Wanting to delete, but don't know how.

[Yoshi]

Please ignore this post, as I'm trying to figure out how to delete former threads I've created.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Hm, it's very interesting to hear about the Occupy movement from a non-American perspective.

As for Occupy itself, while I agree with some of what they're saying, I have a really hard time actually sympathizing with the people in it, or even the movement itself.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

As an American expat living in Germany, I agree completely with Yoshi. The USA needs this. Badly. It needs a serious movement like this to stop the rampant corruption and incredible inequality. Germany, Sweden, France? We're where they want to be already.

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

This is the first I have ever heard of this, so not really sure what's going on or where to start looking.

 

[etecoon]

As for Occupy itself, while I agree with some of what they're saying, I have a really hard time actually sympathizing with the people in it, or even the movement itself.

I'm in the same place, in theory I should agree with them as the corruption in the system is very obvious, it's all in broad daylight at this point and even casually following current events you will see dozens of examples of "the 99%" getting screwed over by corporate bribery and political shenanigans...and yet every time I actually see these protests I seem to become less sympathetic to them. as much as people have told me that it's not all just a bunch of whiny naive kids and hippies, that's pretty much what I saw and heard when I watched the livestream of the NYPD raid last night. there are some deep problems with the social structure that we're currently operating on but I just increasingly feel like most of the people involved with these protests are just pretentious or looking for something to do

 

[Yoshi]

From looking outside in, the views that were before hand barely established, are now lost to hippies and homeless looking to belong. It's sad almost, least in my area.
It'll all pass from the looks of it, as all conflicts do.

 

[Browny]

Yep, damn straight.

Same thing happened in Australia. Firstly, many of the protestors dont even know WHY they are there, they just join their hippy friends to get a few days off work/school and sit around doing nothing. They have no aim, no end-game, nothing.

Secondly, even if they did know what they are protesting about, like in Canada, this isnt the same in Australia. We have a fantastic unemployment rate atm and an economy that is the envy of almost all countries on this planet. Yet people are protesting about this 99/1% stuff which is total crap in Australia. Its a true first world problem. these protestors have so much, yet feed on the pain and suffering of those who are ACTUALLY dealing with these issues, as an excuse for their own agenda. Any excuse to rant at the government and they will take it. Its pathetic.

 

[Spelt]

Same thing happened in Australia. Firstly, many of the protestors dont even know WHY they are there, they just join their hippy friends to get a few days off work/school and sit around doing nothing. They have no aim, no end-game, nothing.

I'm writing an essay about this, and this is basically my message.

It's also hilarious how all of this was planned by a canadian ad agency.

 

[-Jumpman-]

lol ur sooo smart. Please, assuming Occupy [city] exists because there's such huge wealth inequality is ********. The 99% is just a way of expressing discontent. Canadians are ******** lawl

 

[Browny]

Discontent with what, thought?

Discontent that they live in a democratic, capitalist society? Discontent that their completely unrealistic and blind optimism cant happen? (Referring to the Australian ones here)

 

[-Jumpman-]

Discontent with what, thought?

Discontent that they live in a democratic, capitalist society? Discontent that their completely unrealistic and blind optimism cant happen? (Referring to the Australian ones here)

Democratic and capitalist aren't necessarily positive, as you make it sound. You also make it seem they aren't entitled to demostrate, for they have a relatively "good" life. Please try not to make judgements based on your own interpretations of what is right.

 

[Themagickal1]

jump.... brawl with me o-o

 

[-Jumpman-]

jump.... brawl with me o-o

Sup bro, from Singapore eh?

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

The Occupy Movement in my city just got closed down. It was directionless and accomplished nothing. Protestors were asked what would be required for them to disband a month into the start of the movement and no set agenda was established according to NPR. The movement just seemed to be a collective expression of resentment, more so than a means of negotiation and changing policy.

 

[-Jumpman-]

The Occupy Movement in my city just got closed down. It was directionless and accomplished nothing. Protestors were asked what would be required for them to disband a month into the start of the movement and no set agenda was established according to NPR. The movement just seemed to be a collective expression of resentment, more so than a means of negotiation and changing policy.

