The 99% are waking up

[kernie]

You know, occupy wall street.

Any opinions?

[Fosters]

They're waking up to what, the Dick Durbin regulations that made Bank of America (and soon other banks) shift their revenue stream to the consumer instead of the merchant?

And 99%? Puhleez. :lol:

These geniuses are claiming to be starting a long term protest. In mid october, in MN. I can't wait to see how that goes for them. :lol:

[BODYMAN]

The larger % of the population still is clueless that something is terribly wrong with the system. At the pace things are going there will be no middle class.

[tbone]

All the losers that don't want to work and blame everyone else for their problems are there.

99%? More like 0.99%.

[Black_Noise]

Im not in on the movement but I understand the point.... some scare of something happening (war, hurricane, flood near refineries, etc.) and the people on wall street sell this or buy that and it ends up costing us more on gas (for no reason) or it makes businesses think, oh were in a recession, better not hire anyone or give raises.


wall street is total BS it does no good, and those who buy and sell are the worthless ones who dont want to work but make all the money.

I just dont understand how these people think the protest will fix/end it. But at least its bringing the point up.


And anyways how did we end up letting the gas tax fall on the consumer? So gas is $4.50 gal, (not now but you remeber) lets make an extra tax on our product and then say well, you want it you gotta pay even more for it cause were not going to lose out on 5 cents an item. So the persons who dont have extra money anyways now lose a little more and a little more just buying everyday stuff. It always seems to trickle down to the everyday working Joe, at the same time he is spending the same on gas just to drive to work, but does he get a cost of living raise to pay for the gas, or the gas tax?

[Bradley G]

Proud to be an American!

[GAMike]

We do not have a perfect system here in America...... We do have a better system than anyone else in the world..... Its time to recognize manipulation of people and markets for what it is. Pure unadulterated greed........Its time to cast out manipulators of people, and "cost" out manipulators of markets while still maintaining free market principles.

Now if someone could explain how we can do all that, I will sleep better:o

[CBT]

We do not have a perfect system here in America...... We do have a better system than anyone else in the world..... Its time to recognize manipulation of people and markets for what it is. Pure unadulterated greed........Its time to cast out manipulators of people, and "cost" out manipulators of markets while still maintaining free market principles.

Now if someone could explain how we can do all that, I will sleep better:o

Term limits for ALL politicians. Regulations on Wall Street. Publicly flog all lobbyists on site. Utilize welfare recipients and jail inmates to pick crops. Woops, wrong reform plan for that last one, that goes under my "Operation Reverse-Invasion" plan.

Interesting thread but we know what will happen to it. I bid it fair winds and following seas.

[jerrym3]

The only problem is that when you kick out all the Wall Street greedy guys and the dumb politicians, you'll probably get a new crew of dumb politicians and Wall Street greedy guys.

I spent the last ten years of my carreer working for a Wall Street brokerage firm. Traveled around the country relocating, opening, closing, growing, and shrinking remote branch offices.

Never met a more pompous group of people in all my working life. Not everybody, but a high percentage.

[Phrog_gunner]

The same people who are protesting profits on wall street are complaining about their pensions. Can anyone show me a pension that isn't invested in/ have its growth dependent on Wall St?

[PonyUP]

The same people who are protesting profits on wall street are complaining about their pensions. Can anyone show me a pension that isn't invested in/ have its growth dependent on Wall St?

Ding ding ding, if you have a 401k, it's full of mutual funds with investments on stocks on Wall Street. Wall Street is not the only place that is based on greed or power. Every retirement package is somehow dependent on stocks and investments which is all Wall Street. The same people calling for more oversight on Wall Street are also calling for a reduction in government size. As with all things the solution probably lies somewhere in the middle.

However these people that are spending their days drinking Starbucks with a placard of some clever saying they got off the Internet, as usual just doesn't get it. A collapse on Wall Street ends this nation. Wall Street while not perfect, is not the problem. The problem is the stalemate that has existed for the last 15 years in Government. If you refuse to respect ideas of you counterparts and enter into conversation, you can't get anything accomplished

[prchrman]

The biggest problem I see is that people are lazy. I mean look at who is at this thing, a bunch of lazy, stinky white people. How do they afford not working. I liked the old Jewish guy telling the young guy, "hey I worked for 40 years to get mine". The younger generation thinks they should start out at $80K a year. I started in public work in 1976 at $1.90 and hour, cry me a handful. We have had the boomers, the X's, the Y's and now the Entitlers.

[rayjay]

Waking up? 99%? There are two, count em, 2, nitwits sitting under a tarp in downtown Syracuse protesting.... of course every news channel in town is there, so a third guy from Cortland drove up to join them. :rolleyes:

[CBT]

Waking up? 99%? There are two, count em, 2, nitwits sitting under a tarp in downtown Syracuse protesting.... of course every news channel in town is there, so a third guy from Cortland drove up to join them. :rolleyes:

Did you take the DTR? :P

[rayjay]

Did you take the DTR? :P

Nah, it was raining. :P

[Phrog_gunner]

Well unlike the Tea Party protests, these protests are completely peaceful.

