What does Occupy Wall Street protests, going on all over world, mean to you ?

[GreenNnice]

What can singles do to support this movement that is out there for the betterment of society. Or, is it betterment. More and more, the class distinction of rich and poor is changing. There are more millionaires than ever before, and, consequently, more poverty than ever before.

OWS wants things like :

Living conditions good for all.

Work opportunities fair for all.

Forgiveness of student, personal and, home mortgage debts /loans

Minimum wage of $20 an hour .

Healthcare for all
--------

Let's not focus on the politics, like what we think is best way for America to get jobless rate below 9%, etc., but let us focus as singles on what WE WOULD DO / CAN DO NOW to help this movement BECOME like God would want it to be .

Maybe it already is what God wants, as YOU are on the front lines now, you ARE a someone in one of the 250 USA cities protesting or, in Sydney, London, Paris, Rome, and other world cities.

Please, by all means, explain this '99%' movement.

In other words, let's set up our own Christian OWS .

 

[Liamson]

Lets stop pretending that its anything but covetousness and class warfare.

The have nots and the want mores pitch a tent at the financial centre of the US and beg.


The United States is still the richest country in the world. These protest are nothing more than entitlement beggers staging the necessary implacements before the London style riots occur here in the US.

So what if I don't have free dental, retirement at 50 and a minimum wage of $20 an hour. I'm still better off as an American, where the opportunity exist to change everything, than I would be had I been born in China or sub-saharan Africa or Eastern Europe or Venezuala.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

What can singles do to support this movement that is out there for the betterment of society. Or, is it betterment. More and more, the class distinction of rich and poor is changing. There are more millionaires than ever before, and, consequently, more poverty than ever before.

OWS wants things like :

Living conditions good for all.

Work opportunities fair for all.

Forgiveness of student, personal and, home mortgage debts /loans

Minimum wage of $20 an hour .

Healthcare for all
--------

Let's not focus on the politics, like what we think is best way for America to get jobless rate below 9%, etc., but let us focus as singles on what WE WOULD DO / CAN DO NOW to help this movement BECOME like God would want it to be .

Maybe it already is what God wants, as YOU are on the front lines now, you ARE a someone in one of the 250 USA cities protesting or, in Sydney, London, Paris, Rome, and other world cities.

Please, by all means, explain this '99%' movement.

In other words, let's set up our own Christian OWS .

OWS has not issued any statements, to my knowledge, about any of the above.

Decent living conditions: yes, I think that's something 99% of the people would agree is something to strive for.

Fair working opportunities? Again, I don't think you could find anyone who would say, no, certain people shouldn't be allowed to work for unfair reasons. We may not agree on what is "fair," but I think the statement "jobs opportunities should be fair" is pretty much noncontroversial.

As for forgiveness of various debts, no, I have not heard anyone in any of the "occupy" movements saying anything about that. I think a lot of the problem is unfair lending policies, and draconian repayment policies. But to say, "Hey, a person should be able to borrow whatever they want, and then never pay it back..." that's just stupid, and even a commie pinko like me knows that.

And a lot of the 99% people are against any sort of minimum wage. A lot of them think that minimum wages actually encourage businesses to hire people at those minimum wages, since industrialized countries that don't have minimum wages actually tend to have higher wages than the US. Personally, I'd like to see not a minimum wage, but a maximum multiplier: no company should be allowed to pay its highest CEO or other top-paid EE more than, say, 100 times as much as its lowest-paid FTE. So, if the CEO wants to make 10 million a year, fine, you gotta give the janitor $100,000 a year, or however that works for hourly. Including bonuses in both incomes.

But either way, nothing about wages has come out in the OWS stuff. Neither has healthcare.

So where are you getting your information?

 

[Ritter]

I hate to be "that guy" but.

There are more millionaires than ever before, and, consequently, more poverty than ever before.

How is one the direct consequence of another? How are we even defining the word "poor"?

OWS wants things like :

Living conditions good for all.

Ambiguous

Work opportunities fair for all.

Explain

Forgiveness of student, personal and, home mortgage debts /loans

And wreck the world banking system in the process leaving us all poor. Woot.

Minimum wage of $20 an hour.

