Occupy.... the Simthsonian?

ThePhranc wrote: So what are your approved sites? I don't want to waste my time getting you facts only for you to shift the goal posts. And what do I care about Buffet or Reagan? Besides if Buffet is so worried about paying he can do so with out actually raising the rates and just cut a check. But he doesn't does he?

Reuters works. AP is considered non-biased. Those sorts of things. MSNBC would be considered a biased link toward the left. I doubt you'll post them but it would be incredibly cool if you could. I appreciate that level of craftyness.

oldsaw wrote: If anyone on Wall Street is committing a crime, by all means prosecute them. However, they cannot have committed those alleged crimes without some collusion with the politicians. Who created the system that allowed corporations to exploit and prosper from it?

That's part of the problem. We all know banks broke the law. We also bailed them out. But since then no one is being prosecuted. It's an unfair practice that people want ended. If you break the law you should serve time. I would expect to if I were caught committing a crime. The rich should live under the same laws as you and I. Currently, they do not. Hence Occupy.

We could point fingers as to who created the environment that thread died about 6 months ago. Pretty pointless.

Otto Maddox wrote: If you could just get occupy wall street protestors together with the tea party protestors from a couple years ago, you might have something. The system is broken. And nobody on Wall Street or in DC cares.

That's the 99%. Tea partiers are most definitely welcome.

What many people don't know or won't acknowledge is that many of the tax loopholes are created for social reasons. The oil companies, for example, get tax breaks for domestic production to decrease reliance on foreign oil, which is generally considered a Bad Thing. Of course, when they take advantage of those breaks they get hauled over the coals by the same people that granted them. A lot of breaks get handed out as rewards for getting people elected.

I think a flat tax would be great, and I like Cain's 9-9-9. But the problem is that no program will stay static. Breaks will be given to the influential and for the pet projects of the politicians-- loans and tax breaks for electric car development (which goes to the big, bad corporates, yet I don't hear Occupy skewering the sponsors of that idea). Tax breaks to buy houses in a down market or cars when the car companies are having trouble, etc. etc. Even things like deducting charitable contributions or medical expenses have influential constituencies behind them.

Good luck simplifying the tax code in that environment.

oldsaw wrote:

Snowdoggie wrote:

Datsun1500 wrote:

Snowdoggie wrote: So basically if you work hard, go to a cheap state college and hold down three jobs, then you get a job on Wall Street, work even harder and work your way to a position of trust, then rob your clients and your employer blind and force the taxpayers to bail out the mess, then you get a pass as long as you worked long hours on your scams and your dad didn't pay for your degree?

Nope, basically if you work hard, go to a cheap state college and hold down three jobs, then you get a job on Wall Street, work even harder and work your way to a position of means, then you are under no obligation to give your money to those that did not do that for themselves even though they could have, just to be "fair"

Even if they stole their retirement money?

I'm calling BS on your argument, Snowdoggie........... If anyone on Wall Street is committing a crime, by all means prosecute them. However, they cannot have committed those alleged crimes without some collusion with the politicians. Who created the system that allowed corporations to exploit and prosper from it? Your point is only halfways on target, no different than the well-intentioned folks at Occupy (-insert name here).

So how do you feel about all of those lobbyists who want to deregulate Wall Street so these guys won't get prosecuted. And what about the politicians in both parties who take big campagn contributions from Wall Street? I don't like the politicians either. Maybe these guys should be protesting on K Street, in front of Congress and on the White House lawn as well as on Wall Street.

I don't have a problem with that.

oldsaw wrote: ....So there is a revolving door between business and government and you still want to focus on business?...

Oh, I think we can all agree that these protests are a bit unfocused, but as I mentioned they are both almost the same thing these days and you certainly can't influence businesses to change government so they are trying to influence government to change business. (well, most of them are just camping and yelling, but that is what they appear to be doing)

oldsaw wrote: Sorry, Otto but I'm calling BS on the above bolded quote. Pay attentention to any of the Republican presidential candidates and you'll see few who use religion as a focal point within their campaigns. Those that do are rapidly falling in all the polls because that's not what is in the best interests of voters right now.