[Jimimac43]

What? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[duhtroll]

Using that argument, anyone with a bank account, same thing.

What do you think the bank or credit union is doing with your money?

Faulting people for using the only system that is in place is kinda silly. They have no other option other than putting cash under a mattress, so to speak.

I will agree that Wall Street isn't the problem when someone can show me data as evidence that they have not been making more money than at any time in the history of this country.

They used our government bailout money to create a large part of this wealth (government indirectly creating wealth, y'all) and now that they have it, they seem content to keep it.

I can't say I am surprised.


Ding ding ding, if you have a 401k, it's full of mutual funds with investments on stocks on Wall Street. Wall Street is not the only place that is based on greed or power. Every retirement package is somehow dependent on stocks and investments which is all Wall Street. The same people calling for more oversight on Wall Street are also calling for a reduction in government size. As with all things the solution probably lies somewhere in the middle.

However these people that are spending their days drinking Starbucks with a placard of some clever saying they got off the Internet, as usual just doesn't get it. A collapse on Wall Street ends this nation. Wall Street while not perfect, is not the problem. The problem is the stalemate that has existed for the last 15 years in Government. If you refuse to respect ideas of you counterparts and enter into conversation, you can't get anything accomplished

[PonyUP]

Using that argument, anyone with a bank account, same thing.

What do you think the bank or credit union is doing with your money?

Faulting people for using the only system that is in place is kinda silly. They have no other option other than putting cash under a mattress, so to speak.

I will agree that Wall Street isn't the problem when someone can show me data as evidence that they have not been making more money than at any time in the history of this country.

They used our government bailout money to create a large part of this wealth (government indirectly creating wealth, y'all) and now that they have it, they seem content to keep it.

I can't say I am surprised.

Of course they are making money off of it, so is everyone in the nation. I love how we fault people for getting rich for using the system in place. In the end, anyone can do it, and anyone can get rich doing it. It's easy to sit back and look at Wall Street as the Devil's meanwhile if anyone had any ambition, they could invest and make money too instead of buying houses, cars, clothes, and electronics they can't afford.

The root of the problem is that people do not save and invest, they live in the now thinking one day they will be dead and they can't take it with them. Meanwhile, when they don't invest, save and plan for the future and they retire, they are left with a bag of nothing. While this does not pertain to everyone, blaming Wall Street as a whole to me, is a ludicrous argument rooted in jealousy. We're mad at them for making money on a system that is open to everyone to do the same thing. Because people don't, they then look at the people that do as evil.

[Phrog_gunner]

What do you think the bank or credit union is doing with your money? I'm not the one complaining about someone making a buck.


I will agree that Wall Street isn't the problem when someone can show me data as evidence that they have not been making more money than at any time in the history of this country. Isn't that the whole point of the capitalism thing? To make more money now than you did before? Since when is that a crime? With the same logic will you also agree that gov't IS the problem since they are now currently going farther in debt and at a greater rate than at any other time in history?

They used our government bailout money to create a large part of this wealth (government indirectly creating wealth, y'all) and now that they have it, they seem content to keep it. That is exactly why the gov't should not be involved in such ventures. But every company has the right to do whatever they want with their profits. That whole freedom thing. Since when does distribution = creation? If that is the case every minumum wage AT&T phone salesman is the indirect creator of the IPhone?

[Fosters]

What do you think the bank or credit union is doing with your money? I'm not the one complaining about someone making a buck.


I will agree that Wall Street isn't the problem when someone can show me data as evidence that they have not been making more money than at any time in the history of this country. Isn't that the whole point of the capitalism thing? To make more money now than you did before? Since when is that a crime? With the same logic will you also agree that gov't IS the problem since they are now currently going farther in debt and at a greater rate than at any other time in history?



Amen. By that argument, let's take a look at government budget, not just federal, but state and local ones as well.


Unrelated, I looked more into these 99% folks...

http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com/

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lsoara3BA61r25y9yo1_500 .jpg

This is who they are. And if you want a really good chuckle, here's their list of demands:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-for-occupy-wall-st-moveme/

They say it was just one post by one guy, but if you read the comments, there are a lot of idiots agreeing.

[kernie]

The biggest problem I see is that people are lazy. I mean look at who is at this thing, a bunch of lazy, stinky white people. How do they afford not working. I liked the old Jewish guy telling the young guy, "hey I worked for 40 years to get mine". The younger generation thinks they should start out at $80K a year. I started in public work in 1976 at $1.90 and hour, cry me a handful. We have had the boomers, the X's, the Y's and now the Entitlers.


Are you really a preacher?

Shame on you.

[PonyUP]

Amen. By that argument, let's take a look at
http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com/




http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-for-occupy-wall-st-moveme/

.

:lol::lol::lol:, Immediate Debt forgiveness for all :lol:

So you got upside down on your mortgage, bought a car you couldn't pay for, got upside down on student loans because you never had a college fund because your parents spent it on things they couldn't afford, but no worries, we'll just wipe that out so you can do it all over again. If they are the 99%, then I'm proud to be the 1%.

