Occupy Rants, Flames, and NSFW

[Hasbinbad]

http://i.imgur.com/ujQrS.jpg

[naez]

LOL Banksters stole our children's futures but since the corporate media tells me mock the `hippies` mad about it I will follow suit like a good little slave

[Yiblaan]

#OccupyErudin

[Hasbinbad]

LOL Banksters stole our children's futures but since the corporate media tells me mock the `hippies` mad about it I will follow suit like a good little slave
I don't like the fact that you seem to be insinuating that I'm not serious.

[Diggles]

#OccupyTralina

[Ihealyou]

I'd occupy yib

[naez]

G8 / G20

they few, we many

[Yiblaan]

I'd occupy yib

＾Ａ

[Ihealyou]

show feet first

[Yiblaan]

Only if Japan does first

[Harrison]

I'm going to whine about the situation rather than improve my life myself. I'm going to blame others, too. I'd rather complain than put in effort to fix the situation I put myself in.

^"99%ers"

[Mardur]

I still don't get the "point" of this "movement" besides free tear gas.

[Hasbinbad]

I still don't get the "point" of this "movement" besides free tear gas.
That's the point.

[naez]

I'm going to whine about the situation rather than improve my life myself. I'm going to blame others, too. I'd rather complain than put in effort to fix the situation I put myself in.

^"99%ers"

Why do you celebrate your ignorance?

[Diggles]

wutdo.org

[Hasbinbad]

Why do you celebrate your ignorance?
Wouldn't you?

If you truly had no conception that the world is shit, wouldn't that be preferable?

(lol)

[Harrison]

I prefer to put my efforts into furthering my life than complaining about it like a bitch.

I guess you CA don't really know the concept.

[Diggles]

clever girl

[Slathar]

I'm going to whine about the situation rather than improve my life myself. I'm going to blame others, too. I'd rather complain than put in effort to fix the situation I put myself in.

^"99%ers"

this is a perfect example of people reveling in their own ignorance. americans are proud to be stupid, obtuse, and bigoted. it means they're patriotic. harrison is a shining product of someone who hardly has a pot to piss in but yet hates people in the same social position as himself. the GOP have done an excellent job at brainwashing working-class people like harrison into hating others almost identical to himself.

they fail to understand social mobility isn't a viable option and when someone calls them on their bullshit they reply with, "get a job hippy." they would if they could, im sure.

also harrison is an your average american who is one paycheck from bankruptcy. he will live out their days in an alcoholic daze watching sporting events to forget about how miserable his daily existence is while the people he votes into office watch their salary triple in less than a decade. but those people are rich because they "worked harder" than everyone else, right?

:)

[Awwalike]

occupy bongz

[Slathar]

also harrison is an your average american who is one paycheck from bankruptcy. he will live out their days in an alcoholic daze watching sporting events to forget about how miserable his daily existence is while the people he votes into office watch their salary triple in less than a decade. but those people are rich because they "worked harder" than everyone else, right?

:)

also harrison is an average american who is one paycheck from bankruptcy. he will live out his days in an alcoholic daze watching sporting events to forget about how miserable his daily existence is while the people he votes into office watch their salary triple in less than a decade. but those people are rich because they "worked harder" than everyone else, right?


edited last paragraph for random added words

[Mardur]

this is a perfect example of people reveling in their own ignorance. americans are proud to be stupid, obtuse, and bigoted. it means they're patriotic. harrison is a shining product of someone who hardly has a pot to piss in but yet hates people in the same social position as himself. the GOP have done an excellent job at brainwashing working-class people like harrison into hating others almost identical to himself.

they fail to understand social mobility isn't a viable option and when someone calls them on their bullshit they reply with, "get a job hippy." they would if they could, im sure.

also harrison is an your average american who is one paycheck from bankruptcy. he will live out their days in an alcoholic daze watching sporting events to forget about how miserable his daily existence is while the people he votes into office watch their salary triple in less than a decade. but those people are rich because they "worked harder" than everyone else, right?

:)

There's nothing that prevents anyone from running for office (besides the obvious like age, citizenship, etc) so yeah, I suppose they did.

[Slathar]

There's nothing that prevents anyone from running for office (besides the obvious like age, citizenship, etc) so yeah, I suppose they did.

this guy is joining the marines. im shocked at his thundering display of critical thought. coincidence?

[Harrison]

Slobthar mad his guild is banned.

[Slathar]

Slobthar mad his guild is banned.

too uneducated to argue, i see. don't be mad at me for depriving you of an affordable education, you should be mad at the fat white guys you voted for.

keep thinking your hard work will make you rich one day. :)

[naez]

I wasn't going to be trolled into responding to his incomprehensible babbling, but I am curious as to what Harrison suggest OWS people do in order to fix the corruption, cronyism, and corporate-communism running rampant in the system. Besides what they're already doing, and short of violent revolution of course.

[naez]

What I mean is, at least they're trying, what have you done? Slathar pointed it out correctly: Harrison fancies himself a member of the elite, having a "them" mentality against "99%ers" in his previous posts.

[Harrison]

You get trolled into everything.

You spew incessantly in IRC about "zionist overlords" and other tinfoil hat idiocy so much that I have you blocked.

You're an idiot on such levels that it's painful to think you may have procreated like Visage.

[naez]

You can't answer the question. You are lashing out like an animal I have backed into the corner.

[Mardur]

this guy is joining the marines. im shocked at his thundering display of critical thought. coincidence?

Never once said I was joining the Marines so I assume you're some garden variety of idiot.

[Harrison]

Honestly, I read the first half of your sentence in your post and ignored the rest outright. There is absolutely nothing of worth that you could possibly spew, and as such, is ignored.

[Tadzi]

some info for those confused. this took all of 5 minutes to find out for myself.

What/why they are protesting: "OWS is fighting back against the corrosive power of major banks and multinational corporations over the democratic process, and the role of Wall Street in creating an economic collapse that has caused the greatest recession in generations."

Source: http://occupywallst.org/about/

Why Prostest?: From the wikipedia definition of protest- "Protesters may organize a protest as a way of publicly making their opinions heard in an attempt to influence public opinion or government policy"

Some examples of successful protests:
American Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution)
Martin Luther King's 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_on_Washington_for_Jobs_and_Freedom)
Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989)

[Awwalike]

wut

[naez]

buncha hippies lookin for a handout

[Mardur]

You're really comparing Occupy Wall St. to the American Revolution? Holy fucking shit.

The difference is that in those 3 examples you gave, there was an obvious problem and an obvious solution. And generally, people did more than stand around with a sign.

They're not accomplishing anything. It doesn't really bother me, I don't give a shit how people waste their time. That's why I'm not condemning nor praising the protesters. Except for the fact that, yeah, they could be spending their time improving their life if they don't like. But whatever.

The point is that people are aware there's a problem, but a solution isn't clearly well defined. Jailing Madoff was one, but we did that already. If you took any random person on Wall St. and asked them "so if you were in charge, what would you do to fix the economic problems in the country?" they'd have no fucking clue.

And I'm flat broke and unemployed. I was making $12/hr in 2008-2009. It took me about a week to get that job after I moved into this area. I haven't been paid above $9 since end of 2009. I haven't been paid above minimum wage in the past year. It generally takes me at the very least to land a new job. I was laid off from my last minimum wage job in August. I'm currently job searching. But I'm not going to stand around and cry about how bad the economy is, I just have to work harder than I did a few years ago. It sucks, and I'm all for protest, but I realize that this can't accomplish anything. I'd rather do something more productive, like post on Rants & Flames.

[Daldolma]

some info for those confused. this took all of 5 minutes to find out for myself.

What/why they are protesting: "OWS is fighting back against the corrosive power of major banks and multinational corporations over the democratic process, and the role of Wall Street in creating an economic collapse that has caused the greatest recession in generations."

Source: http://occupywallst.org/about/

Why Prostest?: From the wikipedia definition of protest- "Protesters may organize a protest as a way of publicly making their opinions heard in an attempt to influence public opinion or government policy"

Some examples of successful protests:
American Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution)
Martin Luther King's 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_on_Washington_for_Jobs_and_Freedom)
Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989)

The difference is that successful protests all have one thing in common: a goal. What is OWS's goal? Their only stated goal is to protest. What do they want done? Eliminate Wall Street? That's not a realistic or desirable goal.

I'm going to ask a genuine question, because it doesn't make any sense to me. Liberals (and I use the term loosely, because I'm not sure how else to classify the group) argue that the banking industry has corrupted the government in order to continually push policies which move capital toward the richest of the rich and away from the middle and lower classes. However, they by and large support programs that would increase taxes and increase the role of government within the life of the everyday citizen. More taxes, more social programs, more federal funding. How do you reconcile those two view points? If the government is being corrupted by Wall Street, why increase their funding and influence?

I generally agree that Wall Street -- and more specifically, the rich -- use their resources to manipulate government and maximize their own earnings, regardless of the effect that has on the rest of the country. But partially because of that, I'm wary of expanding the role of federal government within the lives of the everyday citizen. If anything, the role of government should be increased within the financial sector. Increase oversight and legislation, sure. But when everything points to the government being in bed with big business, why would you want to increase the amount of money and scope of influence being provided to the government as it relates to your common citizen? That's what doesn't match up for me.

[purest]

What is OWS's goal? Their only stated goal is to protest.

Part of what OWS is doing right now is just getting bigger, which is an end in itself, and one in which it has been tremendously successful at it. Everybody around the country is asking what you are, "what do these people want? so we can give them something and make them go away." The longer they wait to announce specific demands, the more people are gonna be willing to give them. So right now, just growing is an important goal.

A better question is when it comes time to actually get down to specifics, what 1 or 2 things should they settle on? For me, the big thing would be break up the banks (an idea which already has a lot of support in Washington).

[Mardur]

If they form an armed revolutionary group, I'll join up.

[Daldolma]

Part of what OWS is doing right now is just getting bigger, which is an end in itself, and one in which it has been tremendously successful at it. Everybody around the country is asking what you are, "what do these people want? so we can give them something and make them go away." The longer they wait to announce specific demands, the more people are gonna be willing to give them. So right now, just growing is an important goal.

A better question is when it comes time to actually get down to specifics, what 1 or 2 things should they settle on? For me, the big thing would be break up the banks (an idea which already has a lot of support in Washington).

Getting bigger is fine, but the problem is that there's no unifying goal at the core. If they do settle on a small set of defining goals, it's very possible the movement fizzles out as they lose relevance to many. Part of its current appeal is the fact that there's no actual demand at its heart -- it's just a general statement that "Wall Street sucks".

There's also no chance they break up the banks. It's not that I don't think they should. But realistically, the banks wield far too much power within government and have far too much legal firepower to be dispersed. It would take much more than the current Occupy Wall Street protests to break up the banks -- it would take a borderline revolution.

[Tadzi]

The difference is that successful protests all have one thing in common: a goal. What is OWS's goal? Their only stated goal is to protest. What do they want done? Eliminate Wall Street? That's not a realistic or desirable goal.

I'm going to ask a genuine question, because it doesn't make any sense to me. Liberals (and I use the term loosely, because I'm not sure how else to classify the group) argue that the banking industry has corrupted the government in order to continually push policies which move capital toward the richest of the rich and away from the middle and lower classes. However, they by and large support programs that would increase taxes and increase the role of government within the life of the everyday citizen. More taxes, more social programs, more federal funding. How do you reconcile those two view points? If the government is being corrupted by Wall Street, why increase their funding and influence?

