Obama extends support for protesters

[Faith.Man]

Obama extends support for protesters - FT.com

So, the president behind the bank bailouts for Wall Street is supporting the protesters who are protesting Wall Street. As a voter its good to know when the leadership is speaking out of both sides of its mouth.

Well, the dear leader from North Korea is also offering support for the protesters.

Blog: OWS gets some loving from North Korea

 

[Autumnleaf]

Well, the dear leader from North Korea is also offering support for the protesters.

Blog: OWS gets some loving from North Korea

Whoever said Obama was bad at foreign policy. Maybe he can bring peace to Korea.

 

[chris4243]

Whoever said Obama was bad at foreign policy. Maybe he can bring peace to Korea.

Uh, actually people have been saying that Obama was great at foreign policy.

 

[Awesome_Frog]

Are you kidding? These protesters are as greedy as the corporations they're protesting against.

Nah, most of the protesters are kids and adults who got shafted by the collapse and now have degrees that lost their worth when the market dried up. Another chunk are those that were laid off after the collapse. there is also the chunk that lost their homes, once again, after the collapse. Sure you got the loons there to. Just like in the Tea Party rallies, but for the most part its a bunch of frustrated people.

It's called urban greed

Where did you get this term?

In socialist/communist society, it's full of urban greed. It usually good short term (after the revolution, e.g. Cuba, Soviet Union, and etc.), but for long term wise it's a disaster.

Then you should be happy that the majority of the United States is capitalistic.

Europe is heading that way.

No its not. Spain and Italy are having big problems, but Germany Denmark, Norway, Sweden, etc. are doing fine if not great. Norway and Germany especially . The European union is having problems because of Italy and Spain, but I have a feeling that the union would kick them out before a major collapse.

The US are heading that way as well,

Where are you getting your information from?

if these Occupy Loons get their way.

What's their way? As far as I can tell, they don't even know what they want yet. Its severely splintered with several different camps protesting for different reasons.

If the rich leaves the US, I suggest all the who wants to prosper catch that boat. And wherever the rich lands, that country will no doubt kick everyone's butt economically. Remember, usually the jobs the poor are hiring are usually... hmm... I can't think of one.

The Rich pretty much already have left the united states. That's what started the problem to begin with. Most manufacturing for US products is done in China or our help services are in India. The Rich moved the jobs out of the country where their is next to no taxes. Ironically to a socialist one. China.

 

[Supreme]

Whoever said Obama was bad at foreign policy. Maybe he can bring peace to Korea.

Unlikely. The North Koreans are still under the rule of a clinically insane Dear Leader, whose personality cult and secret police make dissent pretty hard. And it's a pretty tough country to go to war with, as it has the 4th largest standing army in the world.

 

[jsn112]

Nah, most of the protesters are kids and adults who got shafted by the collapse and now have degrees that lost their worth when the market dried up. Another chunk are those that were laid off after the collapse. there is also the chunk that lost their homes, once again, after the collapse. Sure you got the loons there to. Just like in the Tea Party rallies, but for the most part its a bunch of frustrated people.

Life isn't fair. So deal with it. No one has ever guaranteed them a job to along with their degrees. Everyone gets shafted at one time or another. These "kids" are the results of their left-leaning professors brainwashing them. It's no accident they're out protesting against capitalism and for more socialism. If they're frustrated, take it up with the politician, specifically Obama. (Btw, Obama has taking in more money from Wall Street fat cats than president in history. How ironic.) His policies have failed miserably. He can't create jobs even if his life depends on it except to cry for taxing the rich more, which will not even make a dent on the deficit or anything else. There's not enough rich people in the US to do that.

Where did you get this term? Then you should be happy that the majority of the United States is capitalistic.

Never heard of urban greed? You think the greed is synonymous to only the rich? Ever heard a welfare mother having 20 kids just get $300 per month per kid in government money? Ever heard of wanting something on someone's else dime and wanting more like the entitlements? You see, greed exists on both sides-- rich AND poor.

No its not. Spain and Italy are having big problems, but Germany Denmark, Norway, Sweden, etc. are doing fine if not great. Norway and Germany especially . The European union is having problems because of Italy and Spain, but I have a feeling that the union would kick them out before a major collapse.

Actually, Germany is not doing as good as you think. Germany is Europe's leading exporter of machinery, vehicles, chemicals, and household equipment. But that's starting to dry up as their economic growth is less than expected and only at 0.1%. There's a debt crisis talk right now over there. Sounds familiar?

Also, Europe's tax structure is different than the US. They have a very low corporate tax and high individual tax. The US is opposite. They know that when you tax the job makers, i.e., businesses, you kill jobs.

Where are you getting your information from? What's their way? As far as I can tell, they don't even know what they want yet. Its severely splintered with several different camps protesting for different reasons.

Anti-capitalism. Haven't you been paying attention? Why do you think Wall Street is the target instead of Washington D.C.?

The Rich pretty much already have left the united states. That's what started the problem to begin with. Most manufacturing for US products is done in China or our help services are in India. The Rich moved the jobs out of the country where their is next to no taxes. Ironically to a socialist one. China.