Everything in this world is fixed with one word: Responsibility

Take some

[Phrog_gunner]

Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.

Why would they wait/fight for this when they can go to Cuba and get it immediately?


Drugs are bad mmmmmmmkay?

[babbage]

You know, occupy wall street.

Any opinions?

If they were smart they'd protest against all of the law suits that companies incur. This is what drives business over seas.

Lets see if I have a business and have the choice of hiring lazy, self entitled people who are just looking for a reason to file a lawsuit.... vs setting up shop in a place where people can't file suit and are hungry to work. -Hmmm

New constitution amendment rules to save America and bring back a few jobs:

1. Lawyers can't advertise period.
2. Clients must pay all lawyer fees up front.
3. Max anyone can collect from lawsuit is current pay (times) number of years until age 60. If you aren't working you can't get cash. Max payouts should be difficult to get and not solely based on a jury.
4. Public institutions can't be sued.

[sailsmen]

I wonder what percent of the "protestors" are being paid and what percent want their student loans nullified? They know student owers do not have enough votes so they want everyones debts nullified.
Why aren't they protesting Washington DC, Fred/Fann and the Fed Reserve? They are the ones who told the banks to loan, facilitated the loans and bailed out the banks? TARP, the bail out was not a Budget item and supposedly will not cost the tax payer, Fred/Fan $390,000,000,000 as a budget item to date.
Why do some boo when a company makes a profit and cheer when it loses money.? Corporate Taxes are generaly paid from profits and not losses.

From the Debt Clock, over 40% of economy being spent by Gov't is officially a Socialist Nation, how does it feel to have all our problems solved? http://www.usdebtclock.org/index.html

Year National Fed Debt Debt Per Tax Payer Total Gov't Spending as a % of Economy
2000 $5.689T $54,332 36%
2008 $10.355T $95,454 40.60%
2011 $14.8T $131,880 46.40%

Income Taxpayer, which are ~53% of returns, how does it feel to owe $131,880? With only 4 out of 10 working for the private sector and total Gov't spending over $58,000 per private sector worker we cannot afford our Gov't.

If you are not getting a check from the Gov't you are losing.

[Phrog_gunner]

Raising minimum wage is always a fun choice too. No matter what it is set at, the people above them in the company will be making more. So when minimum wage is raised, so are the wages of everyone above them in the company. Seeing as how it's MINIMUM wage, that means EVERYONE in the company will now be making more money. So now that I'm making $20 an hour that means the guy bagging my groceries and cooking my burgers at Burger King is now also making $20 which means my food costs more as well. It sounds like my big raise is eaten up to pay for everyone else's big raise. Net benefit = ZERO

[Todd]

The thing you need to remember is either you can have freedom to 'pursue' happiness or have the status quo shoved down your throat.

The people on Wallstreet are actually me, you, and all the other people in America that have a 401k, pension plan, etrade account, etc..... They are doing a job just like the rest of us. They are an easy scapegoat. But not the real problem. They are the boogey man who can never defend itself against its accusers. Easy for the politicians and media to cry foul when no one is there to give the other side, isnt it?


Yes, the mortgage backed securities were not a good investment if looking using hindsight. But at the time, the mortgage companies were trying to find ways to make money and cover potential losses on bad loans they were being forced to give. And in the end, people in general will 'bet' on anything. The real thing you should be pissed at is the government not just letting them file bankruptsy like you or I would have to do if we made horrible decisions like the investment houses did.

Congress tried to get Fannie Mae to run under tighter scrutiny in 2001, twice in 2003, once in 2005, and then finally in 2006. But every time it was blocked. You can put the blame squarely on congressmen like Barney Frank (actually not 'like' him, actually he was the leader of the group who blocked it). I have watched some video and listened to a lot of audio from CSPAN to know what actually went on. The Community Investment Act forces banks to loan money to people particularly in minority and poor communities. Not a bad thing. But they are being forced to accept applicants that do not qualify under the rules you and I have to apply under. So it is no surprise those mortagages are now in default. You cant bend the rules and expect a fact based outcome.





And to clear up your thoughts on the gas tax...... Gas companies earn approximately $.08 profit on every gallon of gas. Last I heard the governments (federal, state, and local together) were making over $.50 a gallon. So you want to complain about someone taking the money from those who need it????? Call your congressman and tell them to lower the gas tax. It has nothing to do with the companies themselves. The gas stations only collect the money FOR the gov's. Yet no one is leading the charge to tell the government to get out of our gas tanks, are they????????



There is always more than one side to any story.



Im not in on the movement but I understand the point.... some scare of something happening (war, hurricane, flood near refineries, etc.) and the people on wall street sell this or buy that and it ends up costing us more on gas (for no reason) or it makes businesses think, oh were in a recession, better not hire anyone or give raises.


wall street is total BS it does no good, and those who buy and sell are the worthless ones who dont want to work but make all the money.

