Footwedge;946522 wrote:I said "for starters"...and then I answered Otrap's concern. I listed 2...there are more. There are plenty more. As for playing the "blogger card"...that's getting a little old, don't you think? There were listed quotes...verbatim"...coming out of the pieholes of these Republican politicians. One does not need to source a "blog". I'm pretty sure that these quotes can be found by googling Reuters or Yahoo. So give it a rest.

You listed 2 by quoting Mr. Blogger. He listed two...after clearly stating there is a "growing chorus." There's an obvious difference, that I would have given serious thought to prior to using him as a source. But then again, I don't use blogs as sources...so I guess I have that going for me.

Footwedge;946522 wrote:And finally, 35% of Republicans believe that there is way too big of a disparity between the 1% and the 99%. A full 66.7% of all Americans agree with the same. Doing the math here, that means that only 1/3 of Americans think the wealth gap is healthy for our society.

Must be all those damn RINO's, eh Fish?

I'm sure there is a blog or two you can post to support these numbers. Even if they are true, so what? All it means is that you are part of the 2/3 of society who pizz away their bitter lives all mad about what someone else has and they don't. I don't give a shit what someone else has...which is probably why I'm so much happier and well adjusted than you.

Here's today's Fun Fact for you people:

Kill all the 1% and take their income...divide it equally amongst the 99%. Guess how much more the average Bolshevik gets per year?

A: About $950.00. Enjoy.

I Wear Pants;946501 wrote:Listen very carefully, because someone is filming, people are yelling, or 15 people rush to help someone who is hurt or fallen is not an excuse to use flash bangs or shoot them with "less than lethal" rounds, or tase them, or hit them, etc. All of which have been done to protesters throughout this shit.

problem is, you, just like the protestors, arent listening. they have been asked to leave, the have been told to leave, they will then be forced to leave. how else are the police supposed to make them leave the area? obviously asking and telling them didnt work. until some escalation of force is used, the protestors werent leaving when ordered. there is nobody to blame but the protestors for being in that position. dont be so naive, those protestors wanted a confrontation. they got it.

Footwedge;946558 wrote:What 2/3 want is a fairer compensation for the work they did. Not the unfair compensation that we have today. Nobody wants something for nothing. They want people to be paid, and the spoils divied up the way it was before the 1980's hit. You know, a period where one could work hard, and then stay above poverty. Not so today. That is an erroneous talking point from scoundrellous pigs like the fatman on the AM dial.

You can't honestly believe this horsecrap can you?

Wonder why Obama supports the OWS? Simple: “Cloward-Piven Strategy”

Footwedge;946522 wrote:....

And finally, 35% of Republicans believe that there is way too big of a disparity between the 1% and the 99%. A full 66.7% of all Americans agree with the same. Doing the math here, that means that only 1/3 of Americans think the wealth gap is healthy for our society.

Must be all those damn RINO's, eh Fish?

You are excluding something very important.

I think most people would say that a concentration of wealth isn't the ideal scenario for an economy.

I don't think that most people would say that it's appropriate for the government to legislate that concentration away.

Footwedge;946531 wrote:Business major...economics major.

You were an economics major? Funny, because you don't read Smith, Locke and "countless others" in these classes, I know because I've actually taken the classes and it's why you're feigned knowledge is so easy to spot. You are a pseudo-intellectual who thinks throwing out a couple of quotes he read somewhere on the internet lends credence to what he's saying, when it's obvious from your posting you don't understand a single thing about what you're talking about. Does such posturing ever work for you, or do you usually run with people who don't know better and so don't recognize your BS? Because your obvious lack of experience and education is easy to spot for people who DO have the qualifications you pretend to have.

I never said Fannie and Freddie were the sole culprits of the housing bubble, but funny how days after I was explaining that mess there were a few published articles posted here nearly verbatim of what I've said. Love how you accuse me of misquoting you and false attributions (which I've never done, as you've never been able to prove that either) then turn around and do the same, so we can add hypocrite to your growing list of inadequacy here.

I don't know if you're more hopeless than ignorant, or the other way around.

gut;946688 wrote:You were an economics major? Funny, because you don't read Smith, Locke and "countless others" in these classes, I know because I've actually taken the classes and it's why you're feigned knowledge is so easy to spot. You are a pseudo-intellectual who thinks throwing out a couple of quotes he read somewhere on the internet lends credence to what he's saying, when it's obvious from your posting you don't understand a single thing about what you're talking about. Does such posturing ever work for you, or do you usually run with people who don't know better and so don't recognize your BS? Because your obvious lack of experience and education is easy to spot for people who DO have the qualifications you pretend to have.