I generally agree that Wall Street -- and more specifically, the rich -- use their resources to manipulate government and maximize their own earnings, regardless of the effect that has on the rest of the country. But partially because of that, I'm wary of expanding the role of federal government within the lives of the everyday citizen. If anything, the role of government should be increased within the financial sector. Increase oversight and legislation, sure. But when everything points to the government being in bed with big business, why would you want to increase the amount of money and scope of influence being provided to the government as it relates to your common citizen? That's what doesn't match up for me.

"OWS is fighting back against the corrosive power of major banks and multinational corporations over the democratic process, and the role of Wall Street in creating an economic collapse that has caused the greatest recession in generations."

Goal is to lessen/eliminate the corrosive power of major banks and multinational corporations over the democratic process.

They're doing this by trying to raise awareness and change peoples opinion of how the government currently works. Like in the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_on_Washington_for_Jobs_and_Freedom) where 75–80% of the marchers were black and had little to no actual power to change anything other than protesting and changing the minds of the public and eventually the senate, house, and president to sign the Voting Rights Act.

If the government is being corrupted by Wall Street, why increase their funding and influence?
I dunno I'm not a liberal or know anything about government corruption. I just saw people having conflicting stances on what OWS was doing so I looked up what they're protesting, why to protest in general, and some protests that worked in the past.

[Awwalike]

still, wut?

[Daldolma]

Goal is to lessen/eliminate the corrosive power of major banks and multinational corporations over the democratic process.

Right but that's an ultra-vague goal, and they haven't proposed or identified any specific methods for bringing about the reform(s) they desire. The devil is in the details. I'd say that 95% of America would be pro-lessening/eliminating the corrosive power of major banks and multinational corporations over the democratic process. But when you get down to the details of how to do that, you start losing people.

[Tadzi]

You're really comparing Occupy Wall St. to the American Revolution? Holy fucking shit.

The difference is that in those 3 examples you gave, there was an obvious problem and an obvious solution. And generally, people did more than stand around with a sign.

They're not accomplishing anything. It doesn't really bother me, I don't give a shit how people waste their time. That's why I'm not condemning nor praising the protesters. Except for the fact that, yeah, they could be spending their time improving their life if they don't like. But whatever.

The point is that people are aware there's a problem, but a solution isn't clearly well defined. Jailing Madoff was one, but we did that already. If you took any random person on Wall St. and asked them "so if you were in charge, what would you do to fix the economic problems in the country?" they'd have no fucking clue.

And I'm flat broke and unemployed. I was making $12/hr in 2008-2009. It took me about a week to get that job after I moved into this area. I haven't been paid above $9 since end of 2009. I haven't been paid above minimum wage in the past year. It generally takes me at the very least to land a new job. I was laid off from my last minimum wage job in August. I'm currently job searching. But I'm not going to stand around and cry about how bad the economy is, I just have to work harder than I did a few years ago. It sucks, and I'm all for protest, but I realize that this can't accomplish anything. I'd rather do something more productive, like post on Rants & Flames.

You imply there isn't an obvious problem or solution. I disagree with the problem not being obvious(with the obvious effects being unemployment rates, average income rates, ect) but so do you apparently because you then say that people know there's a problem. I do agree that the solution isn't obvious, but I don't see that as a reason for it being ignored. Protesting brings awareness to issues and perhaps out of it some minds will change in those in power and maybe brilliant economist will find a solution that otherwise wouldn't even think about it.

[Tadzi]

Right but that's an ultra-vague goal, and they haven't proposed or identified any specific methods for bringing about the reform(s) they desire. The devil is in the details. I'd say that 95% of America would be pro-lessening/eliminating the corrosive power of major banks and multinational corporations over the democratic process. But when you get down to the details of how to do that, you start losing people.

Well the first step to change something is getting people to admit that something is wrong. Which is what they are doing first.

[Zereh]

bleh If I wasn't such a mongoloid cunt who needs to get a fucking life I would probably be able to figure out how to embed these videos properly. Until then, click it. It may open up your mind and eyes just a little bit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wK1MOMKZ8BI&feature=player_embedded

<3

[Tadzi]

forgot to add: If nobody ever told Sony the bugs that were in Everquest, they never would have gotten fixed. I don't think the average player knew how to fix the bugs themselves, but it is important to point them out.

[bizzum]

bleh If I wasn't such a mongoloid cunt

Lies Zereh <3

[Tommy_Wiseau]

another nightmarishly boring thread thx hbb

[purest]

There's also no chance they break up the banks. It's not that I don't think they should. But realistically, the banks wield far too much power within government and have far too much legal firepower to be dispersed. It would take much more than the current Occupy Wall Street protests to break up the banks -- it would take a borderline revolution.

There was a movement last year during the negotiations for the Dodd-Frank bill to break up these "too big to fail" companies, and that got 33 votes in the Senate. If there was enough popular support out there, if there was a show of force the same way there was a show of force in the Tea Party on the other side for the spending issue, then I think they might actually get something like that.

[Mardur]

I disagree with the problem not being obvious(with the obvious effects being unemployment rates, average income rates, ect)

Protesting brings awareness to issues

So you agree the protest is pointless then. You proved my point brilliantly.

[Mardur]

Tadzi more like Tardzi amirite

[Tadzi]

So you agree the protest is pointless then. You proved my point brilliantly.

Ahh well some people don't think that the OWS's points are valid. The problem is obvious, but some people fail to acknowledge it. Thus the reason for pointing out an obvious problem.

[Tadzi]

Tadzi more like Tardzi amirite

Funny but I perfer Badzi if we're going to make satirical versions of my name.

[Pico]

if u guys wanna know something reaaaallly scary its that im actually a teacher

[Daldolma]

There was a movement last year during the negotiations for the Dodd-Frank bill to break up these "too big to fail" companies, and that got 33 votes in the Senate. If there was enough popular support out there, if there was a show of force the same way there was a show of force in the Tea Party on the other side for the spending issue, then I think they might actually get something like that.

33 votes might as well be zero. Passing something to break up the banks would require a supermajority to avoid filibuster. In an actual contested vote, you'd be lucky to find 10 Senators actually willing to vote 'yes' on such a bill. In a vote that's essentially meaningless (since it will obviously go one way or the other), you get a lot of votes that kowtow to constituents. You'll get a guy to vote 'yes' to breaking up the big banks so he can turn around and tell his constituency 'hey, look -- I voted to break them up.' But if it ever came down to it, even the majority of those 33 would not vote to break up the banks.

And that's only a small portion of the battle. Even if it was passed by both houses of Congress, that kind of ruling would be taken to the courts to rule on its legality. There'd be an army of the best lawyers in the country pushing that kind of ruling back and getting it revoked.

[Aadill]

So you identify with having a defeatist attitude? Call it realist, if you'd like (to nip that statement in the bud), but this is exactly why people are protesting... the majority of the population of this country has no one looking out for them. Those that feel that they have succeeded and that "everyone else should get off their damn asses and do something," have completely misunderstood the entire movement because they are too wrapped up in caring about themselves than their fellow Americans.

Not that the protest itself is limited only to the United States. In fact, it's a pretty damn global thing.

OWS is about getting people to engage in dialogue. Not everyone is capable of coming up with a solution and not everyone is a leader. THAT is why we have a representative democracy. The only problem is that the representatives do not represent the majority of the population but instead listen to those with the money to sway their opinion. OWS wants people to be aware of that and to discuss why it is wrong.

Beyond that there are so many social issues that people feel need to be voiced which are not directly related to the OWS movement but symbolizes the need for great financial AND social reform. We're all humans... start acting like your neighbors are, too.

[Harrison]

Sorry, I have work to attend to and can't take time off from work to defecate in a park in large numbers to "send a message" that no one knows.

[Tadzi]

Sorry, I have work to attend to and can't take time off from work to defecate in a park in large numbers to "send a message" that no one knows.

Good news for you then, as there's lots of people doing it for you :)

[Aadill]

Logistics problems are for city planners, not untrained citizens. Not to claim that the city should have accommodated but just the opposite; it was a poor choice to not have anything setup in advance whether by the city or by its constituents. Even then, some areas where things were setup, porta-potties and the like were not getting emptied. Of course the media will latch onto the results of that. Frankly I want to smack anyone that thought it was a good idea to not plan for those sort of things but popular movements tend to grow out of control before anyone can get a handle on them. The one in Raleigh was recently broken up because too many supplies were being kept.

The reason so many supplies were being kept was to help keep the protesters warm and fed when there were massive fluctuations in numbers and to service the homeless that frequented the area due to a new-found accepting, albeit naive community.

[Daldolma]

So you identify with having a defeatist attitude? Call it realist, if you'd like (to nip that statement in the bud), but this is exactly why people are protesting... the majority of the population of this country has no one looking out for them. Those that feel that they have succeeded and that "everyone else should get off their damn asses and do something," have completely misunderstood the entire movement because they are too wrapped up in caring about themselves than their fellow Americans.

Not that the protest itself is limited only to the United States. In fact, it's a pretty damn global thing.

OWS is about getting people to engage in dialogue. Not everyone is capable of coming up with a solution and not everyone is a leader. THAT is why we have a representative democracy. The only problem is that the representatives do not represent the majority of the population but instead listen to those with the money to sway their opinion. OWS wants people to be aware of that and to discuss why it is wrong.

Beyond that there are so many social issues that people feel need to be voiced which are not directly related to the OWS movement but symbolizes the need for great financial AND social reform. We're all humans... start acting like your neighbors are, too.

Is that directed at me? My opinion is not defeatist in the least. Why would you presume I want the banks broken up in the first place? As far as you know, I work for Morgan Stanley.

I am speaking in purely realist terms, independent of any subjective opinion on the matter. Realistically, a break-up of the banks would require the kind of governmental-unanimity that doesn't currently exist for essentially anything, let alone something that would alienate some of the most prominent campaign donors.

[Aadill]

http://static.hypervocal.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/big-bank-theory-chart-large.jpg

[Aadill]

governmental-unanimity that doesn't currently exist for essentially anything

That is the problem.

[Hasbinbad]

Sorry for reposting, but this belongs here:

For years, the city couldn't afford to feed the homeless in Oakland.

For the past two weeks, the mostly white, upper middle class people shown above have been feeding the homeless of not only Oakland but the majority of the transient population 3-4 cities out. They set up a feeding station on the lawn in front of Oakland city hall, and invited anyone to come eat nutritious, sustainable food for free. They paid for this out of their own pockets, as voted on by an assembly at large of the people gathered. They all did their own math, and figured out what they could afford to give every month without a serious cramp on their style, and that amount was more than sufficient to buy enough rice, tofu, and whatever fruity vegetables they could to give away for free. Real people (soccer moms, buisnessmen) dropped off bagloads of food to the hippies who didn't have jobs and thus were the cooks/servers.

This was set up to be maintained forever. It took about 3 hours and 200 people with jobs on their own dimes. This is a direct analogy of what the 99% movement is all about. Give to those of a lower class. Tax the rich more. You make a million dollars a year - AND THAT IS GREAT! GOOD JOB! YAY CAPITALISM! - but fuck you, you pay taxes for the privilege. If 200 or 2,000 local people can fucking figure out how to feed the fucking homeless people in their area, why can't the fucking city which is paid millions of dollars in taxes for the social welfare?

