By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - What Occupy movement understood and most don't.

HappySqurriel said:
At the moment tax revenues just barely cover the cost of mandatory spending and interest on the debt, you could just barely balance the budget if you cut all discretionary spending today, the tax increases needed to balance the budget would be massive to all income levels, and on the current path the debt increase and interest rate increases will mean that manditory spending and interest on the debt will likely surpass tax revenues within a few years even with the (moronic) "tax the rich" scheme that is currently being proposed.

Plus $1.2 trillion of that $1.6 trillion that would theoretically (but won't, really) be raised by the soak the rich tactic is already spoken for with new spending.



Around the Network
EdHieron said:
badgenome said:

Seems pretty appropriate, actually, when you are spewing such complete nonsense, Ed. When you can do something other than spew wild-eyed conspiracy theories and caricatures, I will consider responding seriously to you.


The only problem was my post wasn't complete nonsense.  It was a perfect mirror of The Republican social agenda which amounts to keeping the rich rich and the poor too stupid to care by the use of the greatest brainwashing gimmick mankind ever devised for doing just that the Christian religion.

Yeah, the poor in states run by Democrats are doing so well ... After all Detroit is known for how much upward mobility there is, and you never hear about multi-generational poverty that is made worse by a growing dependence on the state leading to crime filled ghettos where children are more likely to be murdered or go to jail than go to college.



Kasz216 said:
EdHieron said:
badgenome said:
EdHieron said:

The Republican Party certainly is socially extreme.  Seventy Percent of those voters that put in the 2010 Crop of Senators thoroughly believe in a totally discredited iron age book that advocates keeping those that don't wholeheartedly believe in an outmoded patriarchical social structure as second class citizens or worse.

Don't be so fucking silly. Believing in the Bible =/= forcing Biblical beliefs on others.


For Conservative Republicans that want to keep gays from marrying and that think women should have to have babies that were the product of rape or incest just because they believe some imaginary iron age deity forbids gay marriage or abortion it does.  70% of American Christians believe those things and they all tend to belong to the GOP.

Lets assume you are right here.

70% of American Christians believe this.

78.4% of Americans are Christians.

ttp://religions.pewforum.org/reports

70% of 78.4% is 54.88%.

54.88% of the country believes these things.

You can't define something as an extreme viewpoint if over half of all American believe it.  (So... you, by your own reasoning and logic, are completely wrong.)


Just because over half of a country's population holds an erroneous and extreme belief, that doesn't make it not an erroneous and extreme belief.  You don't think Germany during the Third Reich was just a typical group of folks simply because most of them endorsed Hitler do you?



HappySqurriel said:
EdHieron said:
badgenome said:

Seems pretty appropriate, actually, when you are spewing such complete nonsense, Ed. When you can do something other than spew wild-eyed conspiracy theories and caricatures, I will consider responding seriously to you.


The only problem was my post wasn't complete nonsense.  It was a perfect mirror of The Republican social agenda which amounts to keeping the rich rich and the poor too stupid to care by the use of the greatest brainwashing gimmick mankind ever devised for doing just that the Christian religion.

Yeah, the poor in states run by Democrats are doing so well ... After all Detroit is known for how much upward mobility there is, and you never hear about multi-generational poverty that is made worse by a growing dependence on the state leading to crime filled ghettos where children are more likely to be murdered or go to jail than go to college.

Actually forbidding abortion leads to the type of climate you mention.  Most of the Liberal leaning states are the ones that are doing the best in America as this video about Vermont by youtube's Styxhexenhammer666 points out  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aO5BuNdk_Bk   .



Kasz216 said:
I think that's a vast over exageration of the republicans voting base.

Furthermore, setting that aside, even if that was true... their views aren't socially extreme.

Assuming he meant 70% of Republican voters, we're talking what... about a third of the population?

He did refer to the republican base, not all people who vote republican. So you'd be talking maybe 10-15% of the voting public, which I believe works out to roughly 5-8% of the population.

As for their actual views, let's have a look, shall we?

Abortion - 17% of Americans think that abortion should be illegal in all cases, and another 25% in most cases (presumably, that's the rape and incest exception, and perhaps the morning after pill). Restrict it to registered Republicans, and the numbers go up to 25% and 38%. That's 63% of republicans wanting abortion either completely or nearly completely illegal. That's pretty damn close to the 70% he mentioned. Only the so-called "old-school Republicans" generally don't want it to be totally illegal (only 1%) and about a third want it mostly illegal.

Islam - The majority (57%) of Republicans have strongly negative views of Muslims, and 53% feel the same way about Arabs. 64% of Republicans believe that Islam and the west are in a fundamental clash of cultures.

Gay marriage - 61% of Republicans think that Gay marriage should be illegal. Independents are at 36% and Democrats at 25%.

Atheism - 58% of Republicans would not vote for an Atheist for president, even if everything else about the candidate was perfect for them. Sadly, this number is way too high amongst Independents and Democrats, too.

