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

Forums - General Discussion - Occupy Wall Street Protests not working? What do you think?

 

How much of an impact is OWS having?

Can't hear them over the sound of my Ferrari 60 24.10%
 
Just a news story, no visible results 82 32.93%
 
Helping change minds, it's a start 68 27.31%
 
Change is on the horizon, just you wait 27 10.84%
 
I feel the impact already 6 2.41%
 
Can't hear them over the... 6 2.41%
 
Total:249
osamanobama on 27 November 2011
lordmandeep said:
Jesus if you look at his messages would be considered a liberal in today's world.

About do all Human beings have the right to a house, a job, food and water.

Imo if people did not have to work to get such things, many in society would simply not work.
So the Govt had a big hand in causing the housing crisis as it wanted to give poor people mostly blacks and Latinos homes. Frankly, a lot of those people should have not gotten mortgages as they did not have enough income or steady income to support a household + mortgage.

actually Jesus wasnt very fond of government, as it was/is corrupt. and he often criticized polititians and especially tax collectors.

Jesus was very much for giving to the needy. the Key word is GIVING, not forcefully taking (stealing) of property and handing to another person.

Jesus wanted to people to give out of the goodness of their hearts, not because they had to or were forced to by government. involuntary giving, isnt giving at all, and completed defeats the purpose of what Jesus wanted us to do. 



Around the Network
richardhutnik on 27 November 2011
osamanobama said:
lordmandeep said:
Jesus if you look at his messages would be considered a liberal in today's world.

About do all Human beings have the right to a house, a job, food and water.

Imo if people did not have to work to get such things, many in society would simply not work.
So the Govt had a big hand in causing the housing crisis as it wanted to give poor people mostly blacks and Latinos homes. Frankly, a lot of those people should have not gotten mortgages as they did not have enough income or steady income to support a household + mortgage.

actually Jesus wasnt very fond of government, as it was/is corrupt. and he often criticized polititians and especially tax collectors.

Jesus was very much for giving to the needy. the Key word is GIVING, not forcefully taking (stealing) of property and handing to another person.

Jesus wanted to people to give out of the goodness of their hearts, not because they had to or were forced to by government. involuntary giving, isnt giving at all, and completed defeats the purpose of what Jesus wanted us to do. 

What I do notice is there is a tendency by some to shift helping the poor from the poor to those who are giving, as if it is some sort of benchmark of virtue that they are awesome, rather than people in need being helped.  Not sure Jesus would approve of this shift.  Isn't the idea of helping people to help people, not have some sort of "I'm more virtuous than you, because I did more"?

What is the point of doing anything if people aren't helped?



richardhutnik on 27 November 2011
lordmandeep said:
Jesus if you look at his messages would be considered a liberal in today's world.

About do all Human beings have the right to a house, a job, food and water.

Imo if people did not have to work to get such things, many in society would simply not work.

I bolded the above for a reason.  There are issues with using rights as a basis of ethics.  The main thing above would be the idea that people have a "right" to a job.  In a society a job is not best thought of as a right.  It is more of a duty, or something else.  By having the ability to work increasingly become something of a crapshoot in regards to whether you get one, and playing by the rules, and being trustworthy not even being able to be trusted as doable, along with the lack of hope that it can turn around, you are looking at a society that will break down, and not remain stable.

If work in society doesn't even afford you a roof over your hear, and food, then you have a society that will break down.  For a society to work, there has to be a degree of confidence by its members that if they play by the rules, they don't end up with shortened lives.



HappySqurriel on 27 November 2011
richardhutnik said:
lordmandeep said:
Jesus if you look at his messages would be considered a liberal in today's world.

About do all Human beings have the right to a house, a job, food and water.

Imo if people did not have to work to get such things, many in society would simply not work.

I bolded the above for a reason.  There are issues with using rights as a basis of ethics.  The main thing above would be the idea that people have a "right" to a job.  In a society a job is not best thought of as a right.  It is more of a duty, or something else.  By having the ability to work increasingly become something of a crapshoot in regards to whether you get one, and playing by the rules, and being trustworthy not even being able to be trusted as doable, along with the lack of hope that it can turn around, you are looking at a society that will break down, and not remain stable.

