Occupy Wall Street

That would hurt my feelings.... if I had any.

In any case I have to say you're a funny guy. On the one hand you blame the US government for getting too fat off it's people; than you take pot shots at the OWS movement whose very existence is attributed to the loosened government policies that allowed all this corporate greed to flourish.

Than you post stereotypical non-sense like Iran has joined the OWS or that Bill Ayers supports OWS in order to discredit the entire movement. By that logic I could say Hitler loved puppies therefore all puppies should be banned or that Stalin loved cheesecake therefore eating it will turn you into a communist. So yeah, way to discredit a large group of Americans with genuine concerns over their futures.
 
You came up with that all by yourself? I love that you mention Bill Ayers in attempt to discredit my position, using the same tactics that Bill Ayers learned from Saul Alinsky.......

I don't blame the government for getting fat off We the People, complacency, indifference and placing blind trust in our elected officials has gotten us in the financial situation that we are in.

Ignoring the warnings of our Founding Fathers, and decade after decade of allowing our elected officials to lead our country away from the safeguards that are contained within the US Constitution, has got us in this situation.

I agree with several of the issues that OWS lists, but...........

The fact that those involved in and are funding the OWS movement also support the fundamental transformation of the US and the overthrow of capitalism, and not the return to constitutional principles and values, proves to me that the movement is a Trojan horse.

I do see the OWS movement as a wakeup call for the American people.

Ignoring history will only ensure that the mistakes of those who've gone before us will be repeated.

BTW, I love cheesecake and puppies, just not in the same bowl.
 
Last edited:
XJEEPER said:
I do see the OWS movement as a wakeup call for the American people.
Click to expand...

You are right, but the sad part of reality is how many times have people recieved wake-up calls only to roll over and return to sleep?

I do not like cheese cake.
 
Tom R. said:
The CNS News article was poorly researched and heavily biased.

Anyone who's taken a stats class knows how easy it is to present "facts" to support a particular view. That said, Federal employees in the D.C. area on average earn more than their (federal) peers across the enterprise because of the locality pay. After all, it's a very expensive area. It's also the seat of the federal government, so naturally one must consider that it's top heavy with senior leaders.

Do they earn more than their private sector counterparts? Sometimes yes and sometimes no. It depends on the job and their "rank." The higher one goes, the wider the gap between the two (in the private sector's favor). A janitor or secretary generally makes more in federal service, but a top level director or department head makes far, far less than their private sector peers. People in my field can make $50K more in the private sector. It just depends.

The article reports that "a college-educated, entry-level GS 7 position earns an average of $42,209 at step one." Wrong! They used a figure based on one of the highest cost of living areas in the country. The base pay for GS-7, Step 1, is $33,979. To suggest this is an "average" salary at step one is beyond misleading. Oh, this is for a degreed professional. That's some serious money right there!

The $126,369 total compensation figure is also misleading. Included in this figure is compensation that is paid to benefit retirees, not just for current workers. Military pay was also conveniently left out in the calculation because, well, it would reduce the final result further and lose the desired impact. I always prefer an apples to apples comparison: consider that the average federal civilian worker is better educated, more experienced, older, and more likely to have management or professional responsibilities than the average private worker. According to OPM in a 2009 report, they found that federal workers were paid on average 22.13% less than their private-sector counterparts. The gap increased to 24 percent in 2010. Of course, this didn't consider benefits, so it's slightly misleading as well.

I know why so many federal workers make $170K or more: it's all of those damn czars appointed by the Prez. ;)
Click to expand...

QFT
 
I don't like cherry pie filling either...or raspberry filling in chococlate cake.

I must be commie.....or facist
 
Tom R. said:
The CNS News article was poorly researched and heavily biased.
Click to expand...


Maybe so...

But it doesn't mean we should ignore the problems it is getting at... the never ending expansion of the federal government and continued spending we can't afford.

Seriously... we need nearly 1,000 people at the DOD making $170K OR MORE?

You mentioned that the 126K per employee includes retirement benefits...

Imagine the retirement demands of someone making $170K OR MORE... and we got to pay for that 1,000 times over.

That 126K is just going to keep rising... and the American people are going to keep getting deeper in debt at the hands of our two party system.... so they can keep getting richer.
 
ocean_jet said:
Maybe so...