Yes I know the math. Yes I know the 1% do pay more taxes. It's not enough. The tax needs to be flatter, or have more regulation on capitalism. The disparity has led to this nationwide protest, and this is just the beginning. Even when the police put the people down the first few times and it seems like it will get better, they will keep the policies involved static, and the disparity will get worse. This will trigger the revolution.

So yeah. They were a bunch of dumbasses standing around. Look carefully. They aren't in all black or Guy Fawkes masks. They were just standing there. Listening. There was a P.A.. People were speaking based on their ability to speak ideas as voted on by their peers. There was order. It's a strange thing to watch man.

Of course Oakland doesn't like the majority of the transient populations of every city for miles camped at the door of city hall.. They shut it all down, built a fence. Tear gas was involed.

That fence is now gone.

The people are still there.

..and Oakland wants to sit down with this bunch of dumbasses.

[Aadill]

^ awesome.

[Aadill]

*not the tear gas part

[Daldolma]

Sorry for reposting, but this belongs here:

Serious question: at what point does it stop being the responsibility of the wealthy to provide for the less wealthy? What's the cut-off? What entitlements are "rights" and what are indulgences? Food, I think we all agree, should be provided by the government. Education, too. Shelter. Maybe even non-emergency health care.

But when do you say -- "OK, we're providing enough for the baseline citizen. Let's stop raising taxes on the rich"? Do citizens have a right to comfort? I'd argue that they don't. You have a right to survival and equality of opportunity -- not to comfort. In fact, you *should* be uncomfortable if you're unemployed. You should be uncomfortable until you're employed.

I'm not a big proponent of raising taxes on the rich. I'm not theoretically opposed to it, but in practice, the US government hasn't earned my faith. The government is inherently inefficient, and American welfare programs are largely unsuccessful. The money raised by taxes is more likely to be spent on administrative bullshit or defense than on lower classes.

I prefer less ambiguous measures. A significant raise in the minimum wage, for instance, is long overdue. It is impossible to live comfortably on current minimum wage. Reforming the tax code to eliminate loopholes is necessary. The wealthier you are, the easier it is for you to get out of paying taxes. That's backward. Taxes should be simple and unavoidable. Greatly increase regulations on financial institutions. And fixes are necessary for the health care and education systems in America, but I won't pretend to have the answers to those questions. Raising taxes is not even close to a solution to those problems.

[Recycled Children]

ITT: Commies complain want more commie things.!

[Darwoth]

waaah i am a lazy sack of shit that took three times as long as it should have to get my degree, which by the way was for a useless liberal arts topic of which little/no jobs exist for. this coupled with my piss poor life management skills and desire to party like a teenager into my late 20s instead of lay a solid foundation for my life means that i am back living with my parents raiding their refrigerator at 30 years old and am a hundred grand in debt.

since i am a freeloading piece of shit with no job or ambition i shall gather with thousands of equally worthless sacks of shit in the town square demanding those not as stupid as me forgive my debts that i accrued on my own and give me some handouts to boot, i shall somehow say it is bush's fault and pretend like i am part of a "movement"

i am the 99% (of whats wrong with the fucking country)

[aresprophet]

Serious question: at what point does it stop being the responsibility of the wealthy to provide for the less wealthy? What's the cut-off? What entitlements are "rights" and what are indulgences? Food, I think we all agree, should be provided by the government. Education, too. Shelter. Maybe even non-emergency health care.

That's exactly the kind of serious question that we haven't been asking for the last two decades. Instead the national dialogue has revolved around how we can sustain our current society while asking less and less of everyone (but particularly of the well-off).

Is a 40% top tax bracket enough? 50%? 70%? Hell 90% worked just fine post-WWII, would that be appropriate now?

OWS is making people think about this kind of thing, and that's good because we've been pretending we can get along just fine while ignoring the realities of what it takes to support our society.

But when do you say -- "OK, we're providing enough for the baseline citizen. Let's stop raising taxes on the rich"? Do citizens have a right to comfort? I'd argue that they don't. You have a right to survival and equality of opportunity -- not to comfort. In fact, you *should* be uncomfortable if you're unemployed. You should be uncomfortable until you're employed.

"Uncomfortable" and "destitute" are vastly different things, but only a few thousand dollars a year apart for most people. Hell I'm gainfully employed and I'm still "uncomfortable", if you define comfort as having more than a few dollars a week in disposable income.

Making poor people suffer turns more poor people into criminals; placating them costs a relative pittance compared to the Big Five of the federal budget (which are, in no particular order, Keeping Old People Alive, Keeping Poor People Alive, Killing Brown People, Keeping Old People Alive (redux), and Keeping Other Governments From Repossessing Half Our Country).

I'm not a big proponent of raising taxes on the rich. I'm not theoretically opposed to it, but in practice, the US government hasn't earned my faith. The government is inherently inefficient, and American welfare programs are largely unsuccessful. The money raised by taxes is more likely to be spent on administrative bullshit or defense than on lower classes.

None of this is true. Not a sentence of it. The money spent on defense and welfare is largely a fixed amount (at the federal level anyway), federal government programs often outperform the private sector in terms of administrative overhead, and the "efficiency" of government is a non-issue when you consider that it is meant to fill roles that the private sector will not, cannot, and should not. It's not there to make money, it's there to perform certain essential functions regardless of efficiency.

Your distrust in government is not necessarily misplaced, but it is for the wrong reasons. Politicians who ignore their central duties in favor of their election campaigns, who argue in bad faith, who block good legislation to score points, and who are more beholden to lobbyists and donors than the electorate are the problem. It is no coincidence that the OWS protests are about precisely this, and share your concerns about government's ability to perform. They're just doing it for the right reasons.

It is also no coincidence that the political party who has been most defined by the above flaws over the last 15 years or so is the one that is preying on your fears about government to win your vote.

I prefer less ambiguous measures. A significant raise in the minimum wage, for instance, is long overdue. It is impossible to live comfortably on current minimum wage.

I thought "comfort" wasn't something we were supposed to guarantee? I'd rather live on welfare than slave for 40 hours a week on minimum wage, but that's not the reason we have high unemployment.

Reforming the tax code to eliminate loopholes is necessary. The wealthier you are, the easier it is for you to get out of paying taxes. That's backward. Taxes should be simple and unavoidable.

The capital gains tax is the most egregious example in world history of taxes being reshaped to greatly favor those who have over those who have not. "Loppholes" by and large are the byproduct of the kind of initiative you claim to support, and any attempt to eliminate them is generally an attempt to impose a heavily regressive tax that fucks over anyone who isn't super-wealthy (see national sales tax, flat tax, Fair Tax, see any GOP tax proposals since Reagen was inaugurated)

Greatly increase regulations on financial institutions. And fixes are necessary for the health care and education systems in America, but I won't pretend to have the answers to those questions. Raising taxes is not even close to a solution to those problems.

Yes, actually, it is. Because you can't throw hundreds of billions of dollars (in the case of health care trillions of dollars) at problems without those dollars coming from somewhere.

[Hasbinbad]

Serious question: at what point does it stop being the responsibility of the wealthy to provide for the less wealthy? What's the cut-off? What entitlements are "rights" and what are indulgences? Food, I think we all agree, should be provided by the government. Education, too. Shelter. Maybe even non-emergency health care.

But when do you say -- "OK, we're providing enough for the baseline citizen. Let's stop raising taxes on the rich"? Do citizens have a right to comfort? I'd argue that they don't. You have a right to survival and equality of opportunity -- not to comfort. In fact, you *should* be uncomfortable if you're unemployed. You should be uncomfortable until you're employed.

I'm not a big proponent of raising taxes on the rich. I'm not theoretically opposed to it, but in practice, the US government hasn't earned my faith. The government is inherently inefficient, and American welfare programs are largely unsuccessful. The money raised by taxes is more likely to be spent on administrative bullshit or defense than on lower classes.

I prefer less ambiguous measures. A significant raise in the minimum wage, for instance, is long overdue. It is impossible to live comfortably on current minimum wage. Reforming the tax code to eliminate loopholes is necessary. The wealthier you are, the easier it is for you to get out of paying taxes. That's backward. Taxes should be simple and unavoidable. Greatly increase regulations on financial institutions. And fixes are necessary for the health care and education systems in America, but I won't pretend to have the answers to those questions. Raising taxes is not even close to a solution to those problems.
You're smart until your last sentence.

I guess everyone is going to have a different line, but since you quoted me, my line is right about here (in approximate order of importance):

Shelter. Food. Medicine (really great healthcare for all people). Defense (actual defense, not "defense" as a euphemism for being a colonial empire). Education (preschool-doctorate). Infrastructure (better roads, highways, bridges, public transit, emergency services [police, fire, ems, disaster response], better water & power systems). Public works & entertainment (monuments, spectacles [4th of July, NYE], speeches & debates).

I'm probably forgetting something, but that's the jist.

Most of these are things that #1 we already provide in some form, or at least purport to provide, and that #2 are provided in countries with higher (flatter) taxes on the rich, which are still somehow able to provide enough incentives to corporations to stay there despite the higher taxes (defeating the argument which states that the money will run if taxes are raised).

I'm not proposing to put Shaquiniquila - mother of 9 children - up at The Ritz. I agree that it should be uncomfortable to ask for assistance. I agree that the current systems in this country have failed miserably. That is no fucking excuse for letting people go hungry but for the charity of strangers. Those people shouldn't have to beg on the streets while the fat cats cruise their helipad-equipped yachts on Uncle Sam's dime.

That shit is fucking ridiculous. We hook the banks up with billions, and that's cool, but when it comes to obtaining enough money to scrape by, you bitches wanna cry foul. It's cool to throw hundreds of billions of dollars on the military so that they can go do some shit in some other country, but it's near-impossible for someone who has worked their entire life in the trades and has ended up actually disabled and poor in this country to get any assistance for being really disabled or really being poor. I know lots of stories like that, and I'm sure if you think about it you do too.

I'm not talking about trailer trash freeloaders or EBT trading crackheads. They actually have an easier time of it because there are so many private outreach programs set up for abused women etc. to supplement the shitty government program.

No private outreach programs set up for 45 year old blue collar guys without the ability to work.

Meanwhile the CEO's apply their cost/benefit analysis to whether or not to squeeze every dime out of the customer through engineered faults (WHY THE FUCK AREN'T CELL PHONES WATERPROOF???) and planned obsolescence or actually try to provide a good product that will last. They decide fuck you, put some colored lights on it, you'll buy it anyway.

..and thus the people take the streets.

[Tommy_Wiseau]

waaah i am a lazy sack of shit that took three times as long as it should have to get my degree, which by the way was for a useless liberal arts topic of which little/no jobs exist for. this coupled with my piss poor life management skills and desire to party like a teenager into my late 20s instead of lay a solid foundation for my life means that i am back living with my parents raiding their refrigerator at 30 years old and am a hundred grand in debt.

since i am a freeloading piece of shit with no job or ambition i shall gather with thousands of equally worthless sacks of shit in the town square demanding those not as stupid as me forgive my debts that i accrued on my own and give me some handouts to boot, i shall somehow say it is bush's fault and pretend like i am part of a "movement"

i am the 99% (of whats wrong with the fucking country)

hi, i'm an ambitious science major who is graduating (on time) from a top university in my field. As an ambitious scientist my only valid career option after graduation is to move abroad to a country where medical research is supported properly. My education was a scam and my family is now enslaved by the debt it took to put me in this actually not-so-advantageous position.