As for their value set compared with poverty, let me ask you this - do you recall a single instance of any republican organisation arguing that candidates' positions on helping the poor was important? Now, how many of them said that pro-life, or anti-gay-marriage, or attitude towards islam, was important? Polls also agree - poverty is a nonissue compared with issues such as those, for those of all persuasions. Now, it's unfortunate across the board, but for Christians it's the whole "what would Jesus do" thing that concerns me - they claim Christian values, but are more interested in enforcing the Old Testament than living up to the New Testament's message.



Around the Network
EdHieron said:
HappySqurriel said:
EdHieron said:
badgenome said:

Seems pretty appropriate, actually, when you are spewing such complete nonsense, Ed. When you can do something other than spew wild-eyed conspiracy theories and caricatures, I will consider responding seriously to you.


The only problem was my post wasn't complete nonsense.  It was a perfect mirror of The Republican social agenda which amounts to keeping the rich rich and the poor too stupid to care by the use of the greatest brainwashing gimmick mankind ever devised for doing just that the Christian religion.

Yeah, the poor in states run by Democrats are doing so well ... After all Detroit is known for how much upward mobility there is, and you never hear about multi-generational poverty that is made worse by a growing dependence on the state leading to crime filled ghettos where children are more likely to be murdered or go to jail than go to college.

Actually forbidding abortion leads to the type of climate you mention.  Most of the Liberal leaning states are the ones that are doing the best in America as this video about Vermont by youtube's Styxhexenhammer666 points out http://youtu.be/aO5BuNdk_Bk.


You should factor in net migration ...

As poor people leave the rust belt to move to conservative states like Texas to find a job it provides an illusion that the rust belt is doing better for poor people when the opposite is true.



spaceguy said:

Ten minute video:
Some inconvenient truths by Chris Hedges:
"Essentially, we are trapped in a system of political paralysis. There is an inability on the part of government to respond rationally...to the problems that beset us;
whether that is climate change or whether that is the financial collapse, the mortgage crisis, chronic underemployment or unemployment, the fact that a million people a year go bankrupt because they can't pay their medical bills....80 percent of whom have health insurance. All of our legislation is written by corporate lobbyists. The power elite understand perfectly well what's coming and is radically reconfiguring the legal system to criminalize dissent."
Much more at link.
~rc

Video below.


This is though an inherent issue with the state of democracy we have at the moment. If we work on the notion that the average person isn't particuarly smart, this means that who is in power is dictated not by the educated, but by the foolish. Therefore democracy becomes a government ruled by whoever is the most charismatic and convincing. There is very, very little logic in the democratic system, and a lot of room for error and corruption.
If you look at the UK, the 3 main parties have become almost the same useless entity, and in the USA corruption is absolutely rife as well as incredibly dangerous ideas e.g. we've had noahs flood already and god was sorry for it, therefore we don't have to worry about global warming. This guy actually recieved votes. Ignorance on the basis of religion isn't going to save anyone. 

You can blame the power elite, but ultimately they aren't the ones with the power. Power goes to whoever has the weapons. Never forget:
"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms.""

Now of course we can't storm our governments in the same manner as Egypt, Libya etc, but the only other way of changing the government is trying to edcuate the majority of people to vote sensibly which seems impossible. There are only 2 options you really have:
1) Use & abuse the fact that people are daft. Become good at your job and enjoy life that way.
2) Move country to somewhere like China where the goals of the nation are put before any asinine political party system. 



spaceguy said:

Ten minute video:
Some inconvenient truths by Chris Hedges:
"Essentially, we are trapped in a system of political paralysis. There is an inability on the part of government to respond rationally...to the problems that beset us;
whether that is climate change or whether that is the financial collapse, the mortgage crisis, chronic underemployment or unemployment, the fact that a million people a year go bankrupt because they can't pay their medical bills....80 percent of whom have health insurance. All of our legislation is written by corporate lobbyists. The power elite understand perfectly well what's coming and is radically reconfiguring the legal system to criminalize dissent."
Much more at link.
~rc

Video below.

What Occupy is, is a collection of different interests groups, mostly left, who wish for the overthrow of the current capitalist system and a replacement of who knows what.  They will disagree if it should be anarchy, or socialism, or communism in various flavor.  As an OWS flashmob protest, it worked to shift debate to issues you mentioned.  BUT, as a political movement, it is hardly anything. The idea was to have a mass populist uprising that would end up forcing change, whatever it is.  The thing is that you have the powers that be, end up borrowing just enough, and doing just enough, to get people to not come together, and have it dissolve of its own lack of internal cohesion.  It is currently fringe rabble that can't do anything, even have its own meetings, due to inability to agree on much.  And without the media spotlight to be able to attention whore for a cause, it doesn't have anything to bring it together.  Oh, there are some who still hold onto the banner, but most don't. Even Occupy doesn't use Occupy much.

Where do I get this info from?  I got involved with it when they went global on October 15th last year (I believe it was last year), tried to organize, saw what different groups were, and watched a park fall apart.   The lack of social capital and people fighting to survive, undermines and cohesion needed.  And the lack of a leadership structure prevents anything from holding either.  The strong no-leaders (maybe we have leadership throughout though) mentality ends up causing there to be no direction and focus, and people's 15 minutes of fame before getting bored goes against it.

