Occupy Wall Street

[Abrupt]

Personally I am more frightened with facts such as Obama being an admitted associate and admirer of known terrorists, his use of American resources and coin to launch assaults upon Americans while advocating superior rights to Foreign nationals than American citizens receive, his attempts at micromanaging of  American companies and federal departments (really now, NASA having its primary purpose changed to "investigating ways to make Muslim nations feel good about themselves" ... )

What are the reference sources for these alleged "facts"?  For instance, I have been unable to discern that NASA's primary purpose changed to "investigating ways to make Muslim nations feel good about themselves" from database searches of mission directorates, etc..

Hear it from Charles Bolden himself doing an interview on Al Jazeera:  http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/07/nasa-chief-obama-wanted-me-to-make-muslims-feel-good-about-their-history.html

[Abrupt]

It isn't wall streets greed that got us into this situation.  It is OUR greed.  Our greed has exposed us to risks and unless we can admit that then no movement will ever accomplish anything.  Our governments involvement in regulating financial guidelines has exposed us to this risk, under the guise of social justice and fairness. 

This is incorrect; it was and is unregulated derivative instruments, (a multi-trillion dollar 'shadow' banking system), which Wall Street brokerages and wealthy investors took advantage of - directly contributing to the current economic situation.  These irresponsible clowns then begged for and received multi-billion dollar bailouts for being greedy and irresponsible.

There are problems with derivatives and that cannot be denied, but let them die by their own swords and they will learn the lessons that would correct the problems innately via the risk of them -- that is how things should work.  The government bailing them out was the crime here, using their fear instilling catch phrases.  They should have never been bailed out as now things are worse then they ever would have been and the situation in Wall Street is even more precarious and our coffers are empty and our purse strings are tight while the government ponders more ways to loosen them.

[falcon9]

Here it from Charles Bolden himself doing an interview on Al Jazeera:  http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/07/nasa-chief-obama-wanted-me-to-make-muslims-feel-good-about-their-history.html

Yes, I managed to locate one reference after I asked and just before you posted.  However, that reference includes more of a 'wishlist':
"NASA Administrator Charles Bolden created a firestorm after telling Al Jazeera in June 2010 that President Obama told him before he took the job that he wanted him to do three things:

1 - inspire children to learn math and science
2 - expand international relationships and
3 - 'perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science ... and math and engineering.' "


The "perhaps foremost" part is speculative since it assumes a priority and making muslim nations feel good about a few distant ancestors coming up with 'Arabic' numbers is a bit like making Anglo-Saxon descendants feel good about their ancestors contributing to the English language.

[Abrupt]

Here it from Charles Bolden himself doing an interview on Al Jazeera:  http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/07/nasa-chief-obama-wanted-me-to-make-muslims-feel-good-about-their-history.html

Yes, I managed to locate one reference after I asked and just before you posted.  However, that reference includes more of a 'wishlist':
"NASA Administrator Charles Bolden created a firestorm after telling Al Jazeera in June 2010 that President Obama told him before he took the job that he wanted him to do three things:

1 - inspire children to learn math and science
2 - expand international relationships and
3 - 'perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science ... and math and engineering.' "


The "perhaps foremost" part is speculative since it assumes a priority and making muslim nations feel good about a few distant ancestors coming up with 'Arabic' numbers is a bit like making Anglo-Saxon descendants feel good about their ancestors contributing to the English language.

When you consider some of the actions of NASA, such as abandoning the space shuttle, putting forth some of their 'scientists' with claims of discovering new life forms when all they discovered was that they didn't even apply the most basic requirements of science in their evaluations, you can only imagine that they have abandoned their former purpose and are now in pursuit of something other than what they are about.

[falcon9]

When you consider some of the actions of NASA, such as abandoning the space shuttle ...

There are more cost-effective launch systems than the 'flying brick'.

 

... putting forth some of their 'scientists' with claims of discovering new life forms when all they discovered was that they didn't even apply the most basic requirements of science in their evaluations ...

Are you referring to the bacteria that eats arsenic?
 

... you can only imagine that they have abandoned their former purpose and are now in pursuit of something other than what they are about.
 

NASA's mission directorate still lists primary space missions:  http://www.nasa.gov/missions/future/index.html

[samrhett2]

So back to Occupy Wallstreet.  I just don't understand what they want.

Let's say we took all of the money and property away from everyone and then we evenly divided it among all Americans.  (As near as I can tell, their beef is that some have more than others and therefore they wield more power.)  So lets even everyone out.

Now, 12 months down the road some people would be broke and penniless and some people would have doubled or quadrupled their share.  Now what?  Do we take it away from those who were responsible with their share and give it to those who were not?

Some people make money through luck but most make it through hard work.  I just don't see how you can redistribute wealth just because some people want more. 

Maybe I just don't understand what they want, but I think in a nutshell they just want some of what other people have without having to get it themselves.

[Abrupt]

So back to Occupy Wallstreet.  I just don't understand what they want.

Let's say we took all of the money and property away from everyone and then we evenly divided it among all Americans.  (As near as I can tell, their beef is that some have more than others and therefore they wield more power.)  So lets even everyone out.

Now, 12 months down the road some people would be broke and penniless and some people would have doubled or quadrupled their share.  Now what?  Do we take it away from those who were responsible with their share and give it to those who were not?

