be writing laws or financing elections. Laws should be for the benefit of natural persons not corporate persons. Natural persons who run corporations have the same rights as anyone else but corporate persons have an unfair advantage due to the enormous resources available, plus the fact that they only pay tax on their net earnings instead of gross earnings like Natural persons.

The issue of Corporate Personhood has its roots in a shady deal . Wikipedia has an interesting take on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad

Decision-The railroad corporations are persons with the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Its funny how the court justices never actually ruled that corporations were legal persons, a court reporter did, who was that court reporter? Bancroft Davis, a former Railroad President!

 

[FWAAA]

OK ??

I would hope that pretty much everyone agrees that "Citizens United vs FEC" and corporate personhood needs to be addressed. Its one thing when dealing with property issues (such as allowing corporations access to the courts and owning property) but another to allow Corporations, which could be under foreign ownership and control to have free access to our political and legislative system. Corporations should not be writing laws or financing elections. Laws should be for the benefit of natural persons not corporate persons. Natural persons who run corporations have the same rights as anyone else but corporate persons have an unfair advantage due to the enormous resources available, plus the fact that they only pay tax on their net earnings instead of gross earnings like Natural persons.

Whenever someone argues in favor of government regulation of speech because of who the speaker is, I have to ask: What are they afraid of?

The first amendment, as the majority correctly held, protects all speech, not just the speech of individuals (or natural persons).

I don't understand your focus on the tax status of the speaker. The corporation at issue in the case, Citizens United, was a nonprofit corporation and thus pays no tax. More than one-third of the taxpayers in the USA paid no federal income tax last year. Making distinctions between different speakers on the basis of how much tax they pay makes no sense to me. Sole proprietorships (owned by natural persons) pay tax only on their net earnings from the business. All natural person taxpayers have numerous deductions and exemptions and credits - nobody is forced to pay federal tax on their gross earnings - only their taxable income after application of all deductions, exemptions and credits.

Ok, so you favor regulating the speech of corporations but not individuals. How about the speech of a partnership? What if the partnership is made up of just two natural persons? What if it's a partnership of hundreds of natural persons. How about the speech of a limited liability company (LLC)?

Predictably, Democrats favor regulating speech of some while allowing others to speak freely. When your ideas are losers and can't compete in a free marketplace of ideas, you want to regulate the speech of those with whom you disagree. Today the boogieman is the speech of corporations. Whose speech will you want to regulate/censor tomorrow?

I don't have much respect for (or use for) those who are so afraid of the first amendment. In my view, they're down there with people who disrupt speakers and attempt to shout them down, like the muslim students who disrupted the speech by the Israeli diplomat at UC Irvine in Orange County.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/10/irvine-11-students-appeal-conviction-.html

If your ideas are winners, you have nothing to fear from Citizens United v FEC. Perhaps you realize that some of your ideas are losers and the speech of your adversaries will convince people that your ideas aren't the ideal choice?

The issue of Corporate Personhood has its roots in a shady deal . Wikipedia has an interesting take on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad

Decision-The railroad corporations are persons with the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Its funny how the court justices never actually ruled that corporations were legal persons, a court reporter did, who was that court reporter? Bancroft Davis, a former Railroad President!

Since the Court never addressed the question (whether corporations were natural persons under the 14th amendment) in its written opinion, the headnote written by the former RR president (that is ironic) is completely irrelevant. As in "has no legal significance or meaning." Parties to legal disputes have been known to ignore potential rationales for a victory in their favor, and courts rarely decide a case on an issue not raised by either side. That's the case in the RR case. Neither side argued the corporate personhood issue - so the court didn't rule on it.

I assume you've not graduated from law school, Bob. You do see the irony here, don't you? You expounding on the legal significance of material not included in the Supreme Court's opinion is as funny as me (a graduate of law school) expounding on the meaning of some technical language in an airplane maintenance manual - something I don't do. You, on the other hand . . .

 

[tech2101]

Whenever someone argues in favor of government regulation of speech because of who the speaker is, I have to ask: What are they afraid of?

The first amendment, as the majority correctly held, protects all speech, not just the speech of individuals (or natural persons).

I don't understand your focus on the tax status of the speaker. The corporation at issue in the case, Citizens United, was a nonprofit corporation and thus pays no tax. More than one-third of the taxpayers in the USA paid no federal income tax last year. Making distinctions between different speakers on the basis of how much tax they pay makes no sense to me. Sole proprietorships (owned by natural persons) pay tax only on their net earnings from the business. All natural person taxpayers have numerous deductions and exemptions and credits - nobody is forced to pay federal tax on their gross earnings - only their taxable income after application of all deductions, exemptions and credits.

Ok, so you favor regulating the speech of corporations but not individuals. How about the speech of a partnership? What if the partnership is made up of just two natural persons? What if it's a partnership of hundreds of natural persons. How about the speech of a limited liability company (LLC)?

Predictably, Democrats favor regulating speech of some while allowing others to speak freely. When your ideas are losers and can't compete in a free marketplace of ideas, you want to regulate the speech of those with whom you disagree. Today the boogieman is the speech of corporations. Whose speech will you want to regulate/censor tomorrow?

I don't have much respect for (or use for) those who are so afraid of the first amendment. In my view, they're down there with people who disrupt speakers and attempt to shout them down, like the muslim students who disrupted the speech by the Israeli diplomat at UC Irvine in Orange County.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/10/irvine-11-students-appeal-conviction-.html

If your ideas are winners, you have nothing to fear from Citizens United v FEC. Perhaps you realize that some of your ideas are losers and the speech of your adversaries will convince people that your ideas aren't the ideal choice?

Great take on the case and some current events surrounding it.

Thank you. I would like to borrow it and repost it somewhere else for some of my peers. Do you mind?

 

[FWAAA]

tech: feel free. thanks for asking.