This system does not work. If you think it does, you've never tried to climb from the American lower-middle class to something better. I congratulate you on your fortunate birth (or contentment with poverty), but if you think a majority of the American public is on the verge of armed revolt because they're "lazy sacks of shit", you have no fucking idea what you are talking about.

[naez]

you're all fucking dum not reading your essays of dum praising Goldman Sachs for creating the planet

I support all the anti-establishment movements, tea party, occupy, et al. cuz I am not dum

[naez]

deniers are lemmings following their oil financed leaders over the cliff

[Mardur]

I support ... tea party ... I am ... dum

[naez]

tea party the libertarian grassroots offshoot of the Paul campaign, not the neocon fox news co-opted sarah palin abomination

[returnofahipster]

"Democracy, Republic: What do these words signify? What have they changed in the world? Have men become better, more loyal, kinder? Are the people happier? All goes on as before, as always. Illusions, illusions"

"It is both the duty and responsibility of the world's fortunate few to help fulfil the legitimate aspirations of the unfortunate many"

"That which man dreams of and to Which he aspires, unless fulfilled in his own lifetime, can produce no actual satisfaction to him. It will be self deceiving and a waste of time to advocate dialogue with those who are not ready to listen, because it is obvious that the freedom of millions is not a commodity subject to bargaining. It is better to die free than to live as slaves. "

Advice from the Greatest Leader of the 20th Century
Emperor Haile Selassie of Ethiopia!

http://i39.tinypic.com/ehzrpk.gif

'Cause - 'cause we've been trodding on ya winepress much too long:
Rebel, rebel!
And we've been taken for granted much too long:
Rebel, rebel now!
(Bob Marley - Babylon System)

[Daldolma]

None of this is true. Not a sentence of it. The money spent on defense and welfare is largely a fixed amount (at the federal level anyway), federal government programs often outperform the private sector in terms of administrative overhead, and the "efficiency" of government is a non-issue when you consider that it is meant to fill roles that the private sector will not, cannot, and should not. It's not there to make money, it's there to perform certain essential functions regardless of efficiency.

I don't know where you're getting that from, but it's demonstrably false. The money we spend on defense and welfare is *not* fixed by any reasonable definition of the term. The dollar amount, percentage of GDP, and dispersal of funding fluctuates significantly from year to year for defense spending. Moreover, as recently as a few months ago, Congress passed a bill that required ~$450 billion in defense spending cuts over the next 10 years. That's, by definition, not fixed. It changes constantly. It's a safe bet that with increased tax revenue would come more expenditure on defense, and had we already increased tax revenue, those defense cuts likely never would have been realized.

I thought "comfort" wasn't something we were supposed to guarantee? I'd rather live on welfare than slave for 40 hours a week on minimum wage, but that's not the reason we have high unemployment.

Comfort is not a right, but it should be attainable for the employed. A minimum wage that provides a modicum of comfort for the employed would go a long way toward eliminating the need for many welfare programs. And yes, a large reason for the number of unemployed is the fact that working minimum wage is less desirable than simply collecting welfare. You can't improve your lot on current minimum wage, so why bother? There's no shortage of jobs at Subway, McDonald's, or a million other businesses that pay minimum wage. The fact is that millions of people choose not to do that kind of work because minimum wage isn't worth the effort to them.

Yes, actually, it is. Because you can't throw hundreds of billions of dollars (in the case of health care trillions of dollars) at problems without those dollars coming from somewhere.

Who decided it was desirable to "throw" hundreds of billions -- or trillions -- of dollars at health care? The current health care system doesn't work, no matter how much you tax the wealthy. We already spend more per citizen on health care than any other nation in the world -- what is more money going to fix? Dumping more money into it will just delay the inevitable, which is reform. Our national health care programs are insolvent, and our private health care industry is broken. "Tax the rich" sounds nice if you're not rich, but it's not actually a solution. It's a bumper sticker. There has yet to be a comprehensive, fair, and workable healthcare solution presented -- no matter how much revenue is brought in.

[Daldolma]

You're smart until your last sentence.

I guess everyone is going to have a different line, but since you quoted me, my line is right about here (in approximate order of importance):

Shelter. Food. Medicine (really great healthcare for all people). Defense (actual defense, not "defense" as a euphemism for being a colonial empire). Education (preschool-doctorate). Infrastructure (better roads, highways, bridges, public transit, emergency services [police, fire, ems, disaster response], better water & power systems). Public works & entertainment (monuments, spectacles [4th of July, NYE], speeches & debates).

I'm probably forgetting something, but that's the jist.

Most of these are things that #1 we already provide in some form, or at least purport to provide, and that #2 are provided in countries with higher (flatter) taxes on the rich, which are still somehow able to provide enough incentives to corporations to stay there despite the higher taxes (defeating the argument which states that the money will run if taxes are raised).

I'm not proposing to put Shaquiniquila - mother of 9 children - up at The Ritz. I agree that it should be uncomfortable to ask for assistance. I agree that the current systems in this country have failed miserably. That is no fucking excuse for letting people go hungry but for the charity of strangers. Those people shouldn't have to beg on the streets while the fat cats cruise their helipad-equipped yachts on Uncle Sam's dime.

That shit is fucking ridiculous. We hook the banks up with billions, and that's cool, but when it comes to obtaining enough money to scrape by, you bitches wanna cry foul. It's cool to throw hundreds of billions of dollars on the military so that they can go do some shit in some other country, but it's near-impossible for someone who has worked their entire life in the trades and has ended up actually disabled and poor in this country to get any assistance for being really disabled or really being poor. I know lots of stories like that, and I'm sure if you think about it you do too.

I'm not talking about trailer trash freeloaders or EBT trading crackheads. They actually have an easier time of it because there are so many private outreach programs set up for abused women etc. to supplement the shitty government program.

No private outreach programs set up for 45 year old blue collar guys without the ability to work.

Meanwhile the CEO's apply their cost/benefit analysis to whether or not to squeeze every dime out of the customer through engineered faults (WHY THE FUCK AREN'T CELL PHONES WATERPROOF???) and planned obsolescence or actually try to provide a good product that will last. They decide fuck you, put some colored lights on it, you'll buy it anyway.

..and thus the people take the streets.

I don't disagree with 99% of what you say. I'd nitpick your idea of defense, because I do believe that the US plays a dominant (and massively advantageous) role within world politics as a unipolar power with prohibitive military might, but let's not get into that.

The fact is that the government already has more than enough money to achieve everything you've stated. Read your complaints -- they're almost all government-focused. Like I just posted above, we already spend more per-citizen on health care than any other nation in the world. We could feed every homeless person in America 3 meals a day every day for less than what we spent on foreign aid to Egypt this year. It's not about the revenue. It's about the priorities. Whether you see them as representative of their constituencies or not, the leaders in government do not particularly care about infrastructure or public works. Education? Meh -- that's what the internet is for. Shelter for the impoverished? Not a huge concern. In fairness, food they do provide. If you're starving, you're not using the public funds and programs at your disposal. You may not be well-fed, but you won't starve to death. But the point is that more taxes are not going to magically fix this. Do you realize how much our government spends? We literally are so deep in debt that if you had spent $1 million every single day since Jesus was born, you wouldn't be as deep in debt as the United States. They're not strapped for cash. They just genuinely don't care all that much. There are a million things they're trying to juggle and pursue, and in the grand scheme of things, they don't care how well the bridges hold up, or whether homeless people have a place to sleep every night, or whether your kid knows that dinosaurs didn't build the pyramids.

[Darwoth]

hi, i'm an ambitious science major who is graduating (on time) from a top university in my field. As an ambitious scientist my only valid career option after graduation is to move abroad to a country where medical research is supported properly. My education was a scam and my family is now enslaved by the debt it took to put me in this actually not-so-advantageous position.

This system does not work. If you think it does, you've never tried to climb from the American lower-middle class to something better. I congratulate you on your fortunate birth (or contentment with poverty), but if you think a majority of the American public is on the verge of armed revolt because they're "lazy sacks of shit", you have no fucking idea what you are talking about.

hilarious and exactly what im talking about verbatim.

YOU selected a field that did not offer the career options you find acceptable and somehow that is anyone elses fault but yours.

YOU decided you had to go to a "top university" instead of one the myriad of others that teach the exact same shit.

YOU decided that the tuition was acceptable when signing up, probably because YOU did not have to pay for it, but rather your family who you have selfishly put into "financial ruin" to pay for your worthless fucking degree instead of putting yourself through school the way someone with a sense of dignity and self worth does.

YOU are what is wrong with the country, not wall street and those "eeeeevil bankers"

armed revolt? against who dumbfuck? bank of america? lol

[Darwoth]

hilarious and exactly what im talking about verbatim.

YOU selected a field that did not offer the career options you find acceptable and somehow that is anyone elses fault but yours.

YOU decided you had to go to a "top university" instead of one the myriad of others that teach the exact same shit for a much lower cost.

YOU decided that the tuition was acceptable when signing up, probably because YOU did not have to pay for it, but rather your family who you have selfishly put into "financial ruin" to pay for your worthless fucking degree instead of putting yourself through school the way someone with a sense of dignity and self worth does.

YOU are what is wrong with the country, not wall street and those "eeeeevil bankers"

armed revolt? against who dumbfuck? bank of america? lol

[Darwoth]

double

[Darwoth]

double2

[Darwoth]

hilarious and exactly what im talking about verbatim.

YOU selected a field that did not offer the career options you find acceptable and somehow that is anyone elses fault but yours.

YOU decided you had to go to a "top university" instead of one the myriad of others that teach the exact same shit for a lower cost.

YOU decided that the tuition was acceptable when signing up, probably because YOU did not have to pay for it, but rather your family who you have selfishly put into "financial ruin" to pay for your worthless fucking degree instead of putting yourself through school the way someone with a sense of dignity and self worth does.

YOU are what is wrong with the country, not wall street and those "eeeeevil bankers"

armed revolt? against who dumbfuck? bank of america? lol

[Darwoth]

ok fuck this shitty message board, and all you god damn communists

[Daldolma]

Fun fact: the unemployment rate for STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) graduates in the US is higher than the unemployment rate for college graduates on the whole. Being a college graduate is valuable, in dollar terms, no matter the major.

[visage]

Honestly, I read the first half of your sentence in your post and ignored the rest outright. There is absolutely nothing of worth that you could possibly spew, and as such, is ignored.

Fat got mad

[Harrison]

This message is hidden because visage is on your ignore list.

Kill yourself, please, for the sake of your kids. Those poor fucks have the unfortunate position to have been sired by a useless alcoholic trannie. Don't make the innocent suffer.

[visage]

This message is hidden because visage is on your ignore list.

Kill yourself, please, for the sake of your kids. Those poor fucks have the unfortunate position to have been sired by a useless alcoholic trannie. Don't make the innocent suffer.


