[BartSimpson]

Thanos Thanos:

Well, that was kind of mean.

In fairness, I've + repped you more than Zip lately.

[Thanos]

Yeah but I want to win.

[Gunnair]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Let me know when the occupation has given up the 1% vs the 99% mantra in favor of focusing their ire on the handful of shitheads who caused this. Oh, and also point out when they also begin to preach some personal responsibility to live within your means instead of owning a Hummer, a quad, a big house, and the yearly vacation down south because interest rates were so damned low.

bootlegga bootlegga:

Rex's 'Occupy Hollywood' is nothing more than a red herring and anyone with a brain knows that.

Hey, thanks for the snotty reply. Guess it goes downhill from here.

Keep telling yourself that. Boots. Anyone with a brain also would not buy into such a simplistic mantra that the Canadian OWS crowd seeks to perpetuate, then change then r-eperpetuate on a day by day basis depending on which speaker wrestles the mic away.

bootlegga bootlegga:

The point behind Occupy Wall Street, you know, where this whole movement started, was to mainly highlight how Wall Street screwed over the rest of us with their recklessness (not unlike 1929 I might add).

Apparently where the movement began is not where the movement remained, especially in Canada.

Bootlegga Bootlegga:

As for people living outside their means, that's another red herring. It has really nothing to do with the top 1% gaming the system and paying as little taxes as they can AND getting "too big to fail" bailouts when they make bad financial decisions.

Yeah but it has a lot to do with how many people have got to where they have financially. Blaming everything on the fat cats and taking no personal responsibility for the decision they made is another red herring in this movement you've seem to have bought.

Bootlegga Bootlegga:

You might have a point if the government got into the business of bailing average people out of their poor financial planning (like using home equity to finance vacations and expensive toys), but to date, no government (or company) that I know of has done so. Instead, they let the financial sector move swiftly to re-possess the property of those who tried to keep up with the Joneses. Meanwhile, those same huge financial companies that took out the rough equivalent of home equity loans to chase huge profits (usually on bad debt) got big checks from the government to keep them solvent.

Yep, there are issues there to be sorted out. The bailouts were a travesty and yet, the CPC pulled a victory out of it, so the people's ire didn't amount to much. They had their chance to let the government know that the financial course they've taken, wrt bailing out bad companies and spending billions, was absolutley unnacceptable, and yet...

So instead of dealing with it democratically, they set up tent cities in public spaces that turn into hives of drug use, bongo playing, and sitting.

Brilliant.

I'd love to know how many of those people voted in the last election.

[Richard]

Gunnair Gunnair:

I'd love to know how many of those people voted in the last election.

Most of the protesters are sheeple and just followed the crowd. Perhaps if someone organized a party....I meant protest during an election they may vote. That is if they were told who to vote for.

[bootlegga]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Let me know when the occupation has given up the 1% vs the 99% mantra in favor of focusing their ire on the handful of shitheads who caused this. Oh, and also point out when they also begin to preach some personal responsibility to live within your means instead of owning a Hummer, a quad, a big house, and the yearly vacation down south because interest rates were so damned low.

bootlegga bootlegga:

Rex's 'Occupy Hollywood' is nothing more than a red herring and anyone with a brain knows that.

Hey, thanks for the snotty reply. Guess it goes downhill from here.

Keep telling yourself that. Boots. Anyone with a brain also would not buy into such a simplistic mantra that the Canadian OWS crowd seeks to perpetuate, then change then r-eperpetuate on a day by day basis depending on which speaker wrestles the mic away.

I was going for sarcastic more than snotty, guess I should have used an emoticon.

As far as OWS goes, while I agree with the sentiment behind the original group in NYC (bringing attention to those who screwed up the global economy), I don't agree with the tactic of becoming squatters in downtown parks. I don't think it accomplishes much of anything. I'll be honest that I don't know of a more effective tactic, but becoming squatters hasn't changed things one bit.

Gunnair Gunnair:

bootlegga bootlegga:

The point behind Occupy Wall Street, you know, where this whole movement started, was to mainly highlight how Wall Street screwed over the rest of us with their recklessness (not unlike 1929 I might add).

Apparently where the movement began is not where the movement remained, especially in Canada.

As I said, becoming squatters hasn't really changed anything, other than getting them some press. I wish they had a more effective tactic than that - however, the OWS group are right about one thing, all the power seems to reside in the 1%.

Gunnair Gunnair:

Bootlegga Bootlegga:

As for people living outside their means, that's another red herring. It has really nothing to do with the top 1% gaming the system and paying as little taxes as they can AND getting "too big to fail" bailouts when they make bad financial decisions.

Yeah but it has a lot to do with how many people have got to where they have financially. Blaming everything on the fat cats and taking no personal responsibility for the decision they made is another red herring in this movement you've seem to have bought.