I never said Fannie and Freddie were the sole culprits of the housing bubble, but funny how days after I was explaining that mess there were a few published articles posted here nearly verbatim of what I've said. Love how you accuse me of misquoting you and false attributions (which I've never done, as you've never been able to prove that either) then turn around and do the same, so we can add hypocrite to your growing list of inadequacy here.

I don't know if you're more hopeless than ignorant, or the other way around.

If you're an economics major who hasn't read Smith on your own then you're probably not really that interested in economics.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-october-18-2011/the-99-

Relevant. Jon Oliver's piece is good. I think that if these people were a bit less weird there would be a lot more support for them.

I Wear Pants;946704 wrote:If you're an economics major who hasn't read Smith on your own then you're probably not really that interested in economics.

Where did he say he hasn't? He said you don't do so in Econ classes, which is a correct statement.

queencitybuckeye;946708 wrote:Where did he say he hasn't? He said you don't do so in Econ classes, which is a correct statement.

" You were an economics major? Funny, because you don't read Smith, Locke and "countless others" in these classes," I read that as "I don't believe you were an economics major"

fish82;946569 wrote:So I guess there won't be any links forthcoming then?

Nope. He can't find anything to substantiate his claim, so I'm the one who's blind. Very logical. :rolleyes:

I Wear Pants;946713 wrote:" You were an economics major? Funny, because you don't read Smith, Locke and "countless others" in these classes," I read that as "I don't believe you were an economics major"

I read it more as no economics major would constantly quote Smith as opposed to posting occasionally about the mountain of work in the field of Economics done since Smith's day.

It's clear to me that the man has read a single book, gleaned some key phrases ("invisible hand"), and knows nothing more about the Economy other than his place in it has been filled with failure.

Here's a great piece from a mom's perspective (who also happens to be a columnist)...

Jewish World Review Oct 20, 2011 / 22 Tishrei, 5772
Some belated parental advice to protesters
By Marybeth Hicks
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com
Call it an occupational hazard, but I can't look at the Occupy Wall Street protesters without thinking, "Who parented these people?"

As a culture columnist, I've commented on the social and political ramifications of the "movement" -- now known as "OWS" -- whose fairyland agenda can be summarized by one of their placards: "Everything for everybody."

Thanks to their pipe-dream platform, it's clear there are people with serious designs on "transformational" change in America who are using the protesters like bedsprings in a brothel.

Yet it's not my role as a commentator that prompts my parenting question, but rather the fact that I'm the mother of four teens and young adults. There are some crucial life lessons that the protesters' moms clearly have not passed along.

Here, then, are five things the OWS protesters' mothers should have taught their children but obviously didn't:
• Life isn't fair. The concept of justice - that everyone should be treated fairly - is a worthy and worthwhile moral imperative on which our nation was founded. But justice and economic equality are not the same. Or, as Mick Jagger said, "You can't always get what you want." No matter how you try to "level the playing field," some people have better luck, skills, talents or connections that land them in better places. Some seem to have all the advantages in life but squander them, others play the modest hand they're dealt and make up the difference in hard work and perseverance, and some find jobs on Wall Street and eventually buy houses in the Hamptons. Is it fair? Stupid question.
• Nothing is "free." Protesting with signs that seek "free" college degrees and "free" health care make you look like idiots, because colleges and hospitals don't operate on rainbows and sunshine. There is no magic money machine to tap for your meandering educational careers and "slow paths" to adulthood, and the 53 percent of taxpaying Americans owe you neither a degree nor an annual physical. While I'm pointing out this obvious fact, here are a few other things that are not free: overtime for police officers and municipal workers, trash hauling, repairs to fixtures and property, condoms, Band-Aids and the food that inexplicably appears on the tables in your makeshift protest kitchens. Real people with real dollars are underwriting your civic temper tantrum.
• Your word is your bond. When you demonstrate to eliminate student loan debt, you are advocating precisely the lack of integrity you decry in others. Loans are made based on solemn promises to repay them. No one forces you to borrow money; you are free to choose educational pursuits that don't require loans, or to seek technical or vocational training that allows you to support yourself and your ongoing educational goals. Also, for the record, being a college student is not a state of victimization. It's a privilege that billions of young people around the globe would die for --- literally.
• A protest is not a party. On Saturday in New York, while making a mad dash from my cab to the door of my hotel to avoid you, I saw what isn't evident in the newsreel footage of your demonstrations: Most of you are doing this only for attention and fun. Serious people in a sober pursuit of social and political change don't dance jigs down Sixth Avenue like attendees of a Renaissance festival. You look foolish, you smell gross, you are clearly high and you don't seem to realize that all around you are people who deem you irrelevant.
• There are reasons you haven't found jobs. The truth? Your tattooed necks, gauged ears, facial piercings and dirty dreadlocks are off-putting. Nonconformity for the sake of nonconformity isn't a virtue. Occupy reality: Only 4 percent of college graduates are out of work. If you are among that 4 percent, find a mirror and face the problem. It's not them. It's you.