If work in society doesn't even afford you a roof over your hear, and food, then you have a society that will break down.  For a society to work, there has to be a degree of confidence by its members that if they play by the rules, they don't end up with shortened lives.


That's really not true at all though ...

Throughout history, and even throughout most of the world today, people have struggled to obtain the most basic of necessities in countries with economic systems that are clearly unfair and yet society did not "break down". The kind of wealth and economic security that has been provided by democratic capitalism is remarkably unusual in the grand scheme of things.

Certainly, we're a long way away from a system which is free from corruption to the extent that everyone is on a level playing field; but we're also far away from the arbitrary reward system and extreme corruption in Feudalism, Monarchies and Communism.



Kasz216 on 27 November 2011

By the way, these people sort of miss why the rich keep getting richer.

It actually has about nothing to do with Capital Gains tax or the rich not paying more taxes.

I mean, look to New Zealand. Whose countries Gini Coefficient has stayed remarkably stable.

They have NO capital gains tax and their income tax brackets are less progressive then the US ones.

A LOT less progressive when you factor in the 15% VAT.



Around the Network
osamanobama on 27 November 2011
richardhutnik said:
osamanobama said:
lordmandeep said:
Jesus if you look at his messages would be considered a liberal in today's world.

About do all Human beings have the right to a house, a job, food and water.

Imo if people did not have to work to get such things, many in society would simply not work.
So the Govt had a big hand in causing the housing crisis as it wanted to give poor people mostly blacks and Latinos homes. Frankly, a lot of those people should have not gotten mortgages as they did not have enough income or steady income to support a household + mortgage.

actually Jesus wasnt very fond of government, as it was/is corrupt. and he often criticized polititians and especially tax collectors.

Jesus was very much for giving to the needy. the Key word is GIVING, not forcefully taking (stealing) of property and handing to another person.

Jesus wanted to people to give out of the goodness of their hearts, not because they had to or were forced to by government. involuntary giving, isnt giving at all, and completed defeats the purpose of what Jesus wanted us to do. 

What I do notice is there is a tendency by some to shift helping the poor from the poor to those who are giving, as if it is some sort of benchmark of virtue that they are awesome, rather than people in need being helped.  Not sure Jesus would approve of this shift.  Isn't the idea of helping people to help people, not have some sort of "I'm more virtuous than you, because I did more"?

What is the point of doing anything if people aren't helped?

not quite sure what you are trying to say. 

perhaps i have bad reading comprehension in ths case, or you sentance structure is very poor, but i cant decipher what you are trying to say.

but my point was, that Jesus would be/ was against people/government taking your property and handing it to others that they deem deserve it, and he was very much for YOU personally, GIVING because you were moved to do so, and you felt in your heart to give, and that you, yourself choose the recipient of this gift.

sure you can feel good about yourself for giving, but if your only giving to make yourself feel better (or your getting your property forcefully taken from you), your giving for the wrong reasons.



HappySqurriel on 27 November 2011

I saw this list on a bloggers site, and I wanted to share it because I think it demonstrates (some) of what people are talking about. Here is the list of the top 50 and bottom 50 degree fields based on median income; which list do you think the majority of the college majors from OWS belong to?

http://graphicsweb.wsj.com/documents/NILF1111/#term=

 