Directionless might be true in some sense, but saying it's accomplished nothing is just disrespectful. Applying your own standards of accomplishment leads to such conclusions.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Directionless might be true in some sense, but saying it's accomplished nothing is just disrespectful. Applying your own standards of accomplishment leads to such conclusions.

Pragmatically speaking, the movement had little effect on world wide influence. Confidence in the U.S. dollar didn't change to foreign investors, much unlike the Euro-zone debt crisis with the departure of Silvio Berlusconi resulting in a lack of confidence in the Euro (and also with Greece, but that is a different beast entirely). The movement had union involvement, but refused to allow these unions to have push on establishing an agenda or a direction for the movement to take. If anything, the movement lasting two months possibly lead to a decrease in unemployment, due to an increase in hidden unemployment because some of the protestors may have hit the twelve month "discouraged worker" status.

 

[-Jumpman-]

Pragmatically speaking, the movement had little effect on world wide influence. Confidence in the U.S. dollar didn't change to foreign investors, much unlike the Euro-zone debt crisis with the departure of Silvio Berlusconi resulting in a lack of confidence in the Euro (and also with Greece, but that is a different beast entirely). The movement had union involvement, but refused to allow these unions to have push on establishing an agenda or a direction for the movement to take. If anything, the movement lasting two months possibly lead to a decrease in unemployment, due to an increase in hidden unemployment because some of the protestors may have hit the twelve month "discouraged worker" status.

I consider wall street occupation leading to worldwide support quite an influence. Although that influence might not be measurable quantitatively, Occupy Wallstreet left the world with some interesting ideas regarding politics. All across the globe discontent with the current system was shown, regardless of ideas for small-scale improvements. Disregarding changes in people's heads might be your biggest problem.

 

[Lord Chair]

Germany, Sweden, France? We're where they want to be already.

What does this even mean.

 

[Meru.]

Discontent that they live in a democratic, capitalist society?

Democracy is nothing but a name.

 

[Melomaniacal]

I'm mixed about the Occupy movement. While I do support it, and I agree with the foundations of what's being said, a lot more needs to be done. I agree that government and corporation corruption is a serious problem and needs to end. I agree that the distribution of wealth in this country (USA) is wrong. However, the lack of organization, central leadership, and consensus on how to solve the issues is a problem. I understand that it's supposed to be a sort of gathering of the people, but if you want to get anything done, there needs to be a "leader."

So, I agree with the movement because in order to get anything done, you need to get attention. That's the way politics work in this country. The politicians will listen to the masses if they are large enough and their demands are clear. Well, we have the numbers, but the demands are not clear. So, we have the media attention, now what? Who will the politicians talk to if they get to the point where they decide they want to work something out? What exactly does the movement want? I feel like there's a step the movement isn't taking. We've identified a problem. That's good, and that's a start. However, knowing that a problem exists isn't where it ends, and it doesn't make you informed. Knowing what it takes to help solve the problem is what is important. If the movement wants to change anything, they are going to need to take the step beyond "WE ARE THE 99%, END CORRUPTION," and move on to "WE ARE THE 99%, END CORRUPTION BY DOING X AND Y."

Basically, we're at the point where the movement needs to really deliver. I just hope they can do it.

That, and there's so many different views amongst those in the movement. I've heard people shouting "stronger state government," I've heard "stronger central government," I've heard "anarchy."

Funny, after I finished typing this, I read an article that strengthened my problem with the movement.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/n...an-uncertain-future.html?_r=2&pagewanted=2&hp

" 'The mayor’s office had made it very clear that they were hoping to talk with Occupy Wall Street to negotiate and have people to speak with,' he said. 'But there was no one empowered in any process in Occupy Wall Street to engage in that dialogue.' "

The more I think about this kind of stuff, the more my support for the movement dwindles. If they don't get their act together soon, I'm going to be very disappointed and upset.

 

[-Jumpman-]

<content redacted>
lol... "socialist". Dem euro ******s got more moneyz than US capitalist mofos

 

[-Jumpman-]

<content redacted>

That's mostly due to 2000 billion dollar government donations that boost the GDP, nice try tho.