Causing higher unemployment.

Healthcare for all

Russia has those laws on the books. Ask the average citizen how that's been working out.
--------

Let's not focus on the politics, like what we think is best way for America to get jobless rate below 9%, etc., but let us focus as singles on what WE WOULD DO / CAN DO NOW to help this movement BECOME like God would want it to be.

A muddled statement. You are effectively calling people to political activism on behalf of God, but telling them not to focus on politics.

Maybe it already is what God wants, as YOU are on the front lines now

Please, by all means, explain this '99%' movement.

I would like the same thing explained.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

Lets stop pretending that its anything but covetousness and class warfare.

The have nots and the want mores pitch a tent at the financial centre of the US and beg.

Since a lot of the people protesting are ''haves'' and include wealthy people who actually stand to lose, personally and in the short-term, from such a restructuring, but recognize that it is the just thing to do, the Christian thing to do, and in fact, for long-term economical growth, the wisest thing to do, it seems to me that you are the one pretending if you think it's about covetousness, class warfare, or begging.

The United States is still the richest country in the world. These protest are nothing more than entitlement beggers staging the necessary implacements before the London style riots occur here in the US.

One of the. Not THE richest, but yes, one of the richest, and, sadly, falling fast. And guess what? OWS is, basically, the London-style riots occurring here in the US. I'm not thrilled about what's going on in London or in Greece. I think the people are naive if they think they can continue without cuts to the programs they have. I support that the people in the US are responding in a non-violent way, keeping disruptions to a minimum. From all reports, what violence there is is being initiated by the police, who are supposed to protect the people, not harm them. The people are resisting, but doing so peacefully, and the only people who have been threatened so far have been the protesters. No CEOs in suits have been threatened, or have been made to feel personally fearful at all. So when comparing the two types of riots, Americans are behaving a lot better than I would have given them credit for, especially in New York.

I'm still better off as an American, where the opportunity exist to change everything, than I would be had I been born in China or sub-saharan Africa or Eastern Europe or Venezuala.

Really? Is that your yard stick? As long as I'm not starving to death, as long as my children are dying of poor healthcare rather than malnutrition, as long as women aren't being raped until they're at least 13 or 14, then everything's fine.

Is that REALLY what you mean?

Do you honestly believe that a cup of rice a day and the right not to be beaten to a pulp more than once or twice a day is the most any of us should ever hope for, and any more than that we should just thank our God for our mere existence, and never demand more from those who take it?

I'm not sure that is the kind of existence our God wants for us. I can't think of any Scripture to back it up off the top of my head, but it just doesn't seem right to me, that Jesus would suffer and die on a cross, for my right not to starve to death?

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

I hate to be "that guy" but.

No you don't

How is one the direct consequence of another? How are we even defining the word "poor"?

Good point.

To answer the first, most economists, even those from different schools, agree that, to some extent, in order for people to have great wealth, other people in the society must have great poverty. You can grow the middle class, or you can grow the upper and lower classes, but you cannot grow the top without growing the bottom. If that makes sense. Not sure I'm explaining it well.

I would like the same thing explained.

The OWS and other Occupy movements are purposely NOT coming up with blanket statements. They wish to continue to represent 99%, or as close to 99% as possible. Coming up with any blanket statement is going to alienate people, which is exactly what they don't want to do. I don't think it's fair for you or me or anyone to accuse them of being wishy-washy or amorphous, when they are saying right out front, "We do not represent the interests of any one particular group or political party or concern, we represent the 99%." As soon as they come up with a statement, they will no longer be 99%. IF and WHEN that happens, then we can inspect the statement, examine it for logical fallacies, test it against economic theories, and in these chat rooms, hold it up to the LIGHT and see if it shines, know what I mean? Until then, I think we need to cut them some slack.

And, by the way, all of the statements GreenNNice had are NOT official statements of OWS. I don't know where he came up with them.

 

[Liamson]

Since a lot of the people protesting are ''haves'' and include wealthy people who actually stand to lose, personally and in the short-term, from such a restructuring, but recognize that it is the just thing to do, the Christian thing to do, and in fact, for long-term economical growth, the wisest thing to do, it seems to me that you are the one pretending if you think it's about covetousness, class warfare, or begging.



