Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I think some people are getting confused in thinking that the protesters want the wealthy to be taxed more. That's not it. They actually want them to make less money, and then distribute that income more evenly across to all the workers.

..It's not Socialism though.

Yeah, the kind of socialism that made this country great. You know, the good ole' days where America had a middle class that was growing and prospering rather than one that was disintegrating. The America where people felt that their kids would be better off than they are. The land of actual opportunity. The land that did great things. The land that innovated, educated and flourished like no other. The land that lead the world in industry and technology and innovation. But that was socialism so it must have been really bad. Who'd want any such thing?

Edited October 12, 2011 by Mr. Big Dog

[Leatherneck 693]

I think some people are getting confused in thinking that the protesters want the wealthy to be taxed more. That's not it. They actually want them to make less money, and then distribute that income more evenly across to all the workers.

..It's not Socialism though.

And how do you propose they make less money? Why bother, just make it illegal to make more than a certain amount.

But I guess it is more fun to allow them to make it, then take it.

[dalegg 143]

And how do you propose they make less money? Why bother, just make it illegal to make more than a certain amount.

But I guess it is more fun to allow them to make it, then take it.

Well, them making less money is maybe not the correct verbage. They want the CEOs to take less of the money (profits) and allow the worker bees to take more. I am guessing that since they are marching on wall street that they want the shareholders to take less of the profits too.

Their demands aren't much...they just want a completely different financial system than the one we have now.

[mawilson 2,133]

And how do you propose they make less money?

They could come up with a new law that says (for example) that the highest salary cannot exceed X times the lowest salary of any worker, where X is 100 or 50 or whatever they deem reasonable.

So it's still unlimited, but if a high level executive gets $5,000,000 per year, everyone else should get at least $50,000 (say).

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I think the wage inequality growth in and of itself, should not be dealt with. However, it is clearly a symptom of a deeper economic problem that threatens future generations.

[Leatherneck 693]

Well, them making less money is maybe not the correct verbage. They want the CEOs to take less of the money (profits) and allow the worker bees to take more. I am guessing that since they are marching on wall street that they want the shareholders to take less of the profits too.

Their demands aren't much...they just want a completely different financial system than the one we have now.

Ok, but all of that really cuts against the grain of liberty and freedom and the right to his slice of "pursuit of happiness." In this country, no one keeps another as a "worker bee," people are allowed to move in and out of social and income brackets, at will. Based on the desire to achieve more professional and financially.

To covet anothers property is just wrong, regardless how much more someone else has.

What financial system would that be?

Edited October 12, 2011 by Leatherneck

[Leatherneck 693]

They could come up with a new law that says (for example) that the highest salary cannot exceed X times the lowest salary of any worker, where X is 100 or 50 or whatever they deem reasonable.

So it's still unlimited, but if a high level executive gets $5,000,000 per year, everyone else should get at least $50,000 (say).

Just doesn't sound good...

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Ok, but all of that really cuts against the grain of liberty and freedom and the right to his slice of "pursuit of happiness." In this country, no one keeps another as a "worker bee," people are allowed to move in and out of social and income brackets, at will. Based on the desire to achieve more professional and financially.

To covet anothers property is just wrong, regardless how much more someone else has.

What financial system would that be?

Do you support the right to collective bargaining?

[Leatherneck 693]

Do you support the right to collective bargaining?

Unions are about force, but in the private sector, if employees want to do that, fine. But public sector, nope.

I'm also for right-to-work, so go figure.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Unions are about force, but in the private sector, if employees want to do that, fine. But public sector, nope.

I'm also for right-to-work, so go figure.

Unions aren't about force. It's about giving employees negotiating power. You need police, fire and teachers unions (public) because they're the only gig in town. And all they can do is strike. Unions were an integral part of building the Middle Class and the weakening of the unions over the last few decades coincides with stagnant wages.

[Leatherneck 693]

Unions aren't about force. It's about giving employees negotiating power. You need police, fire and teachers unions (public) because they're the only gig in town. And all they can do is strike. Unions were an integral part of building the Middle Class and the weakening of the unions over the last few decades coincides with stagnant wages.

Unions are about force, forcing those that want no part of the union to join if they are voted in. You join or quite. How is that not forcing you to make a decision you would not otherwise have to make? And no, you do not need public sector unions. How on earth did we survive without unionized public employees?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Unions are about force, forcing those that want no part of the union to join if they are voted in. You join or quite. How is that not forcing you to make a decision you would not otherwise have to make? And no, you do not need public sector unions. How on earth did we survive without unionized public employees?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Unions are about force, forcing those that want no part of the union to join if they are voted in. You join or quite. How is that not forcing you to make a decision you would not otherwise have to make? And no, you do not need public sector unions. How on earth did we survive without unionized public employees?

If you regard employment as voluntary along with whatever special conditions that are encompassed by that contract then union membership is not any different.

[dalegg 143]

Ok, but all of that really cuts against the grain of liberty and freedom and the right to his slice of "pursuit of happiness." In this country, no one keeps another as a "worker bee," people are allowed to move in and out of social and income brackets, at will. Based on the desire to achieve more professional and financially.

To covet anothers property is just wrong, regardless how much more someone else has.

What financial system would that be?

Of course it does. A system that dictates how high a private company can pay specific employees and puts the stockholders in the back seat is something that would be unrecognizable to me and I wouldn't know what to call it.

[Leatherneck 693]

Of course it does. A system that dictates how high a private company can pay specific employees and puts the stockholders in the back seat is something that would be unrecognizable to me and I wouldn't know what to call it.

We both would not know what to call it.

By the way, I use to live in Garden Grove, off of Brookhurst & Stanton, near the 7-11 on the corner. Those were the days when I was so broke, I did not have a pot to pee in nor a window to throw it out of. I use to love some of those Korean and Vietnamese restaurants on Garden Grove Blvd.