But it doesn't mean we should ignore the problems it is getting at... the never ending expansion of the federal government and continued spending we can't afford.
Click to expand...
In ref to the article (not the 994 positions that pay $170K or more), the illusion of a problem is created because inaccurate data was used.

Regarding the ever expanding government, the solution isn't so cut & dried. I'm sure there are agencies that could trim more "fat," but I also know there are some that can't. This is one reason why an across the board cut is not the best solution. Targeted cuts are much more effective, but implementation is iffy because it becomes overly political. Higher ups have a tendency to kingdom build and then protect their kingdom at all costs.

I know that the DoD is always the first department people look at when talking budget cuts. But the DoD started working this issue a couple of years ago. When Obama took office, many contracts were not renewed, which I think saves the gov a lot of money. Incidentally, this action also put many people out of work. The Prez stopped all annual cost of living raises for two years and implemented a hiring freeze. We're facing huge budget cuts now and for the next 10 years. The early out programs are on again in an effort to reduce the workforce. These actions are affecting the mainstream workers the most and not the "fatcats." I don't know the people making $170K+ or why so many of them were hired since Obama took office. Reward for supporting his election? I don't know. I do think senior leadership recognizes how top-heavy it's become and that we'll see some changes soon.
 
XJEEPER said:
You came up with that all by yourself? I love that you mention Bill Ayers in attempt to discredit my position, using the same tactics that Bill Ayers learned from Saul Alinsky.......
Click to expand...
Don't be such a hypocrite. You started things when you began to discredit the OWS movement based on a few men.... who hold no authoritative power in the organization I might add.


XJEEPER said:
I don't blame the government for getting fat off We the People, complacency, indifference and placing blind trust in our elected officials has gotten us in the financial situation that we are in........
Click to expand...
So you don't blame the government, yet you blame the government. Well that makes perfect sense. Obama’s 2012 presidency bid is slated to cost 1billion dollars, and the costs of being a multi-term senator aren’t exactly within reach of the the 99% either. Is it normal that a government for the people isn’t made of the people?


XJEEPER said:
I agree with several of the issues that OWS lists, but...........

The fact that those involved in and are funding the OWS movement also support the fundamental transformation of the US and the overthrow of capitalism, and not the return to constitutional principles and values, proves to me that the movement is a Trojan horse..
Click to expand...

You’re right. We shouldn’t do anything. Instead, let’s sit here... expecting the worst from the OWS while we read your poorly connected points and drink your kool aide.
Better still, let’s ridicule the OWS for ignoring protocol, tell them to put on some suits and get some lobbyists so they can fight the greedy on their own playing field.

Honestly, you should watch Monty Python’s Life of Bryan because you remind me of ‘The People's Front of Judea’. They spoke allot, but they were otherwise useless affecting any worthwhile change.


XJEEPER said:
Ignoring history will only ensure that the mistakes of those who've gone before us will be repeated.
Click to expand...
You’re already repeating the mistakes made in Russia and France. Greedy folks are getting away with something, the OWS is trying to bring attention to it, and you’re trying to muddy the debate.


XJEEPER said:
BTW, I love cheesecake and puppies, just not in the same bowl.
Click to expand...
You strike me as someone who collects cheesecake and eats puppies.
 
I have no sympathy for him whatsoever. You go looking for trouble and eventually, you find it.

If you're hanging around a crowd that is attacking police, then don't cry when the police attack back and you get busted in the head.

The vast majority of the OWS people seem to think that the 1st amendment means that they can do whatever the hell they want to.
 
Occupydeathstar.jpg
 
Well, the OWS/O(your city here) crowd have been pushing for confrontation with the police for a while now. They've finally got it. I doubt there were any uninvolved non-combatants around at that time of the morning. Good thing too. 'Doesn't look like the police were using kid gloves.
Here's an interesting overhead video. OPD says they weren't using flash/bang devices.
http://www.ktvu.com/video/29587140/index.html
I tend to doubt that. Those aren't firecrackers.
 
Choice and consequences, my kids understood this concept at age 7.


“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people; it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests”.
- Patrick Henry -
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

lobsterdmb
Utah group seeking state takeover adds D.C. lobbying muscle
Replies
0
Views
222
lobsterdmb
lobsterdmb
V
legalize it?
5 6 7
Replies
120
Views
6K
JNickel101
JNickel101
ECKSJAY
100 days, 100 mistakes
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
JNickel101
JNickel101
Back
Top