Are the issues that made Occupy come together still out there?  They are.  But they aren't enough to do anything really.  I believe the last major initiative they did was Occupying Sandy.   Now, you can talk Tea Party that went the other way, has strong leadership and embedded in the political system, that doesn't care anything about populist anything and would be more than willing to have its 5% of the population believes in its ideals (make the number what you want, it isn't a majority), and implement it to "Save America".  But they are currently acting as a political malady that is going to kill off the GOP if they keep doing what they are doing.  If Tea Party and Occupy could bring both together, and get the best of each, there would be a shot at real change by their methods, but they won't.  Tea Party sees Occupy as the enemy, so it isn't going to happen. 

So, I may suggest to try to find something else to hing about besides Occupy, because you are now wasting your time when you think on it.



Soleron said:

I hope we will see this fiscally conservative/libertarian part of the Republican Party seperate from the socially conservative base completely. I like some of their ideas but (if I was American) I could never vote for a party with such extreme views on social issues.

The two biggest problems with the American system are the filibuster and the amount of money in politics (lobbyists, campaign donations, the fact judges have political colour).

There isn't a sufficient majority of people who really want a fiscal conservative endorse of "legalize everything".  People have some sense of morals and believe government has some role in making sure society preserves these values.  They also want the government to provide some sort of safety net to prevent people from dying off (even Tea Party folk want the government's hands off their Medicare).  Pretty much fiscal conservative and this won't get elected (below is a bit extreme, but only because I am sure there are some things you find are abhorant and should be restricted):



Kasz216 said:
A) In regards to this part.  Unfortunitly Research isn't like it is in say, Civilization, where you can put your taxes more towards beakers and science will develop things lineraly quicker.

B) Further more, it wouldn't drive the economy if the technology was free.

C) Essentially global warming would rely on completely unknown tech, because current tech and methods just couldn't work.  Outside of argueably Nuclear which in of itself can be problematic.  The big issue with most renewable technology is essentially how to store energy for peak times, and how to adjust quickly and how to store energy.  Solutions unlikely to be solved anytime soon, and if they are, good luck getting them to a cheap enough level.

D) Assuming we did discover this, we're talking decades before we could even finish building the plants needed to harness this... by then chances are it's far to late as the carbon feedback loop will have started.  (assuming it hasn't already.)

E) If the US completely stopped emitting all hydrocarbons today.  It would make zero change in global warming.  it'd just get burned elsewhere.  Stopped mining?  It'd make a difference.  A very small one however.

 

A) Being a mathematician and mathematical physicist, I think I know how research works better than you do. And more money for scientific research will accelerate the process of actual research, because right now, there's a severe lack of funding for research of all sorts, due in part to the GFC and countries going on austerity binges (if you don't mind the minor contradiction in that phrase).

B) I didn't say that the results of the research would drive the economy. I said that spending money on the research would, itself, stimulate the economy. As in, during the research stage, not the application stage.

C) You assume that it would rely on such tech. In fact, there's a hell of a lot of research already being done on things like improving efficiency on solar cells (my PhD supervisor's first PhD student worked on mathematical modelling of solar cells to that end, in fact), improving efficiency of batteries (my supervisor's own work had to do with battery cathodes), addressing the concerns of nuclear waste (my own PhD was related to this, although it didn't involve the nuclear waste stage at all), and many other things that would help. But as I said, there's an issue of lack of funding at the moment, and there are many ideas that haven't had the benefit of dedicated research. And that's before you factor in the research into improving energy efficiency of other things (such as, for instance, air conditioning of office buildings - I've seen a job opening for mathematical modelling of that sort of thing).

On a related point, even with just ideas, some of these sorts of things are being addressed... like this.

D) I wasn't just talking about improving power generation (although that's certainly a major concern). Power consumption is just as important. And research into climate itself is also part of the work that needs to be done. I can tell you right now, Climate modellers are crying for more research money so that they can employ more researchers, at least here in Australia. Just being able to get a more accurate model of the climate itself would enable them to better test ideas for stopping the positive feedback problem. Carbon capture, as another example, needs more research.

E) Hence the need for results to be patent-free, so that they may be implemented throughout the world. Even if some countries would see the resulting technology as too expensive for them, it's likely that other organisations would help to implement them, if there were concrete demonstration that doing so would help to save the world.

Note that I'm not an American - I'm Australian. You mention what impact the US ceasing all hydrocarbon emissions would have. I'm concerned about the entire world. And for the entire world to address the problem, the "rich" nations need to put money into research. We need to find ways to enable the "poor" nations to grow without further destroying our world, and we need to find ways to reduce the destruction caused by our own activities. America, in particular, needs to stop passing the buck by going "but such-and-such a country isn't doing it, so why should we?". The answer to the question, by the way, is because you're always claiming to be world leaders, and you're obscenely wealthy compared to the other countries that haven't signed on to the various protocols. Australia under John Howard also refused - thankfully, we now have more reasonable leaders that have made a major push towards reducing our emissions. That's right - a country that produces far less than America is doing everything it can.