And yet more regulations, higher taxes, higher minimum wage are being proposed.

Oh btw, China is not totally socialist. They are pretty much capitalists. Only socialist exist over there are outside the city boundaries. Hong Kong is left alone. Same with Shanghai and other big cities.

China is succeeding because they have refused to up their undervalued currency. It, therefore, gives them trading advantage. So with that, let US have more regulations, higher taxes, and wage and we'll kick their butt (sarcasm).

 

[Faith.Man]

Why is the Tea Party abhorred by Lame Stream Media but the Occupy Wall Street is revered?

Articles: What Explains the Left's Affinity for OWS and Abhorrence of the Tea Party?

 

[Umaro]

Life isn't fair. So deal with it. No one has ever guaranteed them a job to along with their degrees. Everyone gets shafted at one time or another. These "kids" are the results of their left-leaning professors brainwashing them. It's no accident they're out protesting against capitalism and for more socialism.

Why should they protest for more capitalism? Because it's worked out for them so well in the past? For longer than a good number of these protesters have been alive, only the top 1% of the population has been prospering from capitalism. The other 99% have been losing ground. CEOs at the top got a 33% raise last year, workers barely eked out 2%. Every year for 30 years a majority of workers have worked harder than the year before, and made less real money doing so. Why should they believe you when you tell them more capitalism is better? Why reason do we have to think all our productivity gains won't just be absorbed by those at the top like they have been for years?

 

[Faith.Man]

Occupy Wall Street Protester Scales Statue, Says He Won't Come Down Until Bloomberg Quits | Fox News

 

[jsn112]

Why should they protest for more capitalism? Because it's worked out for them so well in the past? For longer than a good number of these protesters have been alive, only the top 1% of the population has been prospering from capitalism. The other 99% have been losing ground. CEOs at the top got a 33% raise last year, workers barely eked out 2%. Every year for 30 years a majority of workers have worked harder than the year before, and made less real money doing so. Why should they believe you when you tell them more capitalism is better? Why reason do we have to think all our productivity gains won't just be absorbed by those at the top like they have been for years?

Socialism is better?!! Really?!! There has been ample proofs that socialism have failed and have failed miserably. You talked about 1%, not everyone is that top 1%. Not everyone is multi-millionairs or billionaires. So in your logic, if not everyone is multi-millionaires or billionaires, then capitalism has failed? That's dumb. The multi-millinaires and billionaires are who have provided jobs. You don't get jobs from a person who doesn't have 2 cents rubbing together. Stop your ridiculous envy and jealousy.

 

[Faith.Man]

 

[Umaro]

Socialism is better?!! Really?!! There has been ample proofs that socialism have failed and have failed miserably. You talked about 1%, not everyone is that top 1%. Not everyone is multi-millionairs or billionaires. So in your logic, if not everyone is multi-millionaires or billionaires, then capitalism has failed? That's dumb.

Too much socialism in Russia failed because all the money wound up in the hands of a few, and the rest of the workers saw diminishing gains regardless how how hard they worked.

We have too much capitalism currently, and all the money is winding up in the hands of a few, and the rest of the workers are seeing diminishing gains regardless of how hard they're working.

It's not that it's failed because not everyone is rich, it's that it's currently failing because of the enormous wealth disparity it's created. Wealth disparity is one of the largest predictors of a nations instability, which means that as long as we live in a society where 400 people together are richer than 150 million people together things are going to be unstable. The trend needs to be reversed somehow if you'd like to return to a stable economy.

The multi-millinaires and billionaires are who have provided jobs. You don't get jobs from a person who doesn't have 2 cents rubbing together.

It's an issue of aggregate demand. I gave a guy a job the other day. You know what I hired him to do? Fix my sink. As the trend of all the economic gains going to the top continues, less and less people will be able to afford to fix their sinks, and it doesn't matter that the millionaire could afford to fix his 5000 times over, that plumber is still going to be out of work. You're right you don't get jobs from people who don't have 2 cents, but you certainly get jobs from people who can afford that $60 bill, or to go to your restaurant a couple times a month. It's not that they're rich, it's that they're rich because they're taking 70% of the economic gain, and leaving the rest for 90% of the population to split. I hardly see it as envy that 90% of all workers are saying "wait a minute, we helped make more than the 30% you're trickling down to us."

 

[jsn112]

Too much socialism in Russia failed because all the money wound up in the hands of a few, and the rest of the workers saw diminishing gains regardless how how hard they worked.

We have too much capitalism currently, and all the money is winding up in the hands of a few, and the rest of the workers are seeing diminishing gains regardless of how hard they're working.

It's not that it's failed because not everyone is rich, it's that it's currently failing because of the enormous wealth disparity it's created. Wealth disparity is one of the largest predictors of a nations instability, which means that as long as we live in a society where 400 people together are richer than 150 million people together things are going to be unstable. The trend needs to be reversed somehow if you'd like to return to a stable economy.