One of the. Not THE richest, but yes, one of the richest, and, sadly, falling fast. And guess what? OWS is, basically, the London-style riots occurring here in the US. I'm not thrilled about what's going on in London or in Greece. I think the people are naive if they think they can continue without cuts to the programs they have. I support that the people in the US are responding in a non-violent way, keeping disruptions to a minimum. From all reports, what violence there is is being initiated by the police, who are supposed to protect the people, not harm them. The people are resisting, but doing so peacefully, and the only people who have been threatened so far have been the protesters. No CEOs in suits have been threatened, or have been made to feel personally fearful at all. So when comparing the two types of riots, Americans are behaving a lot better than I would have given them credit for, especially in New York.



Really? Is that your yard stick? As long as I'm not starving to death, as long as my children are dying of poor healthcare rather than malnutrition, as long as women aren't being raped until they're at least 13 or 14, then everything's fine.

Is that REALLY what you mean?

Do you honestly believe that a cup of rice a day and the right not to be beaten to a pulp more than once or twice a day is the most any of us should ever hope for, and any more than that we should just thank our God for our mere existence, and never demand more from those who take it?

I'm not sure that is the kind of existence our God wants for us. I can't think of any Scripture to back it up off the top of my head, but it just doesn't seem right to me, that Jesus would suffer and die on a cross, for my right not to starve to death?

When you say "really" and then proceed to reinterpret my implication to suit your inferences, you show just how little you know.

And yes, the US is THE Richest Nation in the world, not just "one of."

Since when is it economically viable to forcefully redistribute wealth?

Christianity is not a tyrannical system of monetary redistribution to suit the needs of the people who scream the loudest. Look elsewhere in the world where such a thing has been done before. The first french revolution, Leninist Russia, Cambodia, North Korea etc.

The framework of the Constitution of the United States allows for the rights of its citizens to to freely seek for themselves life liberty and the pursuit of prosperity. Not that these ideas should be withheld from us, nor that a minimum luxury of such things should be imposed upon us but, that we may find them of our own enterprise.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

When you say "really" and then proceed to reinterpret my implication to suit your inferences, you show just how little you know.

No, my misinterpretation of your statement has nothing to do with my knowledge of facts. If I misunderstood what you meant, you were not clear enough. At worst, I did not try hard enough to understand you; but you said that you were better of as an American than as someone from China or sub-saharan Africa. I don't think it's a stretch to ask why you would set the standards as two of the poorest areas on the planet.

And yes, the US is THE Richest Nation in the world, not just "one of."

I would like to see s reference for this. Most current measures put us in the top 5 or so, but not at #1. Of course, it depends on how one defines wealth. If you define wealth as how wealthy the richest 10 people are, then we might be #1. (Although I think we'd still come in 2nd to some Arab country.)

Since when is it economically viable to forcefully redistribute wealth?

Well, you clearly have not studied economics. There are several schools of thought on this. The Keynsian model shows, mathematically, that when wealth is redistributed, such as is done in most European countries, and to a lesser extent in the US and in other countries, the outcome works out better for everyone. An example is education. When the public is educated at the public's expense, the work pool is stronger, and therefore better, and more productive. The result is higher productivity, across the board, which results in more income for everyone, a slightly higher standard of living for everyone -- not significantly higher for anyone, but a little bit better for everyone. It's a small price to pay for a higher standard of living. The same mathematical model can be used for health care, living conditions, etc. Social programs for the poor actually improve the standard of living all the way up. You might think of it as "trickle up" theory. It has been proven to work, time and time again, throughout history, whereas other economic models, while they look good on paper, have failed in practice.

The trick is finding the right balance. This can be done to an extreme, as has been done in communist countries. The reason communism has failed is not because of its economic structures, but because of its political structures. Socialism must not be forced, but must be part of a democratically-elected government. That's why in countries like Sweden, Denmark, etc., the people praise the economic system, even though the tax structure is even more strict than it ever was in the Soviet Union. Because the government was not transparent in the Soviet Union, and it is in a democracy (or at least moreso than in communism).