Some people make money through luck but most make it through hard work.  I just don't see how you can redistribute wealth just because some people want more. 

Maybe I just don't understand what they want, but I think in a nutshell they just want some of what other people have without having to get it themselves.

I completely agree with you on this.  I think that is why some of them also push for sustained hand outs in addition to a pure distribution, because they know they would trick off whatever they could wrest directly.

[falcon9]

So back to Occupy Wallstreet.  I just don't understand what they want. /quote]


I'm not sure what the objectives are either.

Let's say we took all of the money and property away from everyone and then we evenly divided it among all Americans.  (As near as I can tell, their beef is that some have more than others and therefore they wield more power.)  So lets even everyone out.

I've seen calculations where, if all the money & property in the U.S. were divided between the adults there, it would come out to around $25,000, (these numbers vary between $5,000 and $50,000, depending upon valuations of property).  So, everyone wouldn't be "rich" under such 'socialism'.

Now, 12 months down the road some people would be broke and penniless and some people would have doubled or quadrupled their share.  Now what?  Do we take it away from those who were responsible with their share and give it to those who were not?

Some people make money through luck but most make it through hard work.  I just don't see how you can redistribute wealth just because some people want more. 

Maybe I just don't understand what they want, but I think in a nutshell they just want some of what other people have without having to get it themselves.

It looks like fear and desparation are the usual suspects.

[falcon9]

So back to Occupy Wallstreet.  I just don't understand what they want.

Let's say we took all of the money and property away from everyone and then we evenly divided it among all Americans.  (As near as I can tell, their beef is that some have more than others and therefore they wield more power.)  So lets even everyone out.

Now, 12 months down the road some people would be broke and penniless and some people would have doubled or quadrupled their share.  Now what?  Do we take it away from those who were responsible with their share and give it to those who were not?

Some people make money through luck but most make it through hard work.  I just don't see how you can redistribute wealth just because some people want more. 

Maybe I just don't understand what they want, but I think in a nutshell they just want some of what other people have without having to get it themselves.

I completely agree with you on this.  I think that is why some of them also push for sustained hand outs in addition to a pure distribution, because they know they would trick off whatever they could wrest directly.

You mean like Wall Street bailouts?

[Abrupt]

So back to Occupy Wallstreet.  I just don't understand what they want.

Let's say we took all of the money and property away from everyone and then we evenly divided it among all Americans.  (As near as I can tell, their beef is that some have more than others and therefore they wield more power.)  So lets even everyone out.

Now, 12 months down the road some people would be broke and penniless and some people would have doubled or quadrupled their share.  Now what?  Do we take it away from those who were responsible with their share and give it to those who were not?

Some people make money through luck but most make it through hard work.  I just don't see how you can redistribute wealth just because some people want more. 

Maybe I just don't understand what they want, but I think in a nutshell they just want some of what other people have without having to get it themselves.

I completely agree with you on this.  I think that is why some of them also push for sustained hand outs in addition to a pure distribution, because they know they would trick off whatever they could wrest directly.

You mean like Wall Street bailouts?

Yes.

[falcon9]

I think that is why some of them also push for sustained hand outs in addition to a pure distribution, because they know they would trick off whatever they could wrest directly.

You mean like Wall Street bailouts?
[/quote]


Yes. [/quote]


Seems asymetrical then.  I'm for a more symetrical variations; no one gets bailouts.

[Abrupt]

I think that is why some of them also push for sustained hand outs in addition to a pure distribution, because they know they would trick off whatever they could wrest directly.

You mean like Wall Street bailouts?

Yes. [/quote]


Seems asymetrical then.  I'm for a more symetrical variations; no one gets bailouts.
[/quote]

I too am for no bailouts, where did you think I supported any?

[falcon9]

I too am for no bailouts, where did you think I supported any?

I'm not sure ... it may have been a vague implication of your republican comments.

[Falconer02]

So back to Occupy Wallstreet.  I just don't understand what they want.

http://occupywallst.org/about/

There a many more reasons that come from each individuals story. This is the primary focus of it.

Some people make money through luck but most make it through hard work.

You forgot deliberately cheating the system and screwing people over.

I just don't see how you can redistribute wealth just because some people want more.  

This is an interesting article a friend shared with me over a month ago that I recommend you read-

The impetus behind the Occupy Wall Street movement - a vague sense that the rich are getting ever richer while everyone else suffers - was confirmed by a recent report from the Social Security Administration showing that while total employment and average wages remained stagnant, the number of people earning $1 million or more grew by 18% from 2009 to 2010.  Those figures give real substance to the "We are the 99%" slogan, yet Republicans continue to insist, despite all evidence to the contrary, that if anything those "job creators" deserve an even greater share of our national income.  The Tea Party, meanwhile, has launched its own "53%" movement, inexplicably rallying the working class to the defense of the wealthy.  The one group rarely heard from in this rancorous debate is the 1%, whose incomes and taxes are its focus.  I am one of them, and here is my perspective, which may surprise you.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/21/1028500/-A-Voice-From-the-1

[marz32]

I am for it, Bank of America bought Countrywide who did thousands if not millions of faulty loans to people who should have not got them. Now Bank of America is using government funds to bail them out of what they caused, and they are treating their existing customers like crap.