Babbling

[Astromang]

---

stilgar wrote:

---

Astromang wrote:

---

stilgar wrote:

---

Astromang wrote:

---

stilgar wrote:

---

Astromang wrote:

---

Icarus27k wrote:

I'll say, the individual. That is, the individual that has the profits that are X much more than that individual could possibly need to sustain him- or herself and his or her dependents.

---

Then who is going to decide what is needed to "sustain" a person or family?

---

you don't need $200,000 a year to feed a family of 4

---

Why do you get to decide that?

---

if it costs $20 a day to feed an adult why would anyone need $200,000 a year to feed a family of 4?

---

So it only has to do with food? No other expenses or other considerations are taken into the fact of what a person can make by your standards?

---

yes, right now this post is about someone who has a lot of money spending $200,000 on food a year for a family of 4 even though you can eat quite well on $20 a day for a single adult

---

Where did I ever mention food?

[1938_Packard]

---

Icarus27k wrote:

I'll say, the individual. That is, the individual that has the profits that are X much more than that individual could possibly need to sustain him- or herself and his or her dependents.

---

And, just who are YOU to judge what a person needs to sustain himself? 

[stilgar]

---

Astromang wrote:

---

stilgar wrote:

---

Astromang wrote:

---

stilgar wrote:

---

Astromang wrote:

---

stilgar wrote:

---

Astromang wrote:

---

Icarus27k wrote:

I'll say, the individual. That is, the individual that has the profits that are X much more than that individual could possibly need to sustain him- or herself and his or her dependents.

---

Then who is going to decide what is needed to "sustain" a person or family?

---

you don't need $200,000 a year to feed a family of 4

---

Why do you get to decide that?

---

if it costs $20 a day to feed an adult why would anyone need $200,000 a year to feed a family of 4?

---

So it only has to do with food? No other expenses or other considerations are taken into the fact of what a person can make by your standards?

---

yes, right now this post is about someone who has a lot of money spending $200,000 on food a year for a family of 4 even though you can eat quite well on $20 a day for a single adult

---

Where did I ever mention food?

---

who said you did? i mentioned food. or did you forget that there was more the one person in this thread? but i guess you think you need $200,000 a year to feed a family of 4

[1938_Packard]

---

TrigunBebop wrote:

The entire point of a protest is to draw attention to a problem in the hopes that people with the means to do so will craft a solution. Protestors don't have to already have a solution. They just have to draw attention to the problem needing solved.

---

The rescue squad is exhausted.  They have to start looking to themselves for solutions.

[stilgar]

---

1938_Packard wrote:

---

Icarus27k wrote:

I'll say, the individual. That is, the individual that has the profits that are X much more than that individual could possibly need to sustain him- or herself and his or her dependents.

---

And, just who are YOU to judge what a person needs to sustain himself? 

---

they are a living person who more then likely pays money to sustain themselves and knows more or less what is needed

[TrigunBebop]

---

1938_Packard wrote:

---

TrigunBebop wrote:

The entire point of a protest is to draw attention to a problem in the hopes that people with the means to do so will craft a solution. Protestors don't have to already have a solution. They just have to draw attention to the problem needing solved.

---

The rescue squad is exhausted.  They have to start looking to themselves for solutions.

---

My point

--------------

Your head

[Astromang]

---

stilgar wrote:

---

Astromang wrote:

---

stilgar wrote:

---

Astromang wrote:

---

stilgar wrote:

---

Astromang wrote:

---

stilgar wrote:

---

Astromang wrote:

---

Icarus27k wrote:

I'll say, the individual. That is, the individual that has the profits that are X much more than that individual could possibly need to sustain him- or herself and his or her dependents.

---

Then who is going to decide what is needed to "sustain" a person or family?

---

you don't need $200,000 a year to feed a family of 4

---

Why do you get to decide that?

---

if it costs $20 a day to feed an adult why would anyone need $200,000 a year to feed a family of 4?

---

So it only has to do with food? No other expenses or other considerations are taken into the fact of what a person can make by your standards?

---

yes, right now this post is about someone who has a lot of money spending $200,000 on food a year for a family of 4 even though you can eat quite well on $20 a day for a single adult

---

Where did I ever mention food?

---

who said you did? i mentioned food. or did you forget that there was more the one person in this thread? but i guess you think you need $200,000 a year to feed a family of 4

---

You're the only one who mentioned feeding an adult...

Anyway, why do you get to be the high arbiter of what is appropriate to make? You still haven't answered that question.