Its a damn shame your Brother died. If only you could took his place. Though no doubt he was full of fail much like you no suprises. One less fucktard on this planet

[Hasbinbad]

The fact is that the government already has more than enough money to achieve everything you've stated. Read your complaints -- they're almost all government-focused. Like I just posted above, we already spend more per-citizen on health care than any other nation in the world. We could feed every homeless person in America 3 meals a day every day for less than what we spent on foreign aid to Egypt this year. It's not about the revenue. It's about the priorities. Whether you see them as representative of their constituencies or not, the leaders in government do not particularly care about infrastructure or public works. Education? Meh -- that's what the internet is for. Shelter for the impoverished? Not a huge concern. In fairness, food they do provide. If you're starving, you're not using the public funds and programs at your disposal. You may not be well-fed, but you won't starve to death. But the point is that more taxes are not going to magically fix this. Do you realize how much our government spends? We literally are so deep in debt that if you had spent $1 million every single day since Jesus was born, you wouldn't be as deep in debt as the United States. They're not strapped for cash. They just genuinely don't care all that much. There are a million things they're trying to juggle and pursue, and in the grand scheme of things, they don't care how well the bridges hold up, or whether homeless people have a place to sleep every night, or whether your kid knows that dinosaurs didn't build the pyramids.
Waste is one problem. Revenue is another. Fix one, it supplements the solution. Fix both and it supplements the solution even more.

I also deny your premise that we have enough money in the government system. Even if we eliminated 100% of the waste, our current budget would be insufficient to truly move our society forward in the scheme of civilization. Money doesn't magically fix things, but it does fix things.

[Cwall]

Its a damn shame your Brother died. If only you could took his place. Though no doubt he was full of fail much like you no suprises. One less fucktard on this planet

oh boy here we go

[Aadill]

It looks like OWS just made a difference on P99.















The people are talking.

[Duie]

http://youtu.be/7fqCS7Y_kME


nothing new

[Duie]

From a hero of mine... check the date.Guess i gotta give it to my cosins on the other side of the pond.... Britain does lead the way, We in the Us are just catcihing up and have this warp sence that we can make it work when the rest of the world hasnt.



1976 Feb 5 Th

Margaret Thatcher

TV Interview for Thames TV This Week



Document type:

speeches



Document kind:

TV Interview



Venue:

Thames Television Euston Centre, Tottenham Court Road, central London



Source:

Thatcher Archive: transcript



Journalist:

Llew Gardner, Thames TV



Editorial comments:

The interview was broadcast live at 2000. Copyright in the broadcast from which this transcript is taken is retained by Thames Television and the transcript is reproduced by permission of Thames Television. This interview appears to be the source of what has become a well-known political aphorism in the blogosphere: "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money".



Importance ranking:

Major



Word count:

4725



Themes:

Leadership, Conservative Party (organisation), Labour Party and Socialism, Conservatism, Leadership, Conservative Party (organisation), Leadership, Conservatism, Conservative Party (organisation), Conservative Party (leadership elections), Conservatism, Taxation, Monetary policy, Economy (general discussions), Labour Party and Socialism, Employment, Pay, Employment, Public spending and borrowing, Pay, Employment, Public spending and borrowing, Employment, Monetary policy, Labour Party and Socialism, Public spending and borrowing, Privatised and state industries, Parliament, By-elections, General Elections, Famous statements by MT, Labour Party and Socialism, Education, Local government, Housing, Conservative Party (organisation), Leadership, Autobiographical comments, Autobiography (marriage and children)



Llew Gardner

Mrs Thatcher, hello and welcome to ‘This Week’. Mrs Thatcher, you've been Leader of the Conservative Party for a year now. How does the Conservative Party under Mrs Thatcher differ in style, in policy and approach from the Party led by Mr Heath ?

Mrs Margaret Thatcher

Well it's difficult for me really to judge the answer to that, because, after all I'm one of the principal people concerned. What I've tried to do is to show clearly the differences between the two Parties, and I believe they are getting steadily clearer as the days go by. To some extent, I think we've been helped by the Labour Party, which has gone further Left than it's ever gone before, so people really are beginning to realise that there's a tremendous difference between the policies a Conservative Government would pursue, and those a Labour Government is pursuing, and I've tried to put these in ordinary terms.

Llew Gardner

Without asking you to attack your former colleague, er, and the former Leader of the Party, are you in fact saying though that the Conservative Party in the past, in fact went too far to the Left, or too far on to the middle ground?

Mrs Margaret Thatcher

It would be difficult to go too far on to the middle ground, because usually, you know, that's the common sense ground which appeals to most people. Er, I think it's true to say, that the differences between Conservatives are very small indeed. Very small, compared to the enormous gulf between the Parties, and I am trying to focus attention on what I think the Labour Government is doing wrong, and there's plenty to focus attention on, and how differently we'd do it, and how different is our vision of the British way of life from theirs.[fo 1]

Llew Gardner

Well, I don't want to stay with the differences between you and the past administration too long. But, would it be fair to say, that you … . under your leadership the Party is more dedicated to the principles of greater opportunity for the individual, and less interference by Government than it was in the past?

Mrs Margaret Thatcher

It would certainly be true to say that as the Labour Government's gone on, State interference has got greater and greater into the ordinary lives of people, and therefore it's become much, much clearer that we would have far less of that, leave much more choice with the ordinary people about how they lead their own lives, about how they spend their pay packet in their pockets, and I think you're quite right in saying that there has been much more emphasis on that.

Llew Gardner

As Leader of the Party do you see your task as one of formulating and pushing forward new ideas, and emphasis of policy, or do you see yourself as a co-ordinator of policies worked out by other people, a kind of referee?

Mrs Margaret Thatcher

Ooh, not a referee, I think perhaps more a manager of a team, and it does take quite some time, you know, to weld a team together to play effectively. I think any football manager will tell you that. Of course, you have to give some lead in policies … .

Llew Gardner

… . especially the policies of substantial reserves sitting on the back benches … .

Mrs Margaret Thatcher

Ooh, lots of reserves, there's plenty of reserve talent there, tremendous amount. Er, working out policy takes almost everyone on the back benches. Most of them are concerned in one way or another with some of the policy committees. And, of course, we have a lot of outside help as well. It's been marvellous to see the number of people who have come forward to say, ‘Well now look, we know, er, industry, we know commerce, can we help from the academic world?’ so it's a very big job, but the broad general differences, and broad general strategy are clear.[fo 2]

Llew Gardner

You know, political commentators often complain that they have difficulty setting you within the Tory's spectrum, narrow as you've already suggested that spectrum may be. Er, and I can see, having listened to you for a few moments, why they have this difficulty … .

Mrs Margaret Thatcher

… You're having difficulty too …

Llew Gardner

… Yes, I'm having this difficulty. Is this because you really don't have any strong views about where the Party should be heading, or, is it that you see solely your task as bringing all the strings together?

Mrs Margaret Thatcher

Oh no, no. You know, we have difficulty with political commentators too. Er, I would have thought I'd given very clear leads in some of my speeches, er, there was the Conference speech, there was the speech which I did in America, which in fact, drew together a number of themes which I've been speaking about here. Perhaps I can summarise it best by saying this—Nations that have pursued equality, like the Iron Curtain countries, I think have finished up with neither equality, nor liberty. Nations, which like us, in the past have pursued liberty, as a fundamental objective, extending it to all, have finished up with liberty, human dignity, and far fewer inequalities than other people. Now, that was hailed as quite a distinctive lead at the time, since then … .

Llew Gardner

… held a sort of Right Wing lead, in some way … .

Mrs Margaret Thatcher

… . Oh no, liberty is fundamental. Liberty, human dignity, a higher standard of living is fundamental. And, steadily, I think, people are beginning to realise that you don't have those things unless you have a pretty large private enterprise sector. Any Iron Curtain country has neither liberty, nor a very high standard of living. The two things go, economic and political freedom, go together. I've been right in the forefront of saying that, here, in the States, and it's very interesting to me now, to see a number of articles from people who are taking up the same theme. They are disturbed that Socialism is reducing liberty and freedom for ordinary people, and that's really what matters.[fo 3]

Llew Gardner

Well this is, I think, what I've been trying to ask you, Mrs Thatcher, that you have, it seems to me, that I presume Mr. Heath and all the people who served with him, felt all the things that you've been saying over the last year, just as much as you do, but perhaps they didn't say it. Do you see your task, that of repeating old Tory truths?

Mrs Margaret Thatcher

Fundamental truths are fundamental truths and last a very long time. It's not surprising really that you shouldn't find that number of differences between members of one Party. Because, after all, we all believe in the same way of life, and it's in getting that across that we perhaps put different emphasis on different things. I think my difficulty with political commentators is that they try to see more differences in policy, perhaps, than there are. What there may well be is a difference is style, and a difference in emphasis. I think you're struggling to find more differences than you'll find.

Llew Gardner

I'm struggling to really find a reason … .

Mrs Margaret Thatcher

… . You're struggling very hard … .

Llew Gardner

No, I'm struggling really to find a reason other than the fact that he lost three elections, why you bothered to get rid of Ted Heath in your Party?

Mrs Margaret Thatcher

Three elections is quite a lot, after all, if you believe in a way of life, you try to see that that way of life is the one which prevails in Britain. Look, [ Edward Heath ] Ted had been Leader for ten years, and Prime Minister for four, that is a very great achievement, and it's not surprising that after ten years that people should want some changes. I look at his period as a period of undoubted achievement. But, inevitably there was a movement for change.

Llew Gardner

So, fundamentally, they hope you're a winner where he was a loser?[fo 4]

Mrs Margaret Thatcher

I hope I'm a winner for the Party too. We both serve the Party, it's a cause you serve, not a person … .

Llew Gardner

Do you believe in consensus politics, er, within the Conservative Party, do you believe that really we talked about the middle ground, the middle ground is the place you have to be?

Mrs Margaret Thatcher

I'm never quite sure what you mean be consensus politics. I believe that what most people want in their lives, is what the Conservative Party wants to have for them. I believe that our policies are fundamentally common sense policies. Just let's take taxation for an example. Wherever I go I hear enormous resentment about the amount which people are paying out of their own pay packet in tax. And, this goes right across the income ranges. Socialism started by saying it was going to tax the rich, very rapidly it was taxing the middle income groups. Now, it's taxing people quite highly with incomes way below average and pensioners with incomes way below average. You look at the figure on the beginning of a pay slip, sometimes it can look quite high, look along the slip to the other end, and see how many deductions you've had off, those deductions have increased enormously under Socialism … .

Llew Gardner

… this takes us into the … . sorry … please do …

Mrs Margaret Thatcher

… because they've put it … can-can I just finish, because it's an important point? Public expenditure, which they always boast about, is financed out of the pay packet in our pockets. People are saying that they really think too much is being taken out of the pay packet for someone to spend on their behalf, and they'd rather be left with more, and it's now well-known that Socialist Governments put up taxes and Conservative Governments take them down. It's part of our fundamental belief giving the people more choice to spend their own money in their own way.[fo 5]

Llew Gardner

And that takes us right into the economic debate. Er, I won't take up your point on taxes straight away, I think I'll …

Mrs. Margaret Thatcher

Quite crucial.

Llew Gardner

The Prime Minister … The Prime Minister and the Chancellor have both said, er, recently, the Prime Minister said, "We are winning through". He said that on Monday, and that suggests that the Government policies have proved effective, and that inflation is being brought under control. Do you accept the Government's analysis of the situation?

Mrs. Margaret Thatcher

No, not wholly. Er, in the last election … .

Llew Gardner

Partly?