 

[Jam Stunna]

I consider wall street occupation leading to worldwide support quite an influence. Although that influence might not be measurable quantitatively, Occupy Wallstreet left the world with some interesting ideas regarding politics. All across the globe discontent with the current system was shown, regardless of ideas for small-scale improvements. Disregarding changes in people's heads might be your biggest problem.

My problem with this line of reasoning is exactly what you pointed out: it's not quantifiable, so anyone who supports the Occupy movement can claim a moral victory about "changing minds" without ever actually having to prove that they did.

Meanwhile, whether you agree with them or not, the Tea Party actually DID get results. The Republicans cruised in 2010.

As a card-carrying liberal, our biggest problem is that we're way too content with just showing up and making a bunch of noise. I respect Republicans and conservatives because, even though they're evil, at least they actually accomplish their evil agenda.

lol... "socialist". Dem euro ******s got more moneyz than US capitalist mofos

Have you been following the news?

At all?

 

[-Jumpman-]

My problem with this line of reasoning is exactly what you pointed out: it's not quantifiable, so anyone who supports the Occupy movement can claim a moral victory about "changing minds" without ever actually having to prove that they did.

Meanwhile, whether you agree with them or not, the Tea Party actually DID get results. The Republicans cruised in 2010.

As a card-carrying liberal, our biggest problem is that we're way too content with just showing up and making a bunch of noise. I respect Republicans and conservatives because, even though they're evil, at least they actually accomplish their evil agenda.



Have you been following the news?

At all?

I never compared Occupy Wallstreet to the Tea Party. There's nothing wrong with my line of reasoning, for I never claimed that Occupy Wallstreet changed anything. I was merely denying the idea that it hadn't. To evaluate your comparison with the Tea Party, there's no factual way to prove that the Tea Party made the Republican Party "cruise".

Have you ever considered the idea that making noise is the only way of striking the government nowadays? Republicans on the other hand simply try to facilitate change that is desired by industries, which have access to funds and therefore can subsidize their endeavors.

Regarding the Berluscuni rubbish, I'd like to mention that Italy is still is very rich country, and opposed to the US, has a decent debt to GDP ratio. To further emphasize the wealth Europe posesses I'd like to note that The Netherlands most likely are the richest country in the world per square meter. To add to that, our wealth inequality is less severe, and thus our average citizen enjoys more wealth.

And please, don't talk to me about "the news", it makes you sound ignorant. Not only is the article you linked me extremely biased, it provides a terrible view into the monetary aspect of the issue.

 

[-Jumpman-]

<content redacted>

Those stimulus programs don't revolve around printing money, they are paid through taxes that are based on actual growth instead of "quantitative easing".

And please, with welfare states consistently showing better numbers on standards of living, it's ridiculous to even suggest capitalism works out in the end. Let's take Norway as an example. Norway has huge amounts of natural resources, which are exported. The Norwegian government makes huge amounts of money no these taxes, which in turn can provide all Norwegian citizens with facilities to enhance the standard of living. At the same time in the US a small group of people gets rich, no one gets education, and poverty increases.

Edit:
Lawl, US is broke, check debt ratios

 

[Jam Stunna]

I never said you compared Occupy and the Tea Party. I made that comparison, to demonstrate how one grass roots movement had demonstrable results (and yes, it is demonstrable that the Tea Party influenced the 2010 election), and another has yet to do so.

As to Berlusconi and Greece, both of those situations are direct results of the Euro crisis. Greece is a social democratic country that is almost bankrupt. Italy, Portugal and Ireland are in similar straits. I don't see how you can claim that the Eurozone is better off than the U.S. right now in terms of monetary policy.

And how are you defining "rich?" Masky already pointed out that the U.S. has a higher GDP per capita. It has a higher national GDP; it has more money in every conceivable way that can be measured.

Also, about the news thing: you seem to assume that living in Europe makes you some kind of expert, despite the fact that you really haven't demonstrated any deeper understanding of this discussion other than "Europe rules, America drools." If you have some insight to offer, I'm all for it, but throwing out nonsense like "That's mostly due to 2000 billion dollar government donations that boost the GDP, nice try tho," is the real ignorant statement here.