I just dont understand how these people think the protest will fix/end it. But at least its bringing the point up.


And anyways how did we end up letting the gas tax fall on the consumer? So gas is $4.50 gal, (not now but you remeber) lets make an extra tax on our product and then say well, you want it you gotta pay even more for it cause were not going to lose out on 5 cents an item. So the persons who dont have extra money anyways now lose a little more and a little more just buying everyday stuff. It always seems to trickle down to the everyday working Joe, at the same time he is spending the same on gas just to drive to work, but does he get a cost of living raise to pay for the gas, or the gas tax?

[kernie]

And despite all the trash talk from the right, :shake:, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, the rich-poor gap is at it's peak and growing and the right wing zombies continue to vote against their interests.

[sailsmen]

Stop it the truth is too painful.
Oil cos make 4% on Gasoline which has in many ways become a by product. The 8% is from other products which have a much higher profit margin.

EXCERPTS

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary





For Immediate Release December 8, 1993
PRESS BRIEFING BY SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, LLOYD BENTSEN, ROBERT RUBIN, ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR ECONOMIC POLICY AND EUGENE LUDWIG, COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY




An important component of that strategy is todeal with the problems of the inner city and distressed rural communities



CRA reform will generate billions of dollars innew lending and extend basic banking services to the inner cities and todistressed rural communities around the country.



I want to briefly tell you about it and how it fits into theClintonadministration's initiatives for change



make credit more readily available for smallbusiness, for small farms and distressed areas of our country.



What we're seeing is a chance for these men andwomen out there with dreams being achieved because of the access to morecredit.



We said the Clintonadministration was going to get money flowing into community developmentfinancial institutions



Passed it to ensure that banks and thrifts servedthe financial needs of their entire communities; and in particular economicallyempowered persons of low and moderate income.



It will channel billions of dollars a year in newcredit into America'sdistressed communities



We walked through South Central Los Angeles, in apredominantly minority neighborhood in New York City to see with our own eyes and tolisten with our own ears to what should be done.



to poor people in rural North Carolina and elsewhere.



this package would stimulate bank lending,investment and service in low and moderate income communities



It reduces the examination burden, particularly on smallbanks without reducing their obligation to serve their communities



target of what we're talking about here which isgetting loans and services and investments out to our communities.And the simple three tests…..Are you making loans?



but we're going to listen hard to what institutions have tosay and what the community groups have to say.



And the test is, one, are you serving low and moderate incomegeographies. In the same way, you have the same market share that you do inyour service area generally. In other words, basically are you red-line ordiscriminating against low income geographies --you'd say no; in other words,that's what the screen is about.

And number two, are your loans either disbursed throughout the lowand moderate income geographies, or are there a significant number that aretargeted in certain are



the CRA, for all its flaws, since 1977 it isgenerally agreed has increased lending in low and moderate income areas by tensof billions of dollars. We're all convinced that this is a material stepforward. So it's very safe to say billions of dollars.



the President wanted performance, not process --and that's what we've emphasized, what are the dollars -- increase in lending



Q With regard to enforcement actions for an institution that's notapplying for a merger, what specific enforcement actions might you envisionbeing taken if it's in substantial noncompliance?

MR. LUDWIG: Well, we'll have the full panoply of all ourenforcement armorarium, which includes cease and desist orders and civil moneypenalties in some cases.

Q So you could apply those, because you hadn't up until --

MR. LUDWIG: We have not, and it has not been part of theregulation. It will be part of this regulation.

Thank you very much.

[Phrog_gunner]

And despite all the trash talk from the right, :shake:, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, the rich-poor gap is at it's peak and growing and the right wing zombies continue to vote against their interests.

I guess when you are devoid of facts/logic/history, you might as well resort to 3d grade.


In an attempt to get the logic train back on track. Where in the Constitution is the "limit" for said "rich-poor gap"?

[Fosters]

If they were smart they'd protest against all of the law suits that companies incur. This is what drives business over seas.

Lets see if I have a business and have the choice of hiring lazy, self entitled people who are just looking for a reason to file a lawsuit.... vs setting up shop in a place where people can't file suit and are hungry to work. -Hmmm

New constitution amendment rules to save America and bring back a few jobs:

1. Lawyers can't advertise period.
2. Clients must pay all lawyer fees up front.
3. Max anyone can collect from lawsuit is current pay (times) number of years until age 60. If you aren't working you can't get cash. Max payouts should be difficult to get and not solely based on a jury.
4. Public institutions can't be sued.

I don't agree with number 1. That'd be a clear infringement on freedom of speech, and I do not wish that even on my enemies (despite many of them wishing it on me).

I do think a lot of it would go away if they added the rule (that many other countries have) that states, if the accuser loses, they have to pay the winner's legal fees.

That would take care of the frivolous lawsuits and it would discourage a lot of them from getting to trial and wasting the court's money. Lawyers aren't gonna starve, and both parties will be more willing to settle things out of court...

[Fosters]

I guess when you are devoid of facts/logic/history, you might as well resort to 3d grade.