Mrs. Margaret Thatcher

… one moment. In the last election, you remember, Mr. Healey said that the rate of inflation then was eight point four per cent, and he fought the election on that, and the [ Harold Wilson ] Prime Minister fought on that, and having got unemployment down. Now, I've never seen such a bad economic record over this last year, as has been put up by the present Government. No one could have made a worse hash of it than they have. You've had inflation not at eight point four per cent, but at twenty-five per cent. You've had the highest rate of unemployment that we've ever had in the post war period. On top of that, you've got production, on which we all depend for our standard of living, is below what it was in 1970. Now you expect me to be satisfied with that? It is a terrible record; unequalled I believe in the western world, in the combination which you've had, of high inflation and high unemployment.

Llew Gardner

You don't accept that they are getting on top of the problem?

Mrs. Margaret Thatcher

They said they were getting on top of the problem last September. I hope they are getting on top of the problem for Britain's sake. What I suspect is happening is that we have certainly got welcome improvements, in that the rate of inflation appears now not to be twenty-five per cent, but what I regard, and Conservatives regard it as much too high a rate of twelve to fifteen per cent. You see, we're coming down to[fo 6] what other countries had as their peak. So I hope we're coming down, and I hope for a time we're going to stay down. Unemployment, I'm afraid, will rise for a time. Er, and it's very tragic because it's not only the unemployment figures, but you've got to remember that each one probably has a family as well, and so it effects far more people than just the figures that we hear about.

Llew Gardner

Do you accept then that the Government's six pound pay limit, that the voluntary policy has worked?

Mrs. Margaret Thatcher

The six pound pay limit certainly has worked. But don't forget that we fought a 1974 election on saying really that pay couldn't go on going up as it was. The important thing … you must never look at pay on its own, what you've got to look at is pay in relation to the amount produced. It's when those two get badly out of line that you get inflation. And now obviously, we've got very much higher pay, but we're producing less than we were in 1970, so it's the relationship that you've got to watch. Don't look at pay separately. Once you start to cut off a man's pay from the fruits of his labour, he will inevitably feel enormous resentment. If he's going to work harder, of course he deserves more pay, and he doesn't want it all taken away in tax. But there are two sides of the equation you've got to look at.

Llew Gardner

There are of course, those within your party who are not that keen on any form of incomes policy. If Mr. Healey decides to continue with some form of incomes policy after July, will you support him in the House?

Mrs. Margaret Thatcher

What we said was perfectly plain during the debate. I spelt it out, other members of my Party spelt it out. Incomes policy is not enough. What incomes policy can do is to reduce the levels of unemployment that you'd otherwise have, and that's extremely important. It cannot of itself control inflation. You can't, if you're trying to control inflation, go on putting public expenditure up and up, beyond the taxpayer's capacity to pay; because that's a factor which will lead to inflation. What I fear Mr. Healey's had, is an incomes policy trying to cope at one end with the problem—bring it down, while at the other end he's had public expenditure going up and up which, in fact, has stoked up inflation. And in[fo 7] the long term you've got to get the whole of the economic sector right.

Llew Gardner

Have a look at … Have a look at public expenditure in a moment. If he continues with an incomes policy after July, will you support it?

Mrs. Margaret Thatcher

Well, I think we'd need to know what kind of incomes policy it's going to be. You remember this came up when the six pound limit came up. We did not oppose an incomes policy. I did not think that a straight six pound policy was the right one to bring in. It will cause enormous problems in the future, because it's already squashed differentials. And, you know, you have a lot of different unions, because each of them is looking after different skills. You have tremendous problems already, because sometimes one group in a firm would have got an increase under the old pay code, and some others would have had only the six pound limit. So you've got differential problems. And we'll have to have a look to see what kind of incomes policy Mr. Healey and his Government is proposing.

Llew Gardner

You've talked about public expenditure. Can you cut public expenditure, and at the same time cut unemployment?

Mrs. Margaret Thatcher

Jobs really come in the productive sector of the economy. The real jobs are where people are producing goods or services which other people will buy. Now, dependent on those people producing those goods, are a lot of others in the public sector. Now if you run up the public sector, you can only do it by draining money out of industry and commerce. But that's where the jobs are. And one of the reasons why you have to cut public expenditure is to get the money back—one of the reasons why you have to cut public expenditure is to get money back out of the public sector, into industry and commerce, so that they, in fact, can invest, and improve, and expand; because that's where the secure jobs are. It's very complicated.

Llew Gardner

Is the answer to my question, yes?

Mrs. Margaret Thatcher

And I hope the point is clear.

Llew Gardner

Is the answer to my question, yes, that you can cut public expenditure, and cut unemployment?[fo 8]

Mrs. Margaret Thatcher

Unless you cut public expenditure, you will not in the longer run have lower unemployment; you may have difficulties in the short run. We were saying this a year ago. Because they ran up inflation and didn't deal with it then, they've now got higher unemployment than they need have had. They've delayed solving the fundamental problem.

Llew Gardner

All right. When did you start … . decide to start beating them with unemployment? Er, because Sir Geoffrey Howe said quite recently that, "The Tory Party would never use the weapon of unemployment as a stick to beat the Government." You now seem to be, er, have changed your mind on that?

Mrs. Margaret Thatcher

The facts are, Mr. Gardner , that the Conservative Party has never had the level of unemployment which the Labour Government has created now. Never.

Llew Gardner

Do you believe that you can cure inflation without a considerable amount of unemployment?

Mrs. Margaret Thatcher

I believe that we should not have had the present level of inflation but for a Labour Government. It went up to twenty-five per cent partly because of their disastrous policies between elections, and since the second election …

Llew Gardner

Can you cure … .

Mrs. Margaret Thatcher

… . if they had not … . One moment, Mr. Gardner. Just let's apportion the blame. If they had not run inflation up to unprecedented levels, and if they'd listened to some economic advice before that, we should have had prices not as high as they have been, and we should have unemployment a lot lower. Unless they get it right now, we shall have more unemployment in the future than we need have.

Llew Gardner

Can you cure inflation without a considerable degree of unemployment?

Mrs. Margaret Thatcher

Curing inflation depends upon a number of things. It depends upon the equation of getting your production and your wages right, and therefore, indirectly, your money supply right. It depends upon not having too much public expenditure. Er, and those, I think, are two of the fundamental[fo 9] things—the money supply is all right. Difficult with incomes in relation to production.

Llew Gardner

But there's no easy way, is there, Mrs. Thatcher?

Mrs. Margaret Thatcher

No.[fo 10]

Llew Gardner

There's no way that isn't painful for the people, is there?

Mrs. Margaret Thatcher

No. But, you see, it would have been a lot less painful if they'd done it right at the start. This I find difficult to get across to you, Mr. Gardner. When we left office in February 1974, the level of inflation that we regarded as intolerably high was about fourteen or fifteen per cent. That's what they've now got down to, having taken it right up and down. We need never have gone up to the level to which they've taken it. Now, we were fighting on a policy of trying to deal with inflation then. They did not deal with it. We had cut expenditure then. Tony Barber had had very severe cuts. So really he'd got it all going right for them, and then they went in the wrong way. And the troubles we're having now are their troubles, due to their policies, and they really must tackle them fundamentally to get themselves out of it.

Llew Gardner

Unfortunately, they're our problems as well. Er, however Mrs …

Mrs. Margaret Thatcher

Unfortunately, yes …

Llew Gardner

However, Mrs. …

Mrs. Margaret Thatcher

I agree, because the people pay.

Llew Gardner

However, Mrs. Thatcher, may … . may … . may I ask you. I understand that the … . some of the cuts you'd make in public expenditure are the fields of er, food subsidies and housing subsidies. Are there other places you would cut?

Mrs. Margaret Thatcher

Look, I think you're tackling public expenditure from the wrong end, if I might say so. Why don't you look at it as any housewife has to look at it? She has to look at her expenditure every week or every month, according to what she can afford to spend, and if she overspends[fo 11] one week or month, she's got to economise the next. Now governments really ought to look at it from the viewpoint of "What can we afford to spend?" They've already put up taxes, and yet the taxes they collect are not enough for the tremendous amount they're spending. They're having to borrow to a greater extent than ever before, and future generations will have to repay. Now, if anyone tells me that a Chancellor of the [ Denis Healey ] Exchequer can put up public expenditure in two years by—and it's a tremendous figure—twenty thousand million pounds, and he doesn't know where to get it down by about three thousand million pounds, then he ought never to have been in charge of the nation's finances … never!

Llew Gardner

Do you know where to get … . do you know where to get it down?

Mrs. Margaret Thatcher

When I see the full public expenditure figures, we shall have more idea in detail. In the meantime, we have said some of the things which are indicated, and we must also stop spending enormous sums on nationalising everything he can lay hands on, because that doesn't help public expenditure either. It merely adds to the bills we have to pay in future years, and if he'd stop that, we should be very much better off than we are today—and have very much lower expenditure.

Llew Gardner

Mrs. Thatcher, turning to the Tory Party in opposition, you've made a number of declarations of war on the present Labour Government. When's the war going to start?

Mrs. Margaret Thatcher

We battle almost daily. Unfortunately, the Labour Party in Parliament has a majority of forty over the Conservative Party. So the Conservative Party alone can never beat them. They've an overall majority of one over all the other parties together, so we're …

Llew Gardner

Well, not at the moment, but er, in theory.

Mrs. Margaret Thatcher

Well yes, yes … at the moment … an overall majority of one. So if we're to bring them down, all the other parties have to join with us er, on a combined vote, and we all have to be there. As a matter of fact there's slightly more than one, because there are two independents who[fo 12] normally vote Labour. So until we've won a few by-elections, we can't, even acting together, bring them down. So we shall go into battle in the next by-elections. We won one, as you know.

Llew Gardner

And yet, you know, don't you find it a bit odd … I know, I mean I talk to Conservatives in the country … . they find it odd that a government with no real majority, or a majority of one as you say … facing huge problems, er, unpopular apparently in the country, according to the opinion polls, yet it manages to act in the House. If all the world was seen to have a huge built-in majority and was the safest government that's ever been … is that just a matter of Mr. Wilson 's general confidence and isn't that a reflection on the Opposition?

Mrs. Margaret Thatcher

No. Er, I think you've got it wrong. Er, I tried to spell out a moment ago, they in fact have a majority. The majority is bigger than it looks, because it's a majority of forty over us. So in fact they … if ever we manage to get a vote within forty, it means that other parties have combined with us. If the other parties vote with them, they can have a majority of seventy, so they've got a majority, and so long as they keep that they can get through what they like. The moment we try … . we topple them on one or two by-elections, then they will have lost their overall majority, and that can have quite far-reaching consequences. So it's just a plain straight question of arithmetic at the moment.

Llew Gardner

But are there …?

Mrs. Margaret Thatcher

So you need to look at the answer. You just look at the arithmetic.

Llew Gardner

There are those nasty critics, of course, who suggest that you don't really want to bring them down at the moment. Life is a bit too difficult in the country, and that … leave them to sort the mess out and then come in with the attack later … say next year.[fo 13]

Mrs. Margaret Thatcher

I would much prefer to bring them down as soon as possible. I think they've made the biggest financial mess that any government's ever made in this country for a very long time, and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them. They then start to nationalise everything, and people just do not like more and more nationalisation, and they're now trying to control everything by other means. They're progressively reducing the choice available to ordinary people. Look at the trouble now we're having with choice of schools. Of course parents want a say in the kind of education their children have. Look at the William Tyndall School—an example where the parents finally rebelled. Of course they did. These schools are financed by taxpayers' money, but the choice to parents is being reduced.