Republican supporters aren't called the religious right for nothing. Check out Perry's folks calling Romney a cultist because he doesn't believe in their brand of Jesus. That's one example. I can give more but we're talking Occupy here.

A friend of mine went to the Occupy San Diego protest last weekend. Her sign read "I can't afford a politician so I made this sign". We don't agree on many political issues but I thought her sign was great.

Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to oldsaw: Perry and Bachman come to mind. Cain is a Baptist minister. Romney wants to avoid the issue, of course. Doesn't that cover the main guys? Yeah, my quote is hyperbole but there is some truth to it.

Perry and Bachman are floundering at the bottom.

Cain is not a Baptist minister. Not sure where you heard that one.

Herman Cain: I’m a Baptist preacher. A lot of people don’t know that.

DILYSI Dave wrote:

Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to oldsaw: Perry and Bachman come to mind. Cain is a Baptist minister. Romney wants to avoid the issue, of course. Doesn't that cover the main guys? Yeah, my quote is hyperbole but there is some truth to it.

Perry and Bachman are floundering at the bottom.

Cain is not a Baptist minister. Not sure where you heard that one.

Xceler8x wrote:

oldsaw wrote: Sorry, Otto but I'm calling BS on the above bolded quote. Pay attentention to any of the Republican presidential candidates and you'll see few who use religion as a focal point within their campaigns. Those that do are rapidly falling in all the polls because that's not what is in the best interests of voters right now.

Republican supporters aren't called the religious right for nothing. Check out Perry's folks calling Romney a cultist because he doesn't believe in their brand of Jesus. That's one example. I can give more but we're talking Occupy here.

And look at Perry's nosedive from 30% to 5% when he started that talk.

Otto Maddox wrote: Herman Cain: I’m a Baptist preacher. A lot of people don’t know that.

DILYSI Dave wrote:

Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to oldsaw: Perry and Bachman come to mind. Cain is a Baptist minister. Romney wants to avoid the issue, of course. Doesn't that cover the main guys? Yeah, my quote is hyperbole but there is some truth to it.

Perry and Bachman are floundering at the bottom. Cain is not a Baptist minister. Not sure where you heard that one.

Well, you're quoting his words, so I'm not going to call foul, but I always heard him say he was a Deacon in his church. Here he says Associate Minister. So be it. Either way, he's a lay person who has some kind of leadership role, but he ain't "the guy".

The more important thing is that I still don't see him pandering to the religious right.

Being a Christian shouldn't be a prerequisite for being president, but the flip side of that coin is that it also shouldn't be penalized.

DILYSI Dave wrote:

Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to oldsaw: Perry and Bachman come to mind. Cain is a Baptist minister. Romney wants to avoid the issue, of course. Doesn't that cover the main guys? Yeah, my quote is hyperbole but there is some truth to it.

Perry and Bachman are floundering at the bottom. Cain is not a Baptist minister. Not sure where you heard that one.

I am liking Bachman more than the rest of them. She is actually a tax lawyer and smarter than Palin. She got in a few good shots on Perry about the big corporate money he is getting. She is the tea party candidate and it is strange that she is losing to the big money establishment guys. The corporate media is ignoring her.

I just have a funny feeling that when all is said and done, Romney will be the nominee. Those backroom deals have already been made. Romney is the Wall Street guy, not the Tea Party guy. He is the Wall Street Protestor's worst nightmare.

Cain does sound like a Baptist minister, but he is just a guy who started a successful pizza chain. He may be another Ross Perot. Good at business when he can give the orders. Not so good at compromise as far as getting a tax plan through Congress, and he is too new at this to not put his foot in his mouth somewhere before the voting starts.

In reply to DILYSI Dave:

Being a Christian shouldn't be a prerequisite for being president, but the flip side of that coin is that it also shouldn't be penalized.

I certainly agree with that.

As for his title, Baptists can pretty much self designate themselves as ministers, preachers, whatever. It isn't like seminary or divinity school is required.

Otto Maddox wrote: As for his title, Baptists can pretty much self designate themselves as ministers, preachers, whatever. It isn't like seminary or divinity school is required.