In an attempt to get the logic train back on track. Where in the Constitution is the "limit" for said "rich-poor gap"?

Forgive him, he's still an ape and has his partyline insults mixed up:

4a6YdNmK77k

:D

[sailsmen]

And despite all the trash talk from the right, :shake:, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, the rich-poor gap is at it's peak and growing and the right wing zombies continue to vote against their interests.

From the Tax Foundation;
"As the data below show, incomes reported by tax returns at the high end of the income spectrum plummeted from 2007 to 2008, as did their share of the nation's income and income taxes paid. In 2008, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 38.0 percent of all federal individual income taxes and earned 20.0 percent of adjusted gross income, compared to 2007 when those figures were 40.4 percent and 22.8 percent, respectively. Both of those figures—share of income and share of taxes paid—were their lowest since 2004 when the top 1 percent earned 19 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI) and paid 36.9 percent of federal individual income taxes.

Each year from 2005 to 2007, the top 1 percent's constantly growing share of income earned and taxes paid set a record. That trend reversed in 2008. In fact, the income share for the top 1 percent of tax returns was lower in 2008 than in 2000, largely due to differences in capital gains."

In the USA the top 1% have had 18-22% of the income for as long as the data is available.

I have looked at the inner workings of over 200 businesse, small, large, private, public. When I started 30 years ago profits were in the 15% to 30% range. Today 3% to 15%.

I am always curious as to what is a person's plan to get rich? They take a job or choose a career where they are paid X and they can move up to make X + Y. How is X or X + Y going to get them rich? In most cases it will not. So is their plan to get rich to take from someone who had a plan, took risk and got rich? I lquidated my 401K, sold my house and moved my family into an apartment to start a business while fighting in court one of the largest firms in the region. I took a risk. Am I rich no, but I love what I am doing and a value cannot be put on that.

In the USA to stay out of a life of poverty a person need only graduate from HS, get a job/any job and not have children out of wedlock.

[Todd]

And despite all the trash talk from the right, :shake:, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, the rich-poor gap is at it's peak and growing and the right wing zombies continue to vote against their interests.


Have you ever thought the rich are rich because of good decisions and the poor are poor because of the same?

No, that would be too much personal responsibility.

I am not rich. But I work very hard to get get what I have. I would say I do much better than most. But I also work at the minimum 50 hours a week. And most weeks I am closer to 55 or 60. A few weeks ago I put in over 70 hours in the week. So darn right I deserve what I get.

I have multiple very close friends who I tried like heck to get to follow me down the path I am on now. But they refused. And they are doing very poorly for it today. They made the decisions they made and are living with the consequences. But using your logic, they should blame someone else for their current situation.


Nature has a way of weeding out the weak in the bunch. Unfortunately man came along and feels it is necessary to coddle the weak which only drags down the strong.

[sailsmen]

You don't understand, we did not earn or generate our wealth, we took it from someonlse, usually through trikery.
Wealth is not generated, there is a set pie of wealth and it must be divided up. Those who got a bigger share were lucky or thiefs. That's why they must "give back". I have never given back in my life becasue I have never taken.

Pres Obama;
TRANSCRIPT:
MODERATOR: Good morning and welcome to Odyssey on WBEZ Chicago 91.5 FM and we’re joined by Barack Obama who is Illinois State Senator from the 13th district and senior lecturer in the law school at the University of Chicago.


OBAMA: If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay.
But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted. One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that.

MODERATOR: Let’s talk with Karen. Good morning, Karen, you’re on Chicago Public Radio.


KAREN: Hi. The gentleman made the point that the Warren court wasn’t terribly radical with economic changes. My question is, is it too late for that kind of reparative work economically and is that that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to take place – the court – or would it be legislation at this point?


OBAMA: Maybe I’m showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn’t structured that way.
You just look at very rare examples during the desegregation era the court was willing to for example order changes that cost money to a local school district. The court was very uncomfortable with it. It was very hard to manage, it was hard to figure out. You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time.
The court’s just not very good at it and politically it’s very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally. Any three of us sitting here could come up with a rational for bringing about economic change through the courts."

[N40GL]

What I can't figure out is this philosophy of having certain people "pay their fair share in income taxes."

So - let me get this straight. You report your income and file according to the Internal Revenue Code, take the deductions described in the code, make the allocations and payments described in the Code as actualized on your 1040, and make the payment of the calculated tax that results, and somehow, although you are paying precisely what the law requires, you are not paying your "fair share?"

While I should be grateful that the Administration has backed away from calling people who made $200,000 (and, later, $250,000) "millionaires" (which caused great relief to dual income families living in high cost areas who had to make that much to survive), it still continues a long-standing practice of demonizing those that do well, and then works to penalize them for it.

Like an earlier poster, my first job was about a buck an hour, and in the 26 years he worked my father never made more than $25K in his job in his whole life, so he and I worked for everything we had/have. But, somehow, in this world, that's evil and I need to be punished.