Sorry, but this is another twisted post. You think capitalism is this one big whole pie where everyone has a share in it? If that's what you're thinking, then you don't know anything about capitalism/free market. In capitalistic/free market society, I get to vote with my wallet if I like your product. If not, then I don't.

Where did you get "unstableness" and "wealth disparity" argument from? It's unstable because politicians like play the class warfare and demonized the opposition. And the suckers...uh, I mean the left will drink it all up. Just look at the Wall Street protesters. There was a poll done on these protesters where they said they are willing to use violence to get what they want. It all sounds familiar from the history book, doesn't it? Politicians like Hitler, Castro, Lenin/Stalin, Moa, and etc. have used class warfare rhetorics and the next thing you know it, revolution. How did those revolutions end up? Hundreds of million of people got killed and those economies collapsed later. Now we have Obama using the same rhetorics as those politicians to demonized the opposition.

It's an issue of aggregate demand. I gave a guy a job the other day. You know what I hired him to do? Fix my sink. As the trend of all the economic gains going to the top continues, less and less people will be able to afford to fix their sinks, and it doesn't matter that the millionaire could afford to fix his 5000 times over, that plumber is still going to be out of work. You're right you don't get jobs from people who don't have 2 cents, but you certainly get jobs from people who can afford that $60 bill, or to go to your restaurant a couple times a month. It's not that they're rich, it's that they're rich because they're taking 70% of the economic gain, and leaving the rest for 90% of the population to split. I hardly see it as envy that 90% of all workers are saying "wait a minute, we helped make more than the 30% you're trickling down to us."

Of course there's envy. That's what socialism is all about. I came from a socialist country and if you're richer than your neighbor, watch out. You better not let them know or else you risk losing it by way of corrupt politicians/cops/etc. They are basically informants.

Again, if you think capitalism/free market is like this one big pie, then you have no idea what capitalism is all about. There's no pie. Everyone gets to make their own pie instead! And whoever makes the best pie, wins.

btw, the "wait a minute, we helped make more than the 30% you're trickling down to us" comment is a brainwashing bill-of-goods. The "We" did not help anything or anyone! No one pressured them to buy anything from anyone.

 

[Defensor Fidei]

Pay no attention to this meaningless lip service from Obama, Pelosi, etc. The Democrats fear OWS just as much as the Republicans do.

 

[serenity now]

Pay no attention to this meaningless lip service from Obama, Pelosi, etc. The Democrats fear OWS just as much as the Republicans do.

Exactly (or at least they should). There's nothing inherently pro-Democrat about the separation of Wall Street and Washington. Perhaps they're simply looking for a response to the Tea Party and are latching on to the first non-Tea Party protests to come along. It would only hurt the movement if they succeed.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

Pay no attention to this meaningless lip service from Obama, Pelosi, etc. The Democrats fear OWS just as much as the Republicans do.

In consideration that neither major US party is truly leftist I would certainly hope they fear it as well. Even left leaning presidents rarely enact all the policies they would like in their time during office and annoying often have interviews later talking about what they would have liked to do. I tend to look at the occupy movement as a sort of canary in the mine yard. While in a large variety of ways we should have already HAD that global moment I think this might ultimately be the bigger, "Oh btw yes there IS a problem with the global financial system." wake up call.

 

[Defensor Fidei]

Exactly (or at least they should). There's nothing inherently pro-Democrat about the separation of Wall Street and Washington. Perhaps they're simply looking for a response to the Tea Party and are latching on to the first non-Tea Party protests to come along. It would only hurt the movement if they succeed.

The liberal establishment wishes to exploit OWS and turn it into a tool for winning votes for the Democratic party. But it is at heart a grassroots popular uprising seeking radical change and social justice for all. The battle between these two sides will determine whether OWS becomes a long-term movement, or merely fades out of existence after election day.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

The liberal establishment wishes to exploit OWS and turn it into a tool for winning votes for the Democratic party. But it is at heart a grassroots popular uprising seeking radical change and social justice for all. The battle between these two sides will determine whether OWS becomes a long-term movement, or merely fades out of existence after election day.

I don't know about long term in the sense of the establishment of a political party. But I don't think it would be surprising if the Democrats try to take advantage of it because Democrats for a long time have run on the idea of, "Well at least we aren't as bad as them!(them being the Republicans" Without actually having a cohesive enough truly progressive agenda to successfully implement in the U.S.

 

[Defensor Fidei]

I don't know about long term in the sense of the establishment of a political party. But I don't think it would be surprising if the Democrats try to take advantage of it because Democrats for a long time have run on the idea of, "Well at least we aren't as bad as them!(them being the Republicans" Without actually having a cohesive enough truly progressive agenda to successfully implement in the U.S.

It's not about the establishment of a political party. It's about the overthrowal of the existing order in which the rich are free to oppress the working classes under capitalism.

 

[jsn112]

It's not about the establishment of a political party. It's about the overthrowal of the existing order in which the rich are free to oppress the working classes under capitalism.

Oppress? Really? Boy, those gadgets such as the iPhones, iPads, and etc. from the rich are real oppressive. Somebody better let the illegal immigrants know how oppressive the evil capitalists are in the US.