Lastly, social democracy is a form of political ideology, not an economic system. Yes, European nations are social democratic, but they all have a capitalist economies just like the United States.

 

[-Jumpman-]

And how are you defining "rich?" Masky already pointed out that the U.S. has a higher GDP per capita. It has a higher national GDP; it has more money in every conceivable way that can be measured.

Also, about the news thing: you seem to assume that living in Europe makes you some kind of expert, despite the fact that you really haven't demonstrated any deeper understanding of this discussion other than "Europe rules, America drools." If you have some insight to offer, I'm all for it, but throwing out nonsense like "That's mostly due to 2000 billion dollar government donations that boost the GDP, nice try tho," is the real ignorant statement here.

Lastly, social democracy is a form of political ideology, not an economic system. Yes, European nations are social democratic, but they all have a capitalist economies just like the United States.

Deleted the rest because it's irrelevant.

Masky showed that the US has a higher GDP, but quantitative easing boosts the GDP, for it is adding money to the economy that's not a result of actual expansion. First thing I found typing stuff into google: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14970529.

And no, living in europe doesn't make me think I'm an expert, but thanks for reading my mind. I live in europe, and have a certain degree of expertise, causality isn't one of your strong points. But yeah, if you don't understand the concept of quantitative easing boosting the GDP, you might as well leave right away.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism Not an economic system eh? I never even mentioned social democracy. And I was in fact making fun of Masky, because he thinks europe is filled with socialism and giving away money. Wasn't taking him seriously.

 

[Jim Morrison]

As to Berlusconi and Greece, both of those situations are direct results of the Euro crisis. Greece is a social democratic country that is almost bankrupt. Italy, Portugal and Ireland are in similar straits. I don't see how you can claim that the Eurozone is better off than the U.S. right now in terms of monetary policy.

Disagreed. The euro crisis is more the result of the Italy and Greece situations. Greece has had this problem for ages. They retire at age 55, then don't do anything but get paid by the government. At the same time, no one bothers to pay taxes, because the taxes are way too high, because they have to pay for retirement.
Italy has had terrible leadership for a number of years and Italy is really not in the same strait. It's doing much better and is overdramatized.

Also, you have to realize the US and Eurozone are hard to compare. The US is one country, all statees with similar budget. In the Eurozone, each country makes their own budget and some might not be as good at managing their money and fail at it, while others might be doing great.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

<content redacted>

Oh yes. 'Cause that's TOTALLY true.

Many countries in Europe would like to have a word with you, Masky. Many FUNCTIONING countries outside of Greece and Italy, like Sweden or Iceland. Hell, while we're at it why don't we throw our neighbor, Canada, right into the ****ing mix? Yeah, totally dysfunctional.

I'm not even going to get into the rest of the world.

Smooth Criminal

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

<content redacted>

I don't even know where this came from. The 99% is not about more welfare. It's about ensuring that, say, a Bank cannot buy up $75T in dubious trades, then set it up so that, should this investment go south, the Taxpayers have to pay for their mistakes (FDIC insurance). It's about being able to limit the ability of the rich to pump unlimited amounts of money into politicians' campaigns to the point where their vote counts for far more than that of anyone else. It's about slashing taxes on the wealthiest people in America, then claiming that there's "no money left" for social safety nets and welfare programs that our country needs; things like public education. I agree that in some areas, the government needs to be cut. But in far more crucial areas, it's not nearly large enough.

<content redacted>

I'm going to go out on a limb here and claim that you watch Fox News. Do you, by any chance, know why over half of US citizens don't pay any income taxes? It's pretty simple, really: they don't make enough money to qualify for income taxes. We have a progressive system, where, below a certain point, your income is no longer taxed. I'm actually kinda left wondering why you're more bothered by the fact that half of us don't pay income taxes than you are by the fact that half of us don't make enough money to pay income tax. Jon Stewart actually did the math on this one; it turns out that if you cranked the income tax on the bottom 50% of americans (you know, the ones who don't pay income tax) up to 50% (yes, half of what they make), you would gain less than by raising the income tax on the top brackets back to how they were in Reagan's time. Raising taxes on these people not only is pointless (doesn't make much money), but it also takes money out of the pockets of those who need it most.