Remember that in the first year of the current Administration, the President talked about "wealth reallocation," or taking from those that have and giving to those that have not. It seems the "99%" protests just want to kick-start that all over again.

I also remember having to live within my means, like when I started off with an allowance of a quarter a week. If I acted like the Guv'mint, I could have told my parents that $0.25 wasn't enough - I wanted more, and vaguely described some 'need' to justify it. That doesn't work for people; it shouldn't work for the Guv'mint.

Read the postings of the 99% protesters - they want wealth redistribution and nationalized banks and industry. Trouble is - that was tried in the early-to-mid part of the last century, and we all remember how well the USSR did. However, there, those in the Ruling Class that had everything. The remaining 99.9999995% had less than we do today, even considering the wealth disparity across the population.

The grass is always greener over the septic tank. (Erma Bombeck)

[tbone]

Obama must be so proud of his kool aid drinkers. After nearly 3 years of Obama demonizing "Wall Street fat cats", "rich bankers" and "corporate jet owners", the kool aid finally kicked in and his minions are protesting in New York City for him. Their message? We have no idea how the system works, we don't have a sense of personal responsibility, we hate capitalism and America, we won't pay our student loans back, we don't ever want to work for a living and we want OURS! NOW!

[Spectragod]

In the USA to stay out of a life of poverty a person need not graduate from HS, not bother to get a job/any job and have many children out of wedlock.

There ya go, I fixed it for you, so I could reference the HUD living, disabled, handicapped low life POS that lives 3 houses down from me, all while driving a new Escalade.

But in reality, a lot of people do have this belief and do feel entitled to something for nothing.

In the meantime, my health insurance tripled, while not paying anything till I hit a 5k minimum, I haven't had a raise in 3 years, and have to work 70-80 hours a week to keep up with the volume of work, you cannot find people to work, because welfare/disability is easier and requires nothing but making babies for someone else to raise.

Let me hop off my soapbox now..................:depress:

[MrBluGruv]

What I can't figure out is this philosophy of having certain people "pay their fair share in income taxes."

I've always hated that philosophy, it allows the government to shift focus away from if they are properly allocating money and put it on the taxpayers. Saying that "some aren't paying their fair share" establishes a rhetorical framework that assumes the government is making the best possible choices with money and there still isn't enough.

I don't think this movement will die until accountability finds its way back into those that control the nation's purse strings...

[CBT]

As long as corporations can keep billions of dollars in profits in overseas banks, and not have it taxed as profit, when it is, people will always be pissed off about it.

[tbone]

As long as corporations can keep billions of dollars in profits in overseas banks, and not have it taxed as profit, when it is, people will always be pissed off about it.

Be pissed at the politicians that allow it then.

[CBT]

Be pissed at the politicians that allow it then.

It comes up occasionally to either

A.) Tax it anyway
B.) Give them a tax break if they shift it back

Neither gains any traction. Meanwhile, why would a corporation want to bring back and report all their profits to get taxed? They aren't going to build any factories here with it anyway, everything is global, so they globe shop. Find the cheapest area with the cheapest workers, set up shop. I can't say I blame them, they aren't doing anything illegal. At some point, if we are not already, America will become a consumer nation vice a producer nation. If we aren't selling anything on a global scale, how can we keep buying things on a global scale? 3 billion cell phones sold last year. How many were made in the U.S? None. Levis - made in Mexico. Vice Grips, out of business. Everything is imported, it cannot last forever.
I think I will get Cooper tires next, if I read the website correctly, they still make thier tires here. Yeah, I know, my whopping 600 dollar purchase is going to stem the Chinese tide :rolleyes:

[sailsmen]

There ya go, I fixed it for you, so I could reference the HUD living, disabled, handicapped low life POS that lives 3 houses down from me, all while driving a new Escalade.

But in reality, a lot of people do have this belief and do feel entitled to something for nothing.

In the meantime, my health insurance tripled, while not paying anything till I hit a 5k minimum, I haven't had a raise in 3 years, and have to work 70-80 hours a week to keep up with the volume of work, you cannot find people to work, because welfare/disability is easier and requires nothing but making babies for someone else to raise.

Let me hop off my soapbox now..................:depress:

I stand corrected, poverty should not be determined solely by income but should include the value of Gov't "benefits".

[kernie]

There ya go, I fixed it for you, so I could reference the HUD living, disabled, handicapped low life POS that lives 3 houses down from me, all while driving a new Escalade.

But in reality, a lot of people do have this belief and do feel entitled to something for nothing.

In the meantime, my health insurance tripled, while not paying anything till I hit a 5k minimum, I haven't had a raise in 3 years, and have to work 70-80 hours a week to keep up with the volume of work, you cannot find people to work, because welfare/disability is easier and requires nothing but making babies for someone else to raise.

Let me hop off my soapbox now..................:depress:

That's not even worthy of being called a healthcare system, that's just gross!

But, i guess there has to be profit involved. :shake:

[sailsmen]

That's not even worthy of being called a healthcare system, that's just gross!