queencitybuckeye;946715 wrote:Your quote doesn't back up the assertion you made.

It's the implied tone that I read in it. I could be wrong about it, we'll have to let gut tell us. Tone is a difficult thing to discern in text.

I Wear Pants;946720 wrote:It's the implied tone that I read in it. I could be wrong about it, we'll have to let gut tell us. Tone is a difficult thing to discern in text.

I misread your post, and edited my response accordingly. My bad.

Brilliant piece, Writer. Thanks for posting it.

I Wear Pants;946704 wrote:If you're an economics major who hasn't read Smith on your own then you're probably not really that interested in economics.

Difference between me and you is I can construct and defend arguments without resorting to name dropping. Any pseudo-intellectual can pretend to have read a book and search out a few quotes on the internet, but when it comes to displaying actual understanding and insight they fail miserably, as you have. Just because you read a book doesn't mean you learned anything, and that's about the only thing you've proven.

gut;946737 wrote:Difference between me and you is I can construct and defend arguments without resorting to name dropping. Any pseudo-intellectual can pretend to have read a book and search out a few quotes on the internet, but when it comes to displaying actual understanding and insight they fail miserably, as you have. Just because you read a book doesn't mean you learned anything, and that's about the only thing you've proven.

I'm not Footwedge...or an economics major?

I also don't know if I've ever name dropped Smith on this forum.

queencitybuckeye;946731 wrote:Brilliant piece, Writer. Thanks for posting it.

That women has more congnative ability and real world common sense then every single one of these malcontents sleeping in Zuccotti park combined.

Here is an interesting article from USA Today. To me the Wall Street protesters are about bringing change to unfair economic policies. Contrary to Writer's post, protesting has been a very effective way of changing policies throughout history. As a person who has worked hard since my first job at 12 delivering papers, I support their efforts and hope they can have some impact on policies. I was not fortunate to have daddy and grand pa, pass down the family property management businesses to me, nor any other kind of silver spoon. I live on a comfortable middle class income. I may not have everything I want, but I do have everything I need.

I do not believe capitalism will survive if the disparity in income continues to trend this way.



http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/story/2011-10-27/income-gap/50952720/1

Bigdogg;946754 wrote: I was not fortunate to have daddy and grand pa, pass down the family property management businesses to me,

Who was lucky enough to get that?

LJ;946758 wrote:Who was lucky enough to get that?

The Donald.

Footwedge;946531 wrote:Business major...economics major. Anyime you want to discuss Smith, Ricardo, Locke, Von Mises, Sameulson, or countless others, bring it dude. Your overall preception of macro economics is extraordinarily underwhelming.

Now tell me again how Freddie and Fannie were the sole culprits of the housing bubble. People who espouse that claim have some really serious issues. I enjoy a good laugh before I go to bed.

I Wear Pants;946742 wrote:I'm not Footwedge...or an economics major?

I also don't know if I've ever name dropped Smith on this forum.

I guess I got confused since you responded to my post to Footwedge. Your response is something he would say, nor do I agree or understand why you feel a leisure reading list has anything to do with an interest or understanding of the subject. There's obviously more recent and relevant reading to my particular specialization. Only a PhD student or prof would have the time or possibly the need to read an exhaustive list. Understanding the foundations established in the classics is certainly taken from studying modern curriculum on the subject.

My point is those books aren't part of an econ curriculum, nor do I need to name drop as a substitute for an ability to demonstrate knowledge on the subject. I have read Smith, and many others (though not some of the names given). But my focus has tended to be more on the applied than the theoretical, and much more modern research.

Graet column; thanks for posting Writer...


Even more disgraceful than the Occupiers ...... elected officials who support them.