[stilgar]

---

Astromang wrote:

---

stilgar wrote:

---

Astromang wrote:

---

stilgar wrote:

---

Astromang wrote:

---

stilgar wrote:

---

Astromang wrote:

---

stilgar wrote:

---

Astromang wrote:

---

Icarus27k wrote:

I'll say, the individual. That is, the individual that has the profits that are X much more than that individual could possibly need to sustain him- or herself and his or her dependents.

---

Then who is going to decide what is needed to "sustain" a person or family?

---

you don't need $200,000 a year to feed a family of 4

---

Why do you get to decide that?

---

if it costs $20 a day to feed an adult why would anyone need $200,000 a year to feed a family of 4?

---

So it only has to do with food? No other expenses or other considerations are taken into the fact of what a person can make by your standards?

---

yes, right now this post is about someone who has a lot of money spending $200,000 on food a year for a family of 4 even though you can eat quite well on $20 a day for a single adult

---

Where did I ever mention food?

---

who said you did? i mentioned food. or did you forget that there was more the one person in this thread? but i guess you think you need $200,000 a year to feed a family of 4

---

You're the only one who mentioned feeding an adult...

Anyway, why do you get to be the high arbiter of what is appropriate to make? You still haven't answered that question.

---

yes, i know i am the one who mentioned it. i admitted that in the last post....you know....the one you responded to

actually, i did answer it. you are just to thick to realize it

[alucardsexyghost]

---

scrapyard wrote:

it bothers me that alla these stupid ppl are like

pee'n where? &poop?  i know somebodys gota be on ther period 2

THEY'RE GONA BRING BACK THE BLACK PLAGUE 4CRY'N OUT LOUD

---

from what I hear they go to like McDonalds and other public places to go to the bathroom.

[alucardsexyghost]

---

1938_Packard wrote:

---

Icarus27k wrote:

I'll say, the individual. That is, the individual that has the profits that are X much more than that individual could possibly need to sustain him- or herself and his or her dependents.

---

And, just who are YOU to judge what a person needs to sustain himself? 

---

This coming from someone who always rants about how bad people are with money and how they need to be more like him with his thrifty ways.

Heck isn't that what the entire OP was about?

[Master-Debater131]

Occupy Poster Boy is a Trust Fund Baby

[MusketBoned]

---

Icarus27k wrote:

---

MusketBoned wrote:

---

Icarus27k wrote:

I know surprisingly little about the Occupy protests.

---

You're in the same boat as the protesters.

---

Another thing I don't understand: the criticism that the protests are unfocused. It's clearly an anti-corporate greed protest. It's really being kind of dense not to see it.

---

One thing that always confused me, if a company does really well why do the board and stockholders get most of the profit while the workers, who are an integral part of said profit, are seemingly left out? If the company profits everyone should be in on it, not just a few people. One could argue the those steering the boat to the profits deserve them, but that relies on a whole chain of decisions being made from immediately below them on down to every single member of their workforce.

Ideally, this should lead to resurgence of unions, but I think the power of a union has been thoroughly hidden from the collective consciousness of today's labor force. A service industry union would have such an ungodly amount of power in this country but we're all too cowardly to think of or attempt it.

[westpark]

U know kenworth I've always wondered -- what will you do if you get laid off? Will you accept unemployment benefits?

[MusketBoned]

---

Master-Debater131 wrote:

Occupy Poster Boy is a Trust Fund Baby

---

"He said that he supported his modest lifestyle with savings from working as a teenager and that he also had “a small trust fund” from his grandfather that he had not drawn from yet."


Way to go.

[Icarus27k]

---

1938_Packard wrote:

---

Icarus27k wrote:

I'll say, the individual. That is, the individual that has the profits that are X much more than that individual could possibly need to sustain him- or herself and his or her dependents.

---

And, just who are YOU to judge what a person needs to sustain himself? 

---

I am a person with common sense.

[alucardsexyghost]

So? He has a small trust fund from his grandfather he hasn't touched yet. Does that mean he can't hold the believe that their is a problem with the wealth distribution of the country? Or that their is corruption in government, cooperations and banks?

Is this supposed to discredit the movement somehow? If anything it discredits the OP.

[westpark]

What you say sounds good on paper but you need to keep in mind the middle practically doesn't exist any more. Obama's about on par where Bush 41 was 20 years ago. Obama is amazingly moderate. For all the socialist labels thrown @ him Obama's love affair with the free market & its 'solutions' is one reason this thing is happening in the first place.

The Democrats have moved right since Bush 43 came into office. The Republicans haven't even moved right, they fell off the map into looney toon land dude. Gone are the Bush/Dole 90s moderates or even old guard conservatives who would work with you.