But, i guess there has to be profit involved. :shake:

The basis of all EVIL is profit! Since Gov't does not have profit only Gov't is void of EVIL.;)

The profit of the top 5 health insurance companies recently averaged 5.5%. Those greedy, evil bastards. Heck Gov't only spends 46.4% out of every dollar leaving 53.6%, for the private sector. How much more does the private sector need? Those greedy private sector people never get enough.

Milton Freeman on Greedy;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A

[kernie]

The basis of all EVIL is profit! Since Gov't does not have profit only Gov't is void of EVIL.;)

The profit of the top 5 health insurance companies recently averaged 5.5%. Those greedy, evil bastards. Heck Gov't only spends 46.4% out of every dollar leaving 53.6%, for the private sector. How much more does the private sector need? Those greedy private sector people never get enough.

Milton Freeman on Greedy;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A


But the fact that insurance companies are even involved is wrong, the fact that they call themselves healthcare providers is insane. Their profit might only be 5.5% {after skillful accountants are done} but the cost of their shiny new buildings and their payroll adds what 25%? more?

How can Canadians afford healthcare for everyone? Our healthcare providers are doctors and nurses. No banking crisis\bailouts, no housing crisis, no political gridlock and a booming economy?

[Fosters]

As long as corporations can keep billions of dollars in profits in overseas banks, and not have it taxed as profit, when it is, people will always be pissed off about it.

Did those people ever wonder WHY it is overseas in the first place?

[sailsmen]

But the fact that insurance companies are even involved is wrong, the fact that they call themselves healthcare providers is insane. Their profit might only be 5.5% {after skillful accountants are done} but the cost of their shiny new buildings and their payroll adds what 25%? more?

How can Canadians afford healthcare for everyone? Our healthcare providers are doctors and nurses. No banking crisis\bailouts, no housing crisis, no political gridlock and a booming economy?

Insurance Cos do not call themselves health care providers. In the USA everyone does get healthcare. It is so good your wealthy, those who cannot wait for treatment and ministers come to the USA for treatment. In some cases professional brokers book the procedures and appeal for payment by the Canadian system.

Wait times for surgery, medical treatments at all-time high: report
Compared to 1993, wait times in 2007 are 97 per cent longer, report finds
Last Updated: Monday, October 15, 2007 | 4:09 PM ET
CBC News
The average wait time for a Canadian awaiting surgery or other medical treatment is now 18.3 weeks, a new high, according to a report released Monday.
That's an increase of 97 per cent over 14 years, the report says.
A patient undergoes MRI screening. The median wait for an MRI across Canada is 10.1 weeks, according to the report.
(CBC)
The Cancer survival rate for men in the USA is 66.3% vs Canada 58%. 8 more men out of 100 who get cancer survive in the USA vs Canada. Get cancer and you had better hope you get treated in the USA.

Annual Medicare Fraud exceeds the profits of all the US Health Insurance cos combined. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11447

2009
Overhauling health-care system tops agenda at annual meeting of Canada's doctors

By Jennifer Graham (CP) – 2 days ago

SASKATOON — The incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association says this country's health-care system is sick and doctors need to develop a plan to cure it.

Dr. Anne Doig says patients are getting less than optimal care and she adds that physicians from across the country - who will gather in Saskatoon on Sunday for their annual meeting - recognize that changes must be made.

"We all agree that the system is imploding, we all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize," Doing said in an interview with The Canadian Press.

"We know that there must be change," she said. "We're all running flat out, we're all just trying to stay ahead of the immediate day-to-day demands."

The pitch for change at the conference is to start with a presentation from Dr. Robert Ouellet, the current president of the CMA, who has said there's a critical need to make Canada's health-care system patient-centred. He will present details from his fact-finding trip to Europe in January, where he met with health groups in England, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands and France.

His thoughts on the issue are already clear. Ouellet has been saying since his return that "a health-care revolution has passed us by," that it's possible to make wait lists disappear while maintaining universal coverage and "that competition should be welcomed, not feared."

In other words, Ouellet believes there could be a role for private health-care delivery within the public system.

He has also said the Canadian system could be restructured to focus on patients if hospitals and other health-care institutions received funding based on the patients they treat, instead of an annual, lump-sum budget. This "activity-based funding" would be an incentive to provide more efficient care, he has said.

Doig says she doesn't know what a proposed "blueprint" toward patient-centred care might look like when the meeting wraps up Wednesday. She'd like to emerge with clear directions about where the association should focus efforts to direct change over the next few years. She also wants to see short-term, medium-term and long-term goals laid out.

"A short-term achievable goal would be to accelerate the process of getting electronic medical records into physicians' offices," she said. "That's one I think ought to be a priority and ought to be achievable."

A long-term goal would be getting health systems "talking to each other," so information can be quickly shared to help patients.

Doig, who has had a full-time family practice in Saskatoon for 30 years, acknowledges that when physicians have talked about changing the health-care system in the past, they've been accused of wanting an American-style structure. She insists that's not the case.

"It's not about choosing between an American system or a Canadian system," said Doig. "The whole thing is about looking at what other people do."