Christianity is not a tyrannical system of monetary redistribution to suit the needs of the people who scream the loudest. Look elsewhere in the world where such a thing has been done before. The first french revolution, Leninist Russia, Cambodia, North Korea etc.

Of course not. Screaming is not the basis of who should get money. Need is. That is according to the Bible. It is also according to proper social-economic principles.

The framework of the Constitution of the United States allows for the rights of its citizens to to freely seek for themselves life liberty and the pursuit of prosperity. Not that these ideas should be withheld from us, nor that a minimum luxury of such things should be imposed upon us but, that we may find them of our own enterprise.

So, are you against all forms of taxation? If not, what do you think is a fair use of tax dollars? Do you think tax dollars should go up or down or stay the same as they are? If you think they should stay the same or go down, what programs that are currently funded do you think should be cut? Why?

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

The framework of the Constitution of the United States allows for the rights of its citizens to to freely seek for themselves life liberty and the pursuit of prosperity.

I missed this on the first read-through:

The sentence you're referring to is actually in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, and it's "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of HAPPINESS," though the prosperity bit (sometimes "property") was an earlier version, and is still found in earlier writings, primarily in England and I think is still in some of the individual states' constitutions. Jefferson, being a good commie, didn't want personal property to be highlighted like that, so he changed it.

 

[Jullianna]

Don't stop being "that guy", Ritter (OR Liamson). Questions are good. I still have some that I need to research before I post. I would particularly like to know who is underwriting this campaign.

 

[tribesman]

What does Occupy Wall Street protests, going on all over world, mean to you ?

I think it's good that bankers will feel that they too are mortal beings. Hopefully this will get really big and kick some ***, where applicable.

 

[GreenNnice]

Don't stop being "that guy", Ritter (OR Liamson). Questions are good. I still have some that I need to research before I post. I would particularly like to know who is underwriting this campaign.

Exactly, julieannie, this is a forum for thoughts and proposed actions, just, as much as can be done, DON'T belittle someone for their take on something, including , of course, this subject of the Christian response to Occupy Wall Street.
---
Liam, you're passionate responses to O.W.S. are good.
----
Ritt, your responses too.

For both of you, and, tribe, I encourage you to imaginé Jesus walking in Zucotti Park in NYC, listening to the 'wants' of O.W.S. and then speaking His thoughts.

What would Jesus want, regarding O.W.S. ?
What would Jesus do ?
What would Jesus say to the crowds of O.W.S, like those gathered around Him at Mary Magdalene, a prostitute?
---------
That list of 'wants' includes the word, 'like' because I am making a unconfirmed list. But...

I do follow newspaper O.W.S. stories/editorials, I watch tv shows like Meet The Press, and, PBS public tv, and, NPR (National Public Radio). And, that 'want' list is much more fact than fiction, as , sure, as the well-speaking Pearldiva deduced, all those 'wants' are not slot-on agenda of O.W.S.
----
O.W.S. is only growing and growing more, and, I feel that Christian influence is baked into the fabric of the O.W.S. movement (I liked what you said about ''need' is what Jesus would want in socio-economic ideal, Pearldiva ) . I may be wrong on that, but, the Lord leads, and, I know folks in modern society like Michael Moore, filmmaker, are helping and when you are doing this mind of movement with these type of 'progressive' wants I truly feel, like 911, God is trying to get a message to society that things need changed or chaos (rebellion) very, very likely will ensue.

 

[Liamson]

No, my misinterpretation of your statement has nothing to do with my knowledge of facts. If I misunderstood what you meant, you were not clear enough. At worst, I did not try hard enough to understand you; but you said that you were better of as an American than as someone from China or sub-saharan Africa. I don't think it's a stretch to ask why you would set the standards as two of the poorest areas on the planet.



I would like to see s reference for this. Most current measures put us in the top 5 or so, but not at #1. Of course, it depends on how one defines wealth. If you define wealth as how wealthy the richest 10 people are, then we might be #1. (Although I think we'd still come in 2nd to some Arab country.)