PETROLEUM ENGINEERING
4.4%
$83,000
$127,000
$178,000
138
PHARMACY PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES AND ADMINISTRATION
3.2%
$78,000
$105,000
$121,000
53
MINING AND MINERAL ENGINEERING
4.3%
$71,000
$101,000
$121,000
162
NUCLEAR ENGINEERING
4.1%
$65,000
$96,000
$138,000
149
NAVAL ARCHITECTURE AND MARINE ENGINEERING
1.7%
$60,000
$96,000
$117,000
145
MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTER SCIENCE
3.5%
$55,000
$91,000
$151,000
158
MILITARY TECHNOLOGIES
10.9%
$81,000
$86,000
$126,000
173
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING
3.8%
$60,000
$86,000
$117,000
49
METALLURGICAL ENGINEERING
3.9%
$50,000
$86,000
$110,000
152
ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING
5.0%
$60,000
$86,000
$111,000
17
AEROSPACE ENGINEERING
3.6%
$60,000
$84,000
$111,000
105
MATERIALS ENGINEERING AND MATERIALS SCIENCE
7.7%
$57,000
$84,000
$105,000
136
ACTUARIAL SCIENCE
0.0%
$52,000
$81,000
$116,000
150
COMPUTER ENGINEERING
7.0%
$58,000
$81,000
$102,000
47
MATERIALS SCIENCE
4.7%
$65,000
$81,000
$106,000
161
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
3.8%
$60,000
$81,000
$106,000
23
COMPUTER SCIENCE
5.6%
$50,000
$77,000
$102,000
10
CIVIL ENGINEERING
4.9%
$55,000
$76,000
$101,000
32
STATISTICS AND DECISION SCIENCE
6.9%
$50,000
$76,000
$108,000
128
INDUSTRIAL AND MANUFACTURING ENGINEERING
5.6%
$50,000
$75,000
$100,000
59
GEOLOGICAL AND GEOPHYSICAL ENGINEERING
0.0%
$56,000
$73,000
$101,000
166
GENERAL ENGINEERING
5.9%
$47,000
$73,000
$101,000
24
ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING
5.8%
$50,000
$71,000
$96,000
140
ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL MANAGEMENT
9.2%
$50,000
$71,000
$98,000
127
INFORMATION SCIENCES
5.9%
$48,000
$71,000
$95,000
69
APPLIED MATHEMATICS
4.1%
$52,000
$71,000
$100,000
131
MISCELLANEOUS ENGINEERING
7.4%
$42,000
$71,000
$91,000
106
GENETICS
7.4%
$33,000
$71,000
$99,000
163
MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND STATISTICS
4.2%
$47,000
$71,000
$96,000
44
BUSINESS ECONOMICS
5.0%
$44,000
$71,000
$101,000
80
FOOD SCIENCE
6.9%
$34,000
$71,000
$101,000
129
ECONOMICS
6.3%
$42,000
$69,000
$108,000
16
TRANSPORTATION SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES
4.4%
$42,000
$68,000
$98,000
56
BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING
5.9%
$45,000
$68,000
$101,000
137
PHYSICS
4.5%
$39,000
$68,000
$101,000
70
ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES AND METEOROLOGY
1.6%
$40,000
$68,000
$101,000
146
INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGIES
3.1%
$46,000
$67,000
$91,000
82
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
2.2%
$54,000
$67,000
$90,000
144
ENGINEERING MECHANICS PHYSICS AND SCIENCE
6.5%
$40,000
$67,000
$101,000
132
MISCELLANEOUS ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGIES
6.0%
$45,000
$65,000
$91,000
88
FINANCE
4.5%
$44,000
$65,000
$101,000
12
OPERATIONS LOGISTICS AND E-COMMERCE
4.7%
$45,000
$65,000
$97,000
102
EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION
0.0%
$41,000
$65,000
$89,000
171
CONSTRUCTION SERVICES
5.4%
$49,000
$65,000
$101,000
76
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING RELATED TECHNOLOGIES
6.6%
$38,000
$65,000
$87,000
123
PUBLIC POLICY
2.2%
$47,000
$65,000
$101,000
141
ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY
5.5%
$42,000
$65,000
$91,000
65
NUCLEAR INDUSTRIAL RADIOLOGY AND BIOLOGICAL TECHNOLOGIES
2.2%
$47,000
$64,000
$81,000
142
SOIL SCIENCE
4.9%
$43,000
$64,000
$81,000
165
MATHEMATICS
5.0%
$42,000
$63,000
$95,000
28

 

 