What's more, why is income tax the only type that matters to you? What about state sales tax, which is definitely not progressive? What about Payroll tax, which is actually regressive (that is, you get taxed at a lower rate overall if you make more)?

While we're on the topic of payroll tax, a slight tangent... Obama wanted to cut payroll taxes (taxes that hurt the middle and lower classes above all) and the republicans were against it. The republicans, on the other hand, are perfectly fine with slashing income tax on the super-rich... Huh.

But anyways... There actually are some examples, where I take real offense at someone paying next to no taxes. You know what those cases are? "People" like GE, who had a fairly large profit margin but ended up actually having a negative tax rate through some corporate bull****tery. How the **** is this even possible?!

I'd like for you to name me all of the socialist policies and decisions that have been made. Because the funny thing is, Obama's policies... seem to be working. The number of unemployed people is constantly sinking. Our deficit is getting smaller and smaller. If you're going to complain about the ridiculously stupid and morally bankrupt tactics of the Bush administration, I'll be right with you, but not with Obama – he's doing pretty damn well.

Not gonna reply to the other stuff because TBH I don't know enough about the intricacies of European economics. But I'd rather live in a system where my successes and rewards are completely determined by my choices and abilities rather than the government's, especially since governments suck at doings things efficiently and are filled with corruption.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FopyRHHlt3M

There is so much wrong with this paragraph.

First of all, I'd rather live in a system where my successes and rewards are completely determined by my choices and abilities. But you know what? That system is not the USA. If anything, you're going to have better luck in places like Germany, Japan, Sweden, and the like – these so-called "socialist havens". Why? Because of the massive inequality. In the USA, your chances may not be determined by the government, but they are determined by things like where you live, who you know, and who your parents were – all things that are mostly out of your control. The big one, of course, being how rich your parents were. Climbing the social ladder in the states is all but impossible if you're not already middle or upper class.

Second of all... I think you overestimate the influence of government in europe. We're not taking your land and sharing it among the poor. We're not disregarding your IP. Your chances of striking it big here are pretty much the same as anywhere else, including the USA. The only real differences are that we have slightly more reasonable taxation, especially on the incredibly wealthy, better school systems, and a better social safety net, including a mandatory health care system which, for some reason, actually works. Fancy that; socialism, in tandem with capitalism and democracy, actually works.

In general, there's a lot in the US system which is broken beyond belief. That's the point of these protests. If you don't see the problem, then you are blind.

 

[-Jumpman-]

Ever considered that problems are inherent to the system? Every model that is valid within itself is amazing. Unfortunately, no such model exists.

And BPC, a society that completely bases income etc. on abilities is flawed, for several abilities result from genetic problems.

Masky's still ******** though "hurting business", how terrible.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I apologize for the assumptions. Most people who bring out talking points like that are typical republicans. One thing caught my eye here...

<content redacted>

Why is this a bad thing?

There is, I agree with you. But if the problems are eliminated then the system is amazing.

K, how do you deal with monopolization in an unregulatory capitalistic system?

 

[Melomaniacal]

<content redacted>

What about trickle down economics? If you're about to argue in favor of trickle down economics, I'll just stop responding after this.

Out of curiosity, why aren't you a republican/what fundamentals of republicanism do you disagree with?

<content redacted>

They don't get to choose if monopolies exist because when monopolies exist, we get situations like Rockefeller controlling everything. They don't get a choice because there is only one choice.

Governments force some monopolies because it HAS to be that way. Try to imagine if anyone could start a water system or electric system. Imagine what kind of complete mess that would be. Pipes, wires. It would be an absolute disaster.


Really, until you go further than just saying "trickle down economics" without arguing your points, I'm going to assume that you know very little about politics and just regurgitate nonsense your parents tell you.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

<content redacted>

You mean the economic system which barely worked in theory, and has shown itself to be a complete and utter failure in practice? The trickle-down economics that was invented, not as an economic tool, but rather as a political tool by the republican party in the 80s? You mean the system which is also known as "supply-side economics", which, now that we have tons of supply, is showing its failure to do anything worthwhile due to a lack of demand?