Well, you clearly have not studied economics. There are several schools of thought on this. The Keynsian model shows, mathematically, that when wealth is redistributed, such as is done in most European countries, and to a lesser extent in the US and in other countries, the outcome works out better for everyone. An example is education. When the public is educated at the public's expense, the work pool is stronger, and therefore better, and more productive. The result is higher productivity, across the board, which results in more income for everyone, a slightly higher standard of living for everyone -- not significantly higher for anyone, but a little bit better for everyone. It's a small price to pay for a higher standard of living. The same mathematical model can be used for health care, living conditions, etc. Social programs for the poor actually improve the standard of living all the way up. You might think of it as "trickle up" theory. It has been proven to work, time and time again, throughout history, whereas other economic models, while they look good on paper, have failed in practice.

The trick is finding the right balance. This can be done to an extreme, as has been done in communist countries. The reason communism has failed is not because of its economic structures, but because of its political structures. Socialism must not be forced, but must be part of a democratically-elected government. That's why in countries like Sweden, Denmark, etc., the people praise the economic system, even though the tax structure is even more strict than it ever was in the Soviet Union. Because the government was not transparent in the Soviet Union, and it is in a democracy (or at least moreso than in communism).



Of course not. Screaming is not the basis of who should get money. Need is. That is according to the Bible. It is also according to proper social-economic principles.



So, are you against all forms of taxation? If not, what do you think is a fair use of tax dollars? Do you think tax dollars should go up or down or stay the same as they are? If you think they should stay the same or go down, what programs that are currently funded do you think should be cut? Why?

So you see your "proper" socio-economic principals are Keynesian, which is about as fundamentally flawed a system as there has ever been. See: A Giant National Debt for the sake of Liquidity, WW2 emergency taxation still in effect, The Federal Reserve Bank printing money out of thin air to reduce the value of the dollar.

Apparently you are unfamilar with Economics or have no experience in this field. Had you payed attention in class you might have picked up information on Fredrick Hayek.

Having Booms and busts in an economy is not a good thing. Prudent spending, a free market economy, and low taxes enable the highest quality of life for an economy's participants. If Money is good for paying off all debts public and private why wouldn't it be good enough to pay my doctor.

What we need is to stop printing money, spending money as if "shovel ready" stimulus actually did anything, strengthen the dollar, lower the minimum wage, lower tax rates and allow free enterprise to grow.

Redistribution, high taxes, free-healthcare, all strain the free economy, much like adding weight to a car will not make it accelerate faster but will in fact slow it down. Watch what is occuring in the EU with the Euro zone. England wants out, Portugal, Ireland, Greece, Spain and Italy have taken it in the shorts because the system simply does not have a practical application. But it looks good on paper.


As for Sweden, they have one of the Lowest Corporate tax Rates in the world and one of the highest personal tax rates. That means that though they have little unemployment, there is also very little social stratification, savings or entrepreneurial benefits afforded the individual, in spite of living in a welfare state. At least they in part understand that low corporate taxes means less strain the business and a more free economy. I wish the US didn't have the HIGHEST corporate tax rate in the world.


"I'm still better off as an American, where the opportunity exist to change everything, than I would be had I been born in China or sub-saharan Africa or Eastern Europe or Venezuala." -What I said earlier that you missed. I wasn't talking about eating cups of rice or getting beaten or whatever else you thought I was talking about. I was merely stating that we have a democratic system where we can freely choose what form or system of economy that we want.



The Government is not a form of Charity. My taxes are not a tithe offering. It is not a Christian moral obligation to increase taxes for the funding of entitlement programs. Rather it is a Christian obligation to freely give, as individuals, as much as we feel compelled to. That is what makes the United States a free country and not a social democracy or a people's republic.

 

[Liamson]

I missed this on the first read-through:

The sentence you're referring to is actually in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, and it's "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of HAPPINESS," though the prosperity bit (sometimes "property") was an earlier version, and is still found in earlier writings, primarily in England and I think is still in some of the individual states' constitutions. Jefferson, being a good commie, didn't want personal property to be highlighted like that, so he changed it.

Alrighty, I'm not big on Cut and Paste word for word source citing but, I can see the misunderstanding. The Lockean Notion of Sovereignty, and belief in naturally occurring rights was stated first in the Declaration of Independence however these rights were not put into practice until the ratification of the Constitution. See: Bill of Rights.