SCHOOL STUDENT COUNSELING
0.0%
$18,000
$20,000
$42,000
172
COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGY
5.2%
$23,000
$34,000
$42,000
133
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
10.9%
$28,000
$35,000
$51,000
156
VISUAL AND PERFORMING ARTS
9.2%
$20,000
$36,000
$52,000
103
LIBRARY SCIENCE
15.0%
$23,000
$36,000
$49,000
159
EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION
4.1%
$28,000
$37,000
$45,000
50
STUDIO ARTS
8.0%
$25,000
$37,000
$57,000
84
THEOLOGY AND RELIGIOUS VOCATIONS
4.1%
$25,000
$38,000
$54,000
46
TEACHER EDUCATION: MULTIPLE LEVELS
1.1%
$30,000
$38,000
$48,000
86
HUMAN SERVICES AND COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION
6.9%
$29,000
$38,000
$50,000
77
SOCIAL WORK
6.8%
$30,000
$39,000
$51,000
30
BOTANY
6.9%
$26,000
$40,000
$55,000
147
COMPOSITION AND SPEECH
7.7%
$30,000
$40,000
$61,000
99
ANTHROPOLOGY AND ARCHEOLOGY
6.9%
$30,000
$40,000
$60,000
55
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
3.6%
$32,000
$40,000
$49,000
8
DRAMA AND THEATER ARTS
7.1%
$28,000
$40,000
$60,000
45
INTERDISCIPLINARY SOCIAL SCIENCES
6.3%
$31,000
$40,000
$50,000
96
FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES
5.1%
$30,000
$40,000
$58,000
29
ANIMAL SCIENCES
5.7%
$26,000
$40,000
$60,000
67
MISCELLANEOUS FINE ARTS
16.2%
$26,000
$40,000
$49,000
164
CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY
19.5%
$25,000
$40,000
$61,000
168
COMMUNICATION DISORDERS SCIENCES AND SERVICES
3.3%
$32,000
$41,000
$50,000
98
ART AND MUSIC EDUCATION
4.2%
$32,000
$41,000
$51,000
48
LANGUAGE AND DRAMA EDUCATION
5.0%
$32,000
$41,000
$50,000
58
GENERAL EDUCATION
4.2%
$31,000
$41,000
$53,000
9
COSMETOLOGY SERVICES AND CULINARY ARTS
7.3%
$26,000
$41,000
$60,000
115
PLANT SCIENCE AND AGRONOMY
2.7%
$28,000
$42,000
$71,000
85
PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGIOUS STUDIES
7.2%
$30,000
$42,000
$65,000
42
MULTI/INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDIES
5.5%
$34,000
$42,000
$50,000
107
MATHEMATICS TEACHER EDUCATION
3.4%
$34,000
$42,000
$56,000
108
SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATION
3.6%
$34,000
$42,000
$50,000
52
PSYCHOLOGY
6.1%
$30,000
$43,000
$65,000
5
COGNITIVE SCIENCE AND BIOPSYCHOLOGY
4.5%
$36,000
$43,000
$91,000
167
SECONDARY TEACHER EDUCATION
3.8%
$35,000
$43,000
$59,000
57
ECOLOGY
5.2%
$31,000
$43,000
$60,000
109
GENERAL AGRICULTURE
3.0%
$28,000
$44,000
$68,000
71
FINE ARTS
7.4%
$28,000
$44,000
$65,000
22
LINGUISTICS AND COMPARATIVE LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE
10.2%
$30,000
$44,000
$70,000
90
ELECTRICAL AND MECHANIC REPAIRS AND TECHNOLOGIES
8.4%
$30,000
$44,000
$68,000
134
PRE-LAW AND LEGAL STUDIES
7.9%
$32,000
$45,000
$69,000
91
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
8.8%
$32,000
$45,000
$60,000
155
ART HISTORY AND CRITICISM
6.9%
$33,000
$45,000
$71,000
81
FILM VIDEO AND PHOTOGRAPHIC ARTS
7.3%
$30,000
$45,000
$71,000
54
COMMERCIAL ART AND GRAPHIC DESIGN
8.1%
$31,000
$45,000
$69,000
21
HUMANITIES
8.4%
$30,000
$45,000
$62,000
118
PHYSICAL FITNESS PARKS RECREATION AND LEISURE
4.8%
$33,000
$45,000
$61,000
27
MUSIC
5.2%
$30,000
$45,000
$67,000
37
MISCELLANEOUS PSYCHOLOGY
10.3%
$30,000
$45,000
$71,000
120
OTHER FOREIGN LANGUAGES
6.4%
$32,000
$45,000
$76,000
111
SOCIOLOGY
7.0%
$33,000
$45,000
$67,000
19