"That's called looking at the evidence, looking at how care is delivered and how care is paid for all around us (and) then saying 'Well, OK, that's good information. How do we make all of that work in the Canadian context? What do the Canadian people want?' "

Doig says there are some "very good things" about Canada's health-care system, but she points out that many people have stories about times when things didn't go well for them or their family.

"(Canadians) have to understand that the system that we have right now - if it keeps on going without change - is not sustainable," said Doig.

"They have to look at the evidence that's being presented and will be presented at (the meeting) and realize what Canada's doctors are trying to tell you, that you can get better care than what you're getting and we all have to participate in the discussion around how do we do that and of course how do we pay for it."

Copyright © 2009 The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

[CBT]

Did those people ever wonder WHY it is overseas in the first place?

It's kind of obvious, isn't it? Because it can be. I'm neither here nor there on it. By that I mean, it's not my money but I would like to see it invested here. Put people here to work instead of making India and China superpowers.

[kernie]

Insurance Cos do not call themselves health care providers. In the USA everyone does get healthcare. It is so good your wealthy and ministers come to the USA for treatment.

Wait times for surgery, medical treatments at all-time high: report
Compared to 1993, wait times in 2007 are 97 per cent longer, report finds
Last Updated: Monday, October 15, 2007 | 4:09 PM ET
CBC News
The average wait time for a Canadian awaiting surgery or other medical treatment is now 18.3 weeks, a new high, according to a report released Monday.
That's an increase of 97 per cent over 14 years, the report says.
A patient undergoes MRI screening. The median wait for an MRI across Canada is 10.1 weeks, according to the report.
(CBC)
The Cancer survival rate for men in the USA is 66.3% vs Canada 58%. 8 more men out of 100 who get cancer survive in the USA vs Canada. Get cancer and you had better hope you get treated in the USA.

Annual Medicare Fraud exceeds the profits of all the US Health Insurance cos combined. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11447

2009
Overhauling health-care system tops agenda at annual meeting of Canada's doctors

By Jennifer Graham (CP) – 2 days ago

SASKATOON — The incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association says this country's health-care system is sick and doctors need to develop a plan to cure it.

Dr. Anne Doig says patients are getting less than optimal care and she adds that physicians from across the country - who will gather in Saskatoon on Sunday for their annual meeting - recognize that changes must be made.

"We all agree that the system is imploding, we all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize," Doing said in an interview with The Canadian Press.

"We know that there must be change," she said. "We're all running flat out, we're all just trying to stay ahead of the immediate day-to-day demands."

The pitch for change at the conference is to start with a presentation from Dr. Robert Ouellet, the current president of the CMA, who has said there's a critical need to make Canada's health-care system patient-centred. He will present details from his fact-finding trip to Europe in January, where he met with health groups in England, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands and France.

His thoughts on the issue are already clear. Ouellet has been saying since his return that "a health-care revolution has passed us by," that it's possible to make wait lists disappear while maintaining universal coverage and "that competition should be welcomed, not feared."

In other words, Ouellet believes there could be a role for private health-care delivery within the public system.

He has also said the Canadian system could be restructured to focus on patients if hospitals and other health-care institutions received funding based on the patients they treat, instead of an annual, lump-sum budget. This "activity-based funding" would be an incentive to provide more efficient care, he has said.

Doig says she doesn't know what a proposed "blueprint" toward patient-centred care might look like when the meeting wraps up Wednesday. She'd like to emerge with clear directions about where the association should focus efforts to direct change over the next few years. She also wants to see short-term, medium-term and long-term goals laid out.

"A short-term achievable goal would be to accelerate the process of getting electronic medical records into physicians' offices," she said. "That's one I think ought to be a priority and ought to be achievable."

A long-term goal would be getting health systems "talking to each other," so information can be quickly shared to help patients.

Doig, who has had a full-time family practice in Saskatoon for 30 years, acknowledges that when physicians have talked about changing the health-care system in the past, they've been accused of wanting an American-style structure. She insists that's not the case.

"It's not about choosing between an American system or a Canadian system," said Doig. "The whole thing is about looking at what other people do."

"That's called looking at the evidence, looking at how care is delivered and how care is paid for all around us (and) then saying 'Well, OK, that's good information. How do we make all of that work in the Canadian context? What do the Canadian people want?' "

Doig says there are some "very good things" about Canada's health-care system, but she points out that many people have stories about times when things didn't go well for them or their family.

"(Canadians) have to understand that the system that we have right now - if it keeps on going without change - is not sustainable," said Doig.

"They have to look at the evidence that's being presented and will be presented at (the meeting) and realize what Canada's doctors are trying to tell you, that you can get better care than what you're getting and we all have to participate in the discussion around how do we do that and of course how do we pay for it."

Copyright © 2009 The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

I should have known better that to get into it with the google king and his old google results. Find a couple of opinions and present it as absolute fact.

Continue your downward spiral and somehow defend it to the death.

Over and out.

[MM2004]

This is going nowhere but South.

Mike.