Let me put it this way. I can say people deserve shoes but, until it becomes a law that all citizens of the United states have a right to free shoes, its really just a complaint. Is there such a right in the Constitution? no. Do people need shoes? for the most part yes. Do people need health care? for the most part yes. Do people need pants? yes. Do people need shelter? yes.

If we granted these things, they would be material rights, not natural rights.

I will do my best to ignore the Jefferson is a Commie thing. Considering Engals and Long-beard still wouldn't invent that crazy idea for almost 100 years.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

So you see your "proper" socio-economic principals are Keynesian,

Yes, I happen to believe that the Keynesian system is the best.

which is about as fundamentally flawed a system as there has ever been.

Few economists would agree with you. Some would say that Keynsian is flawed, and would prefer a system like Hayek promotes, but even they would not agree that Keynsian is "as fundamentally flawed as there has ever been." I think most economists would agree that serfdom from Medieval Europe was far more flawed, and could probably name 3-4 more systems off the top of their head worse than anything we have today, including socialism.

Let's look at your criticisms:

See: A Giant National Debt for the sake of Liquidity

,

Liquidity is not part of Keynsian economics. I have no idea where you got the idea that it was.

WW2 emergency taxation still in effect,

Um, no. Tax rates during and immediately after WW2 were up to 98%. The most recent hike was up to 35%, about which conservatives pitched a royal fit. In case you did as poorly in your math class as you did in economics, 35 does not equal 98.

The Federal Reserve Bank printing money out of thin air to reduce the value of the dollar.

If the Federal Reserve Bank prints money, yes, it reduces the value of the dollar. That is why the FRB does not want to print money willy-nilly. Printing money for no reason is not part of Keynesian economy, and anyone who says otherwise has not done their homework. Again, the printing of money is not part of Keynsian economy.

Apparently you are unfamilar with Economics or have no experience in this field.

This is called "projection" and is actually a topic studied in Psychology. We could delve into that next if you like.

Had you payed attention in class you might have picked up information on Fredrick Hayek.

I am familiar with Mr. Hayek and his economic models. His model is one of many I refer to when I say they look great on paper, but in practice, they just have not worked.

Having Booms and busts in an economy is not a good thing.

It's all a matter of degree. Ups and downs in an economy is not only necessary, it's inevitable. What you want is to have the means to ride those ups and downs. When does an "up" become a "boom"? When does a "down" become a "bust"? I think the Occupy 99% would call a bust what the 1% would call it a ripple. Economists do not have a definition for "boom" or "bust."

Prudent spending, a free market economy, and low taxes enable the highest quality of life for an economy's participants.

In theory. Again, it looks great on paper, but in practice, it just doesn't work that way. We've tried it that way, and it just doesn't play out. Unfortunately, the only thing the free market economy allows is lowest-common-denominator goods. It's rather sad, what that says about human nature, but facts are stubborn things, and that's what they have proven, time and time again.

If Money is good for paying off all debts public and private why wouldn't it be good enough to pay my doctor.

Who says it isn't? Now you're just making things up. Keynsians have never advocated the elimination of money. That's just wacky.

What we need is to stop printing money, spending money as if "shovel ready" stimulus actually did anything, strengthen the dollar, lower the minimum wage, lower tax rates and allow free enterprise to grow.

You're right on a, b, and c. Unfortunately, e, f, and g will weaken the dollar, so your desires are at cross-purposes. If you want to strengthen the dollar, you need to raise taxes, not lower them.

Again, nice idea, on paper.

Redistribution, high taxes, free-healthcare, all strain the free economy, much like adding weight to a car will not make it accelerate faster but will in fact slow it down.

This is an excellent example. There are some things that will weigh down a car, and you need to jetison them. The engine is not one of those things. Education, health care, social programs like that are like an engine. You can dump them, and your economy might take off for a few years, but within a generation it will sputter and die, and you will be left with nothing. Refusing to put money into an economy is like refusing to put gas into your car, arguing that you want to keep it as light as possible. What do you expect the car to run on, unicorn farts?