Look at the large numbers of people who live on council estates. Many of them would like to buy their own homes. Oh, but that's not approved of by a Socialist government … . oh no! But that's absurd. Why shouldn't they? Well over thirty per cent of our houses are council houses. Why shouldn't those people purchase their own homes if they can?

Llew Gardner

Mrs … Mrs. Thatcher, I hesitate to interrupt you, but we're in the last minute almost.

Mrs. Margaret Thatcher

It's gone very quickly.

Llew Gardner

Er, you said in a recent interview that 1967–1976 would be a good year to become Prime Minister. Can you imagine being Prime Minister of a team that doesn't have such distinguished figures as Edward Heath and Peter Walker in its ranks?

Mrs. Margaret Thatcher

Let's win the election first. Then I'll choose my team, and it'll be a jolly good team, and it'll put Britain on the right road.

Llew Gardner

You wouldn't rule out Mr. Walker and Mr. Heath in that team?[fo 14]

Mrs. Margaret Thatcher

I shall win first, and then, if I'm still leader of the party, which I hope and assume will be so, I shall choose my own team.

Llew Gardner

If you win you probably will still be leader. Er, a number of nicknames you've had er, since coming into politics … ‘Milk-snatcher’, ‘Hoarder’, now ‘The Iron Maiden’. Which one of all those do you prefer?

Mrs. Margaret Thatcher

I think that perhaps in firmness with which one will deal with policies, perhaps ‘The Iron Maiden’ is right, but, um, it's an Iron Maiden who has a family, and that's very important.

Llew Gardner

Mrs. Thatcher, thank you very much indeed. Good night to you.




Little History leasson for you dumb slapnuts that dont learn from it(or we wouldnt be having this shit in America). The First Socalist Experement in world history was in the 1600 at a little place called Jamestown. See at first, It didnt mater how much you did as you got an equal share of the spoils of labor. Eventually Human nature stepped in and less got produced for the winter months because Joes got a Garden and im gonna get my half of his food.

Over half the community Died that winter because of starvation and this is where a Captain who ended up Hitched to an Indian princess steps in( Ronald Reagan of his day) and says that you can keep anything extra you make(Capitalism). SO here we are from a little place called Jamestown to what became a great Nation all because of Capitalism and yet after 400 years, We still have people who wanna redistribute the wealth so that we all may starve one day.

[Pico]

hilarious and exactly what im talking about verbatim.

YOU selected a field that did not offer the career options you find acceptable and somehow that is anyone elses fault but yours.

YOU decided you had to go to a "top university" instead of one the myriad of others that teach the exact same shit.

YOU decided that the tuition was acceptable when signing up, probably because YOU did not have to pay for it, but rather your family who you have selfishly put into "financial ruin" to pay for your worthless fucking degree instead of putting yourself through school the way someone with a sense of dignity and self worth does.

YOU are what is wrong with the country, not wall street and those "eeeeevil bankers"

armed revolt? against who dumbfuck? bank of america? lol

hehehehehahahahaohohohoahohohohoh

[Pico]

HAEHEHHEOHAHEHEHEHAHEHHAHAHHEEHE

[Tommy_Wiseau]

hilarious and exactly what im talking about verbatim.

YOU selected a field that did not offer the career options you find acceptable and somehow that is anyone elses fault but yours.

YOU decided you had to go to a "top university" instead of one the myriad of others that teach the exact same shit.

YOU decided that the tuition was acceptable when signing up, probably because YOU did not have to pay for it, but rather your family who you have selfishly put into "financial ruin" to pay for your worthless fucking degree instead of putting yourself through school the way someone with a sense of dignity and self worth does.

YOU are what is wrong with the country, not wall street and those "eeeeevil bankers"

armed revolt? against who dumbfuck? bank of america? lol

I have plenty of career options -- the USA will benefit from none of them. I can make more than enough to pay off my debts, but only if I go abroad. My point is that anyone planning to turn themselves into something in the United States would be a fool to remain here and try to fight the tide.

You say biomedical researchers who think they are worthy of investment are "what is wrong with the country"? The rest of the USA apparently agrees. You can all fuck off and keep your third-world shithole labs and lowest life expectancy in the developed world, ******s. I am fucking out of here.

[Harrison]

Hey guys. Going to work.

No time to cry in a park shitting in a circle with a bunch of unemployed vagrant slobs.

[Susanbanthony]

It looks like OWS just made a difference on P99.















The people are talking.

A goal will come (clean up campaign finance? further regulate the banking industry? etc) but changing the national conversation is a positive outcome in-and-of itself.

[Tommy_Wiseau]

cry in a park shitting in a circle with a bunch of unemployed vagrant slobs

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/OZLyUK0t0vQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Aadill]

changing the national conversation is a positive outcome in-and-of itself.

Some people do not want a national conversation or cannot intelligently or maturely participate in it. The point does stand, though, that there are many reasons why this generation and the previous generations are starting to get pissed and want to talk about it.

I thought this was interesting:

http://occupywallst.org/media/pdf/OWS-profile1-10-18-11-sent-v2-HRCG.pdf

*** 64.2% of respondents were younger than 34 years of age.
*** While the sample is relatively young, one in three respondents is older than 35 and one in five respondents is 45 and older.
*** 7.9% of respondents have a high school degree or less.
*** 92.1% of the sample has some college, a college degree, or a graduate degree.
*** 27.4% have some college (but no degree), 35% have a college degree, 8.2% have some graduate school (but no degree), and close to 21.5% have a graduate school degree.
*** 26.7% of respondents were enrolled in school and 73.3% were not enrolled in school.
*** 50.4% were employed full-time and an additional 20.4% were employed part-time.
*** 13.1% of the sample are unemployed.
*** 2.6% of respondents were retired, 1.3% disabled, 2.6% homemakers and 9.7% are full-time students.

[Theldios]

this is a perfect example of people reveling in their own ignorance. americans are proud to be stupid, obtuse, and bigoted. it means they're patriotic. harrison is a shining product of someone who hardly has a pot to piss in but yet hates people in the same social position as himself. the GOP have done an excellent job at brainwashing working-class people like harrison into hating others almost identical to himself.

they fail to understand social mobility isn't a viable option and when someone calls them on their bullshit they reply with, "get a job hippy." they would if they could, im sure.

also harrison is an your average american who is one paycheck from bankruptcy. he will live out their days in an alcoholic daze watching sporting events to forget about how miserable his daily existence is while the people he votes into office watch their salary triple in less than a decade. but those people are rich because they "worked harder" than everyone else, right?

:)
I am happy with where I am in life. And I am doing just fine. I think it is you who empower others to tell you oh woe is me, oh woe is me and you buy it hook line and sinker.
And no I am not one paycheck from bankruptcy I am quite comfortable in my upper middle class status (6 figure income kid) I have been in this bracket since the 80's and will stay here the rest of my life and am happy with that.
You need to crawl off the oh woe is me wagon and get on the I can do it wagon
I believe if more people had the can do attitude of previous generations(which I am a part of) we would not be having these problems.
And yes the decaying American education system is partially to blame since they pumped out so far 2 generations of people who can hardly do basic math

[booter]

ITT: ignorant motherfuckers.

[Susanbanthony]

*** 50.4% were employed full-time and an additional 20.4% were employed part-time.
*** 13.1% of the sample are unemployed.

[Shiftin]

None of this is true. Not a sentence of it. The money spent on defense and welfare is largely a fixed amount (at the federal level anyway), federal government programs often outperform the private sector in terms of administrative overhead, and the "efficiency" of government is a non-issue when you consider that it is meant to fill roles that the private sector will not, cannot, and should not. It's not there to make money, it's there to perform certain essential functions regardless of efficiency.

Hi. Actual accountant here. This is horribly false, and will never change while governments use a method of accounting that discourages having leftover money (what we would deem profit in the real world).

NFP and government accounting is done in "funds". When you have leftover money at the end of the year in your "fund" it is moved to the government's "general fund" and used for other shortfalls, and it usually means your budget is reduced for the following year, which completely disincentivizes leaders of cost centers in government and NFP accounting from doing things efficiently. "Hey, thanks for saving us some money. We're not allowed to share profits with you because we're not allowed to have profits, but we will make sure you have to do things at least as cheaply next year! Good luck getting everything to work out this well again!"

Also, if people could quit calling things that were explicitly passed into the tax law to encourage certain behaviors "loopholes", that would be fantastic. You can't completely rewrite the tax code without a meltdown of our economy. The easiest piece to explain is the mortgage interest deduction. If you eliminate that, you eliminate the reason a lot of people who just pop over the rent/buy decision from the individual housing market. What that market shrinks, it affects virtually every facet of our economy.

[Hasbinbad]

we will make sure you have to do things at least as cheaply next year!
Thems is sum powerful words son.

That is itself one of the root problems of society, and a good example of where government should (imho), and in fact does in some cases (FDA, USDA) have a role in regulation (do things as cheaply as you can, but maintain this standard).

[Aadill]

empty quote

It sounds exactly like the type of demographic you'd see when you describe the entire US.


http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm

[Shiftin]

Thems is sum powerful words son.

That is itself one of the root problems of society, and a good example of where government should (imho), and in fact does in some cases (FDA, USDA) have a role in regulation (do things as cheaply as you can, but maintain this standard).

Except, there are humans in these jobs with no incentive to do things cheaply in the first place. What are your incentives if you can't get fired if you mess up and you can't get wealthy by being good at your job? Your incentive becomes making your job easy in many cases. It's hard to keep saving money every year, so if you do manage to do it one year, departments typically find another way to waste their leftover money so they don't have to work hard to save the same money next year.

I'm sorry if this isn't how it's suppossed to work, but it's how things actually do work, and its the root of why government is inherently less efficient.

[Seaweedpimp]

I am happy with where I am in life. And I am doing just fine. I think it is you who empower others to tell you oh woe is me, oh woe is me and you buy it hook line and sinker.
And no I am not one paycheck from bankruptcy I am quite comfortable in my upper middle class status (6 figure income kid) I have been in this bracket since the 80's and will stay here the rest of my life and am happy with that.
You need to crawl off the oh woe is me wagon and get on the I can do it wagon
I believe if more people had the can do attitude of previous generations(which I am a part of) we would not be having these problems.
And yes the decaying American education system is partially to blame since they pumped out so far 2 generations of people who can hardly do basic math

Fuck you

[Hasbinbad]

At first I was like, "wow, Shiftin is smart."

Now I'm all like, "wow, Shiftin says a bunch of stuff."

[Tommy_Wiseau]

OWS comes off statistically similar to a randomly selected sample of US population even though they aren't at all randomly selected. Pretty much the definition of a popular movement. Compare to early tea party stats: old white conservative bigots.

A direct refutation of the "dirty unemployed hippie" fallacy still being propagated by the corporate media and parroted by idiots around the country and on this board.

[Aadill]

I dunno he kinda makes a point...

Public school systems work the same way. Services provided by the government paid for by the people (truly a socialist construct) result in these issues simply because, per year, there is no way to say, "okay you have $1 bil for the next 20 years," because it may be too much or may not be enough.. budgets are set every year only to be constantly readjusted to match the end of year goal. Everything is dependent on the appearance of need. If a department doesn't appear to need anything, they can probably live with less... If they don't keep their budgetary requirements up then they get slashed left and right until there is nothing left.