Jexy on 27 November 2011

Good info HappySquirrel, although given the current rate of unemployment, I would suspect these are slightly older numbers (maybe a few years ago as it takes years to gather the data) but still, the worst ones just got worse, that's the only difference. Glad to see my major in the top of earnings. But yeah, I'm pretty sure the engineering students are too busy studying their assess off to go protest. That's how it was at my University. Lib arts majors are the ones with the free time.



BOOM!  FACE KICK!

richardhutnik on 28 November 2011
osamanobama said:
richardhutnik said:
osamanobama said:
lordmandeep said:
Jesus if you look at his messages would be considered a liberal in today's world.

About do all Human beings have the right to a house, a job, food and water.

Imo if people did not have to work to get such things, many in society would simply not work.
So the Govt had a big hand in causing the housing crisis as it wanted to give poor people mostly blacks and Latinos homes. Frankly, a lot of those people should have not gotten mortgages as they did not have enough income or steady income to support a household + mortgage.

actually Jesus wasnt very fond of government, as it was/is corrupt. and he often criticized polititians and especially tax collectors.

Jesus was very much for giving to the needy. the Key word is GIVING, not forcefully taking (stealing) of property and handing to another person.

Jesus wanted to people to give out of the goodness of their hearts, not because they had to or were forced to by government. involuntary giving, isnt giving at all, and completed defeats the purpose of what Jesus wanted us to do. 

What I do notice is there is a tendency by some to shift helping the poor from the poor to those who are giving, as if it is some sort of benchmark of virtue that they are awesome, rather than people in need being helped.  Not sure Jesus would approve of this shift.  Isn't the idea of helping people to help people, not have some sort of "I'm more virtuous than you, because I did more"?

What is the point of doing anything if people aren't helped?

not quite sure what you are trying to say. 

perhaps i have bad reading comprehension in ths case, or you sentance structure is very poor, but i cant decipher what you are trying to say.

but my point was, that Jesus would be/ was against people/government taking your property and handing it to others that they deem deserve it, and he was very much for YOU personally, GIVING because you were moved to do so, and you felt in your heart to give, and that you, yourself choose the recipient of this gift.

sure you can feel good about yourself for giving, but if your only giving to make yourself feel better (or your getting your property forcefully taken from you), your giving for the wrong reasons.

I am referring to what is seen in books like this:
http://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Cares-Compasionate-Conservatism/dp/0465008216

The book argues that conservatives give more.  While that is an interesting study, when the focus is on who gives more, rather than on the best way to help the poor, then the focus is wrong.

As far as what Jesus said, Jesus said when you give, don't make noise about it, drawing attention to yourself, which is what happens when the conversation shifts from the best way to help the poor, to who gives more.



richardhutnik on 28 November 2011
Kasz216 said:

By the way, these people sort of miss why the rich keep getting richer.

It actually has about nothing to do with Capital Gains tax or the rich not paying more taxes.

I mean, look to New Zealand. Whose countries Gini Coefficient has stayed remarkably stable.

They have NO capital gains tax and their income tax brackets are less progressive then the US ones.

A LOT less progressive when you factor in the 15% VAT.

What do you think happens when you have the following?

* High Gini Coefficient.

* Reduce government social services, like no universal health care.

* A society where there is a large degree of consumer debt held, and is driven by consumerism and pursuing getting rich, and thinking the poor are merely lazy?

 

Do you think such a society isn't going to have problems?

Now look at New Zealand:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_welfare_in_New_Zealand

It has government run health care:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_New_Zealand

 

Again, what kind of society do you think there will be if the idea of emergency room is health insurance ends up being the norm?


And the USA has a larger Gini Coefficient than New Zealand, so not sure why bringing up New Zealand is a good example.  Try to look to countries who have a larger Gini Coefficient and see if it is good to become more like them.