Trickle-down economics does not work. It never worked. It was an incredibly stupid idea to begin with. Supply rises to meet demand, not the other way around. Furthermore, which of the following situations do you think will create more demand:
1. Give $1,000,000 to one rich person
2. Give $1,000 to a thousand middle/lower class workers.

I'll give you a hint: the middle and lower classes don't tend to put their money into investment banking, the stock market, or offshore bank accounts.

The only monopolies that exist are those created by the government by force. In a free market, consumers are always able to choose between services and products based on their quality and cost.

K, two things.

First of all: you don't understand how a monopoly works. People can choose to purchase somewhere else. Sometimes. If they can afford it (the new stores tend to be more expensive and less established). And if they really want to. Unfortunately, this generally doesn't happen; refer to the "strip mall" effect. But you know what? Even if we ignore the problem of monopolies, how about cartels?

Second of all: sometimes, a socialist monopoly is needed, because the service is so crucial that nobody can afford for it to be done "as efficiently as possible". Take for example health insurance. The real goal of having health insurance is so that if you get sick, you can afford treatment. The goal of a company is to maximize profits. See how those two goals kinda screw each other over? This is part of why I believe that privatized health insurance doesn't work; at least, not without serious government regulation. Other cases where it's needed include cases like those that were mentioned above, with the water supply and electricity, where having multiple companies competing can lead to serious issues with city planning and whatnot.

 

[Evil Eye]

Y'know, I didn't think there was any political opinion that could be boiled down into just a few accurate and concise words that would objectively be dismissed as stupid. Even the most extreme ends of the political spectrum have their own weird logic with most stances, if you apply the right lens.

But "trickle down economics" is... just that. Nothing about it is applicable to the world we live in, or even basic human nature as best as we understand. I mean. Really now.

P.S. I live in Canada, and we have plenty of your heebie-jeebie "socialist" policies. Wanna compare debts?

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

http://www.davemanuel.com/canada-debt-clock.php

And to preempt some of the predictable retorts:

1. I don't care that the American economy is larger. The debt per citizen is more than double, and inadequate (to put it politely) money management in the American economy has everything to do with it. American citizens took a bigger kick in the *** than Canadians, your red commie brethren to the north. Try not to get ill while you're barkin' about socialism, there, McCarthy.

2. Since when was per capita income a valid criticism of quality of life protests, anyway? Nations such as Mexico have had steadily increasing per capita income since globalization really started to take off; how much of that do you really think goes to the common citizen? And don't try to say that's not applicable to first world countries. It totally is. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be a protest, even if a lot (or even most) of them are naive hipsters that don't understand how things work. Canada pays for its infrastructure with a lot of taxing, and yet the country isn't falling apart at the seams, nor even close to it. American taxing policies favor the rich by a dramatic margin and for absolutely no discernible, logical reason other than to ensure the increased richness of the rich. Somehow, I doubt you're one of the elite. I don't know if you pay taxes yet, but take a guess whose pocket is left to vacuum the bucks out of when the rich aren't keeping up their end of the bargain.

(If you are rich, I could actually accept your argument since it would at least be something that directly benefits yourself, which is as good a reason as any to support asinine fiscal responsibility)

3. I love how any country that provides a modicum of social service is a WELLLLFAAARE STAAAATE. Hey guy, we have a political spectrum for a reason. This **** isn't binary. When I was a kid, I was part of a nuclear family. Before my parents split, my brother became an adult. As a result, we lived a nice, upper-middle class existence. My brother was one of the first people in his age group to be able to afford a car, a cell phone, and all the other things that affluent middle class teenagers flaunt over their peers. As a result of this upbringing, he was well-supported in taking post-secondary education to become an electrician, and then took what would eventually be a very high paying job in the military as an aircraft electronics engineer.