The Republican Party nowadays is controlled by a vague & fading coalition of religious right holdovers from the Pat Robertson/Jerry Falwell heyday of the early 90s, gun nutters @ the NRA, southern whites, neoconservatives, secular materialist libertarians, of which Ann Coulter is probably most associated with, Ron Paul isolationist libertarians, anarcho-capitalist nutjobs who want to turn us into some variation of the old West or of what Somalia is now....& last, old fashioned petty tax cheats & tax protesters.

Gone is the unifying anti-communism & supply-side crap that unified all the disparate factions of the GOP in the 80s & 90s, gone is the terrorism fear that united the party under Bush. Now the only thing keeping it in one piece is racism & tax protests. Why do you think Fox News never brings up religious issues & shuns Perry & Bachmann? The religious gun nutter hicks are mad that the secular Romney/Cain libertarians/neocons who control the party are ignoring them. The only thing keeping them in one piece is a hatred of our nation's first black president, who's like a lame spineless version of Bill Clinton & whos under constant blackmail threat from John Boehner & his legion of tea goons.

If we actually had a moderate wing left that hadn't sold out to the neoconservative nutters we'd actually get something done in congress.... 

[westpark]

Making huge profits is fine. Trying to cheat your way out of paying taxes on that profit & supporting a system that targets the poor is where the issue is.

[westpark]

Ratigan is dead right. What theyre not talking about is the fact that the derivative & credit markets are different from the stock market/bond market. These banks created this market only about a decade or so ago & have since turned it from like a 2 billion dollar market into a market worth tens of trillions of dollars. Its all funny money.

And the people are protesting the shenannigans. & the fact the banks are focused more on quick term profits than long term money management of our retirement funds & our 401ks......not the least the fact they destroyed the economy, got away with it with no prosecution & on top of it got a free bailout while most of us are getting kicked out of our foreclosed homes.

They get a bailout because they're connected while we get thrown on the streets. 

[Gaius_Sextus]

---

Master-Debater131 wrote:

Occupy Poster Boy is a Trust Fund Baby

---

Nice try, but the Occupy protests doesn't have a poster boy.

[westpark]

Yes, the protests are doing something. They're telling the banks we're not gonna put up with their **beast** any more.

And the fact they need to go back to the old fashioned stuff they were good @, not @ selling derviatives & junk bonds as AAA securities & then sold to us.

And then they get a bailout while we get shafted.......?? In capitalism -- you fail you fail right? No, these aren't capitalists. Capitalists go down with the ship. These bastards paid off politicians to throw them a lifeline while we all drowned. And everybody hates an economic terrorist who's also a petty coward when push comes to shove. At least in the old days when you got your ass handed to you by the market the banker took it like a man & jumped out the window or found a new racket. These people are petty thieves, & connected ones @ that. 

[westpark]

Exactly.

Huge profits are fine. Just pay your **beast** taxes & contribute to your country rather than trying to bankrupt it while you ally yourself with the communists in China.... 

[Gaius_Sextus]

---

westpark wrote:

Yes, the protests are doing something. They're telling the banks we're not gonna put up with their **beast** any more.

And the fact they need to go back to the old fashioned stuff they were good @, not @ selling derviatives & junk bonds as AAA securities & then sold to us.

And then they get a bailout while we get shafted.......?? In capitalism -- you fail you fail right? No, these aren't capitalists. Capitalists go down with the ship. These bastards paid off politicians to throw them a lifeline while we all drowned. And everybody hates an economic terrorist who's also a petty coward when push comes to shove. At least in the old days when you got your ass handed to you by the market the banker took it like a man & jumped out the window or found a new racket. These people are petty thieves, & connected ones @ that. 

---

Real capitalists jump out the window when their business goes down . . . . .

[Gaius_Sextus]

---

Gaius_Sextus wrote:

You are a sad and ignorant little man. And so are all those who agree with your bigoted little opinion.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/14/uk-usa-wallstreet-prote
sts-idUSLNE79D03N20111014

Not that you'll read it; your kind don't like facts. They get in the way of your pathetic world view.

---

Yeah, I knew this would be ignored . . . . .

[Icarus27k]

---

1938_Packard wrote:

They're angry because they don't have enough to eat while just on the other side of town, I can easily go into a convention center and pay more for a tapestry of Pai Mei than they wish they could spend feeding five kids for two days. 

---

Also, what's this sentence from the OP all about? Are you anti-people being angry because they don't have enough to eat and anti-wishing you can feed five kids for two days?

I can't believe your OP got six kudos (as of this writing). It makes no sense.

Blobidiy blob blah blah blah. [condescending remark about poor people] blah blah.

You think my post will get six or more kudos?