I'm all for taking responsibility for one's financial blunders.

But at the same time, I never got a bailout after 9/11 screwed up my career path, or when the dotcom bubble dropped my RRSPs by 20%. Yet, then as now, corporations got tax breaks, loans and bailouts while the little guy took it in the ass.

It's time to end the corporate welfare - but it seems no matter who's in office when the shoe drops, the only guy who gets the shaft is the little guy. Corporations (and their executives), OTOH make out like bandits and then retire in the Caymans.

Gunnair Gunnair:

Bootlegga Bootlegga:

You might have a point if the government got into the business of bailing average people out of their poor financial planning (like using home equity to finance vacations and expensive toys), but to date, no government (or company) that I know of has done so. Instead, they let the financial sector move swiftly to re-possess the property of those who tried to keep up with the Joneses. Meanwhile, those same huge financial companies that took out the rough equivalent of home equity loans to chase huge profits (usually on bad debt) got big checks from the government to keep them solvent.

Yep, there are issues there to be sorted out. The bailouts were a travesty and yet, the CPC pulled a victory out of it, so the people's ire didn't amount to much. They had their chance to let the government know that the financial course they've taken, wrt bailing out bad companies and spending billions, was absolutley unnacceptable, and yet...

So instead of dealing with it democratically, they set up tent cities in public spaces that turn into hives of drug use, bongo playing, and sitting.

Brilliant.

I'd love to know how many of those people voted in the last election.

Sadly, it doesn't really matter how people voted in the last election. Unless the NDP someday forms a majority government (shudder), it'll just shift back and forth between the Liberals and Conservatives, and both of them are in the pockets of big business and don't really care about the average Canadian.

edited for foramtting...

[andyt]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Sadly, it doesn't really matter how people voted in the last election. Unless the NDP someday forms a majority government (shudder), it'll just shift back and forth between the Liberals and Conservatives, and both of them are in the pockets of big business and don't really care about the average Canadian.

And yet you say shudder if the NDP gets in. Corporations would cause huge trouble if you tried to take away their goodies. So either you go thru a period of trouble until they adjust to the new way or you're always going to be stuck with tithing to the fat cats. I'm not sure it can be any different in a capitalist system - the best we would seem to manage is how the Scandinavian countries do it. At least it would be a step in the right direction.

[Scape]

[andyt]

Scape Scape:

8O

Anyway to enlarge that? Hard to make out.

Also, family income hides the fact that women entered the labor force in every increasing numbers in the 1980's. The only way families can now make a go of it is with both parents working. Family income would have been much less if it was still the way of the 50's and 60's with dad being the sole breadwinner.

[bootlegga]

andyt andyt:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Sadly, it doesn't really matter how people voted in the last election. Unless the NDP someday forms a majority government (shudder), it'll just shift back and forth between the Liberals and Conservatives, and both of them are in the pockets of big business and don't really care about the average Canadian.

And yet you say shudder if the NDP gets in. Corporations would cause huge trouble if you tried to take away their goodies. So either you go thru a period of trouble until they adjust to the new way or you're always going to be stuck with tithing to the fat cats. I'm not sure it can be any different in a capitalist system - the best we would seem to manage is how the Scandinavian countries do it. At least it would be a step in the right direction.

Personally, all three major parties do somethings I like - I generally like the Conservatives POV on defence, but hate most of the rest of their platform, while the Liberals usually offer a nice middle of the road platform, but I hate their defence policy.

While the NDP might (and I have to emphasize MIGHT) not kowtow to companies vis-a-vis corporate welfare, the rest of their policies are too far left for me to find common ground. So while they might do one thing I like, the rest of their platform is anatheama to me.

[andyt]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Personally, all three major parties do somethings I like - I generally like the Conservatives POV on defence, but hate most of the rest of their platform, while the Liberals usually offer a nice middle of the road platform, but I hate their defence policy.

While the NDP might (and I have to emphasize MIGHT) not kowtow to companies vis-a-vis corporate welfare, the rest of their policies are too far left for me to find common ground. So while they might do one thing I like, the rest of their platform is anatheama to me.

I even like some of the economic ideas of the conservatives. And their stand on immigration, compared to the other parties. So it comes down to what you see as the overarching problem. I think economic path we're going down will ruin this country - morally and probably also financially (ie 2008 style) if we keep giving more power to the corporations and 1 percenters. But to reverse that as I say, would take some trouble and pain, and if the NDP is the only option to do it, then I would go with them, even as I grind my teeth for some of their pc crap. It's a matter of balance. Not too far right or left. I think we've swung too far right at the moment.

[Scape]

http://www.thestand.org/wp-content/uplo ... -chart.jpg

[andyt]

I'm surprised. It shows the bottom 20% still gaining by 11%. I've always read they lost about 15%, adjusted for inflation. Oh, but then this is family income.