With that said it also causes bloat and overspending to end up with more money the following year and that is why fiscal conservatives are pissed at things like the BoE and their take on public schooling. Yeah, it sucks, but how do you control a system as large as it is when there is no one there to take the reins? As Shiftin is saying, the human condition (in terms of work ethics) appears to be more along the lines of survive, not thrive.

[Aadill]

OWS comes off statistically similar to a randomly selected sample of US population even though they aren't at all randomly selected. Pretty much the definition of a popular movement. Compare to early tea party stats: old white conservative bigots.

A direct refutation of the "dirty unemployed hippie" fallacy still being propagated by the corporate media and parroted by idiots around the country and on this board.

Out of about 20-30 people in Raleigh (the standard sized night time group in a normally low profile non protest town):

*** there is one man that worked for Nortel making over $100k+ a year as an engineer, worked for Bell South (I think it was Bell South.. I can't remember the details all that well) was in the National Guard, currently works as a pastor/handler for the homeless after being laid off from a variety of contractor jobs after Nortel shit the bed

*** a 55+ year old couple who both work and show up after work still dressed up in businesswear

*** a business owner that looks like a hippy

*** full-time college students

*** full-time college students that work

*** post-grad college students

*** post-grad college students with part time jobs

*** post-grad college students with full time jobs

*** a 57 year old handicapped homemaker mother of 2 or 3

*** a police force who either antagonize or made secret dropoffs of supplies

[Aadill]

whoops forgot a few

*** college dropouts with full time jobs

*** high school graduate (only one I know of) that works a part time job

[Slathar]

I am happy with where I am in life. And I am doing just fine. I think it is you who empower others to tell you oh woe is me, oh woe is me and you buy it hook line and sinker.
And no I am not one paycheck from bankruptcy I am quite comfortable in my upper middle class status (6 figure income kid) I have been in this bracket since the 80's and will stay here the rest of my life and am happy with that.
You need to crawl off the oh woe is me wagon and get on the I can do it wagon
I believe if more people had the can do attitude of previous generations(which I am a part of) we would not be having these problems.
And yes the decaying American education system is partially to blame since they pumped out so far 2 generations of people who can hardly do basic math

Nice anecdotal evidence of "hard work." I have more money than you, but I still recognize the need for systemic change. I care about America even though being in the highest tax bracket. Why? Because there's no need for someone to have 100s of millions of dollars. Most monied people in the US come from dynastic wealth, not hard work. Being rich doesn't make you better. Do you understand?

So go fuck yourself, you self-righteous, smarmy hypocrit.

[Aadill]

sup:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-fundraisers-deep-ties-lobbyists-140751265.html

[Aadill]

whoops forgot a few


and a few more:

*** ~40 y/o working moms (who I really wish would just be a little quieter at times)

*** two homeless people (one of which is handled by the guy who is the Nortel engineer/now pastor and the other of which has a storage unit and camp at the other end of the city.. he rides the bus each day to be at the protest.

[Tommy_Wiseau]

and a few more:

*** two homeless people (one of which is handled by the guy who is the Nortel engineer/now pastor and the other of which has a storage unit and camp at the other end of the city.. he rides the bus each day to be at the protest.

entire movement is bohemian retards confirmed

[Aadill]

I'm going to group you with Harrison if you're not careful, Tommy_Wiseau.

[purest]

Hey guys.

No time to cry in a park shitting in a circle with a bunch of unemployed vagrant slobs.

Harrison left out the fact that his "job" is cutting deli meat at Kroger.

I see all your hard work in life really paid off there, Mr. Bigshot.

On the internet, you're "I eat coal and shits diamonds" because in real life it's "I'll take a 1/2 pound of American and 1/2 pound of smoked turkey."

[Billbike]

Acting like an idiot and waisting time and resources won't change anything.

All the 80 hr a week raiding players need to donate good quality gear to noobs who dont play much or at all.

Same concept.

[Tommy_Wiseau]

Acting like an idiot and waisting time and resources won't change anything.

All the 80 hr a week raiding players need to donate good quality gear to noobs who dont play much or at all.

Same concept.

atlas shrugged is deep

[Hasbinbad]

Ayn Rand is dumb.

[Harrison]

Lol @ slobthar pretending to be rich online

[Awwalike]

all rite, sadly Harrison has become so sickeningly repetitive that I have to put him on my ignore list.
just get married to Slathar already, amirite?

[Harrison]

New kid is mad. No one cares.

[Awwalike]

Mar 2010 vs. Aug 2010
smart guy not so smart.






















yada yada yada no one cares about your banned account either.

[Harrison]

LOL WEED IS COOL

Just kidding. I'm not a teenage kid.

[Hasbinbad]

Finawin already had a lengthly and illustrious history of being an unimportant douchebag boardwarrior whenever that forum account was banned Harrison was created. That was back when he actually played. I don't think I ever actually saw him play, but he talked like he did. In any case, his above comment is quite astute; you are the new guy. Don't try to deny it, just accept it and get on with whatever else you're talking about.

[Harrison]

I played with your guildies somewhat often while leveling in the same time period.

I just didn't associate with you because you're an intolerant, insufferable douchebag who really isn't fit to lick shit off my boot, nevermind converse with.

Hi, I'm HBB. I believe every last armed services member should die a horrible death because I'm a fucking psychotic nutjob, but please take my stance on protesting seriously please.

[Hasbinbad]

I played with your guildies somewhat often while leveling in the same time period.

I just didn't associate with you because you're an intolerant, insufferable douchebag who really isn't fit to lick shit off my boot, nevermind converse with.

Hi, I'm HBB. I believe every last armed services member should die a horrible death because I'm a fucking psychotic nutjob, but please take my stance on protesting seriously please.
lol but y u mad tho?

[Awwalike]

http://i42.tinypic.com/25yw4ug.jpg

harrison, you were sent home from boot camp because you couldn't climb the wall with the rope, don't act like you did shit.

[Harrison]

Care to compare our relative physical fitness? You very likely won't win this one, but I'll allow you to bow out now and you can avoid the shame.

[Seaweedpimp]

harrison confirmed scum of the universe


even on other planets with other civilized lifeforms, they dont have such a village idiot.


TIE THE KNOT KID

[Awwalike]

Care to compare our relative physical fitness? You very likely won't win this one, but I'll allow you to bow out now and you can avoid the shame.

I'm waiting

[Seaweedpimp]

Care to compare our relative physical fitness? You very likely won't win this one, but I'll allow you to bow out now and you can avoid the shame.

I will!



Harrison, my elite cut of abs has come from years of choking on good dope!


Meanwhile your anger towards yourself and the world only stresses you out and makes you fat.

yah i smoke dope and it makes my body un-comparably athletic


u mad

[Awwalike]

I will!



Harrison, my elite cut of abs has come from years of choking on good dope!


Meanwhile your anger towards yourself and the world only stresses you out and makes you fat.

yah i smoke dope and it makes my body un-comparably athletic


u mad

Banned-Finawin is real mad that potheads are more fit than he.

[Tommy_Wiseau]

confirmed e-thuggery from both parties

[Harrison]

My next race is Nov 24th, I'll post results.

My name is already public knowledge on the boards so it can't be faked. You can just fabricate some false numbers, so the "competition" is moot.

I've already won.

[Hasbinbad]

TIE THE KNOT KID
http://i.imgur.com/lfTKB.jpg

[Awwalike]

My next race is Nov 24th, I'll post results.

My name is already public knowledge on the boards so it can't be faked. You can just fabricate some false numbers, so the "competition" is moot.

I've already won.

http://euroross.blogspot.com/Special%20Olympics.jpg

I'll be rooting for you banned-finawin.

[Seaweedpimp]

If you enter that race your heart might possibly implode

[Harrison]

I've done 5 this year. My heart is fine, as are my lungs.

When you die 20 years earlier than I do, due to lung cancer, remember this thread please.

[Seaweedpimp]

will do <3

[Awwalike]

I've done 5 this year. My heart is fine, as are my lungs.

When you die 20 years earlier than I do, due to lung cancer, remember this thread please.

I bet lil Harrison grows up to choke on dope/cocks.

[Tadzi]

compare dick sizes next

[Harrison]

8 inches unbuffed

[Aadill]

what the fuck get this shit back on fucking track.

[Diggles]

grower not shower

[Tommy_Wiseau]

bad even by p99 shitposter standards, i feel like i need a fucking shower. clean yourselves up act like a fucking man.

[Harrison]

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/8/24/128956379972448878.jpg

[Seaweedpimp]

failure

[Ektar]

I remember the first time someone offered me a buff in 99. it was at the bb crossroads. the dorf was like want a buff? I was like uh. what? he gave me a buff and he was like GO FOR IT I was like uh..

[Tommy_Wiseau]

wat did u do 2 me pervert

[Seaweedpimp]

wat did u do 2 me pervert

im guessing this guy is super homo gay




just a guess

[G13]

The Poo Party

[Theldios]

Fuck you

Jealous that I have worked hard all my life and reap the rewards of being an industrious member of society?

Y U mad?

[Theldios]

Nice anecdotal evidence of "hard work." I have more money than you, but I still recognize the need for systemic change. I care about America even though being in the highest tax bracket. Why? Because there's no need for someone to have 100s of millions of dollars. Most monied people in the US come from dynastic wealth, not hard work. Being rich doesn't make you better. Do you understand?

So go fuck yourself, you self-righteous, smarmy hypocrit.

Clueless troll is clueless troll
amd i have more because i have led a long and productive life. What have you accomplished kid? By the time i was your age i had a wife 2 kids my own home and a good job. Why because i worked my ass off to get what is my due. I did not wallow in my own misery crying over it
I got up off my ass and did something.
and I came from fucking dirt poor family. single mom on welfare raised my ass and gave me the drive and goal to gwet off my ass and do something with my life


Y u mad kid?

[Aadill]

So much miscommunication, misunderstanding, and misplaced anger in this thread.

[Hasbinbad]

So much miscommunication, misunderstanding, and misplaced anger in this thread.
As generally happens in threads I start.

[Aadill]

http://www2.nbc17.com/news/2011/oct/28/raleigh-mayor-questions-the-way-occupy-r-08461-vi-37419/

[fishingme]

8 inches unbuffed

the fatter you are the less of it there actually is. Sorry bro

[visage]

Care to compare our relative physical fitness? You very likely won't win this one, but I'll allow you to bow out now and you can avoid the shame.

LOL Harrison comparing fitness. Oh wow lol. It's as good as a fat guy telling you how to loose weight.... LOL what a nice feller. He will allow you. What he really means is he won't eat you. Have another twinkie you fat prick

[visage]

Harrison bragging about his accomplishments.

http://i40.tinypic.com/jzuqsl.jpg

[visage]

My next race is Nov 24th, I'll post results.

My name is already public knowledge on the boards so it can't be faked. You can just fabricate some false numbers, so the "competition" is moot.

I've already won.

Harrison and his last race.

http://i43.tinypic.com/5vninb.png

[Aadill]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2011/10/how_ows_confuses_and_ignores_fox_news_and_the_pund it_class_.html

[Falisaty]

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/8/24/128956379972448878.jpg

OMG iv never laughed so hard in my life....

[Seaweedpimp]

really? I thought that was pretty un humerous

[Tommy_Wiseau]

really? I thought that was pretty un humerous

<object width="640" height="480"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1tqxzWdKKu8?version=3&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1tqxzWdKKu8?version=3&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640" height="480" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>