However, my parents split when I was like 12, and I ended up living with my mother, who due to disabilities could not work very much. I did not have the same upbringing. However, a when a further disability completely took away her ability to work when I was a teenager, she began to receive a disability compensation. This increased our quality of life (and those of god knows how many similar families), and created an environment where I could be supported in post-secondary education and in off years while saving up money for further education. And since our quality of life increased, and we needed the money for subsistence, it went right back into the economy through paying rent (in a new home!), more groceries, more food, and more basic first-world luxuries. As opposed to, you know, my offshore bank account or an investment portfolio.

Without that compensation, this would not have been possible. I would still be working a dead end job, either to support myself in an apartment, or still living at home, contributing to the meager household income. But instead I am finishing up a degree relevant to the field I will be working in (law enforcement). Policemen are well-paid in most areas of Canada, and I have a long list of purchases I plan to make in my middle/upper-middle class career-working life. I want to purchase a handgun, and I won't consider any house I purchase in the future to be a proper home unless I get a pool in the backyard, a hot tub in the house, and a bar in the basement. In acquiring these wonderful first-world amenities, I will be throwing thousands upon thousands of dollars into the economy that would not otherwise be entering the system because I'm slaving away at some minimum wage job. Trickle DOWN economics? **** that ****. How about trickle IN economics.

Then again, wage slaves in my city make over 10 dollars per hour. And yet, the country continues to not collapse.

Oh yeah, and speaking of poverty, Melbourne Australia has low rates of homelessness because full healthcare is readily available to the mentally ill and severely disabled, as are disability compensations. People who can't take care of themselves, can't work, etc etc. Presumably, those who fit this criteria and are parents will have an increased chance of raising a productive, middle-class adult that will contribute to the economy. At any rate, rather than expecting such citizens to just rot and die because oogie-boogie-welfare-staaaate, Australia does something about it.

Check out their debt clock

Hah. An even lower per-person debt than Canada's.

4. So the debt per person is much lower in Evil Commie Red States like the Soviet Republic of Canada and the Communist Union of Australia. The homeless thing got me thinking. Homeless rates are surely going to be indicative of what kind of money goes into Stupid Dumb Welfare State Stuff, right? Maybe we're cutting corners! We sneaky Commies do things like that.

Statistics have been harder to find than I expected, however, I'm studying for a test, right at this moment, with relevant information. Certain factors have been proven to have a positive correlation to homelessness, such as previous or ongoing cases of mental illness. These populations exist prominently in both the U.S. and Australia, and yet the U.S. has a larger percentage of homeless people. New York City was one of the first American cities to adopt a 10 year plan to eliminate homelessness, and its homeless rate has gone up.

Hell, let me type out this line verbatim: "The United States now has mor eincome inequality than most other industrialized countries, such as Japan and Italy. In fact, the profile of inequality in the United States more closely resembles that of developing countries, such as China."

Shove the per capita income argument right back up yo butt, from which you retrieved it in the first place.

Anyway, I could go on, and on and on. The point is, there is a ton to justify these protests in America. It's not about "I want your money" -- or at least, it shouldn't be, but that's where "naive hipsters" might come back into it. It's about the fact that this dramatic, hair-raising fiscal ratio is systematically enforced by social and governmental policy.

Canada and Australia and the like? Not so much. At least a lot of our prosters are Native Americans, though; an actual marginalized population. Though funny enough they certainly don't represent anywhere near 99%

And I say all this as someone that voted conservative in two of the last three elections. Hey man, don't judge me! Canada's political landscape is different okay! (Also I didn't even vote in the last one because I hate everyone now, but that's neither here nor there.)

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Looks like everyone is having a field day with you, Masky.

 

[Yoshi]

I didn't realize my little rant would create such a discussion. Gaa, for what it's worth, where I am now the ultimatum is set and from the looks of things, the protesters have disabandoned. =P

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I have absolutely nothing to add to Evil Eye's post.

So... Uh... +1?

 

[Smooth Criminal]

I have absolutely nothing to add to Evil Eye's post.

So... Uh... +1?

Yeaaaaah. I kinda felt the same way after I read it.

Heard a gavel slam down somewhere...

Smooth Criminal

 

[FoxBlaze71]

Well, as you know, having everything fair and equal is called socialism. As the U.S.S.R. taught us, that system isn't infallible.