I have no problem with cutting waste from government. By all means, let's stop this mindless war in the middle east. We do still need to support those who have fought in the past, because not to do so is entirely unjust, but let's not incur any more future costs than we already have. Let's stop corporate welfare. I don't think corporations should be given huge piles of money when we can't even afford to fund schools. Now, I haven't looked at the federal budget closely for several years, so I don't know all the specifics that are spent. That's why I elect people to do that for me. It's their job to see that my tax dollars are spent as efficiently as possible.

It's my job to give them those tax dollars. It's the price I pay for living in a civilized society. And the higher the price tag, the more civilized the society.

It's sad that so many US citizens seem to content to live so uncivilized.

At least they {Swedes} in part understand that low corporate taxes means less strain the business and a more free economy. I wish the US didn't have the HIGHEST corporate tax rate in the world.

You are actually correct here. A better way to put it is, when you get down to it, any corporate tax always gets passed on to the people, either in the form of sales tax or employment.

Enough for now. I'm talking my boy for a walk to enjoy the sunshine.

 

[Matthew]

What does Occupy Wall Street protests, going on all over world, mean to you ?

I think at the core of it this protest, and the similar Occupy London Stock Exchange protest are simply people rebelling against greed, justifiable or not.

In times of economic hardship some people always protest against the wealthy and powerful because right or wrong they have the greatest ability to affect change. Many of these protesters do seek unending state support of their lives while others who work hard, support themselves and contribute to society join in siply from a moral conviction, based in Christian faith or otherwise.

The problem on the outside of these protests, as made clear by the responses to the thread so far is that the nature of it is always misunderstood.
Despite the banner people protest under it's rarely a united view being expressed, but people with a broadly similar objection who stand together to get attention.
This lack of clarity is why these protests often accomplish little but offering inconvinience to those not involved.

I wouldn't engage in any activity I consider unproductive, and while I deeply value the freedom to protest I personally think it's an ineffective way to try and instigate change, only protests in the wake of tragedy are usually effective and bad economic status doesn't qualify.

Watch what is occuring in the EU with the Euro zone. England wants out, Portugal, Ireland, Greece, Spain and Italy have taken it in the shorts because the system simply does not have a practical application. But it looks good on paper.

I'm not clear on what you mean regarding England wanting out, as England is not a part of the Eurozone, and the UK government, in fact all three main political parties support EU membership at this time, as for the citizenry, we have not been asked.

 

[Liamson]

See: The many times over Elected Nigel Farage MEP to the EU parliament. Clearly representative of the people's wishes, he and his other fellow MEPs want out.

Yes England is not in the Eurozone but, financially England is paying hugely to bail out countries that are.

You are absolutely right about the citezenry not being asked. Kind of makes this whole EU thing a bit undemocratic. Hence the call, unanswered, for referendums.

 

[Matthew]

See: The many times over Elected Nigel Farage MEP to the EU parliament. Clearly representative of the people's wishes, he and his other fellow MEPs want out.

Yes England is not in the Eurozone but, financially England is paying hugely to bail out countries that are.

You are absolutely right about the citezenry not being asked. Kind of makes this whole EU thing a bit undemocratic. Hence the call, unanswered, for referendums.

If that was meant to be a link, it isn't.
What I will say is that Nigel Farage does not represent the people's wishes, and it's insane to think any one individual politician or political party ever could.
The UK Independence Party, so Mr Farage and all his colleagues would obviously support withdrawal from the EU, but it's a party with relatively small support in the UK political landscape.

I agree with what you say about England, moreover the UK's suffering due to the Eurozone crisis, but whatever the facts of the case it is wrong to make blanket statements about the wishes of a nations people, when there currently is no unified view on the issue, is there ever in the political world? I think not.

 

[Matthew]

You are absolutely right about the citezenry not being asked. Kind of makes this whole EU thing a bit undemocratic. Hence the call, unanswered, for referendums.

No it's not at all undemocratic, everybody cast their vote knowing the elected government would have the power to say yes or no to a referendum. The power to decide was given to them through a democratic process and we knew that at the time, thus the decision that results is also democratic, if frustrating for those who wanted a different answer.

 

[Liamson]

UKIP Nigel Farage - House of Commons EU referendum debate - Oct 2011 - YouTube


^See Link above^