[sterotypes are funny because they are true] Especially the black ones! [/sterotypes are funny because they are true]

oldsaw wrote: I'm calling BS on your argument, Snowdoggie...........

oldsaw wrote: Sorry, Otto but I'm calling BS on the above bolded quote.

I'm calling BS on your BS. Time for some new rhetoric.

Besides, the BS sometimes gets so thick in here that I have to put on rubber boots before I turn on the computer.

In reply to Xceler8x:

You mean the Rueters that doctors photos to vilify Israel? That Rueters? And the AP that employs Colleen Long? That AP?

Dude, really? You're smarter than this.

Snowdoggie wrote: I am liking Bachman more than the rest of them. She is actually a tax lawyer and smarter than Palin. (who is not running for anything) She got in a few good shots on Perry about the big corporate money he is getting. She is the tea party candidate Says who? I have been to a few rallies, and she isn't my candidate. If anyone on stage is tea party related it would be Ron Paul. and it is strange that she is losing to the big money establishment guys. The corporate media is ignoring her. Well this much is true. They hand picked Obama over Clinton and they are trying very hard to pick Romney, but Cain keeps winning polls. I just have a funny feeling that when all is said and done, Romney will be the nominee. agreed but I really really hope not. Those backroom deals have already been made. Romney is the Wall Street guy, not the Tea Party guy. He is the Wall Street Protestor's worst nightmare. Cain does sound like a Baptist minister, but he is just a guy who started a successful pizza chain. He may be another Ross Perot. Good at business when he can give the orders. Not so good at compromise as far as getting a tax plan through Congress, and he is too new at this to not put his foot in his mouth somewhere before the voting starts.

Otto Maddox wrote: As far as I can tell, Cain's plan will tax the poor more. And it will preserve the lower investment income rates. So the rich will stay pretty much in the same position.

Actually, that's not correct, it will reduce the tax rate on the rich. The thing is that very few actually pay the top big percentage number what you and I would normally consider their "income". Closing the loopholes and reducing the rate actually makes more dollars get paid, and a higher overall percentage get paid than before. It will tax some poor people more, because some folks, a startlingly large percentage (figures vary) pay nothing at all. The Middle Class (US) do all of the heavy lifting for both sides.

In reply to DILYSI Dave:

This isn't a stereotype. I'm very familiar with the process of becoming an ordained minister. Methodists, Lutherans and most other protestants have stringent requirements. Most prefer a university undergraduate degree with a masters degree from a divinity program or seminary. Baptists generally just require you to "feel a calling" to become ordained. Some have education, some don't. (I don't see where Cain has any religious degree). Generally, you submit your request to your church and they either ordain you or not. Baptists don't have a authoritative governing body, so each church can basically make up their own rules.

I didn't mean to offend. But those are the facts.

In reply to Otto Maddox:

Did God require Abraham to go to school? What about Moses (Read Exodus 2). How about Jeremiah and Isaiah? Nothing wrong with going to school and studying, but God doesn't call the quailified, He qualifies the called. My dad is one of those Baptist preacher's, for over 45 years. The story of how he was called into the ministry is quite amazing. I guess then that all his work has been in vain since he has no degree. So therefore I would read the scriptures about being "called". Those are the facts.

In reply to Fletch1:

I think you read something into what I wrote that just is not there. I have no desire to rate a Baptist minister's calling versus anyone elses. It was a simple comment about the process of ordination.

In reply to Otto Maddox:

O.k. Sorry. Everyone is different. I know my church does require alot of training, guidance and accountability as they start out. But I do believe that its not for everyone. I've been a teacher now for 6 years. Believe me, I did NOT want to do it, kinda like Moses (Exodus 2), nor was anyone making me. It was put on my heart and I could not get away from it and was very unsettled. When I finally became obedient, I became at peace. James 3:1 always kinda scared me.

In reply to Fletch1:

Congratulations and good luck!

The diplomacy and even handedness over the last few pages makes me proud to be here. Kudos to you all, regardless of your leanings.

In reply to Otto Maddox:

Why thank you kind sir. Romans 12:18.