A Clear Message from Occupy Wallstreet

Discussion in 'Freedom and Liberty' started by Avarice, Oct 4, 2011.

  1. Avarice

    Avarice California Health Junkie

    Here is a clear message from the Occupy Wallstreet movement.
    <iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/rQow0Fhua1A" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe>
  2. Opinionated

    Opinionated Monkey+

    I wonder if he ever stopped to consider the ramifications of getting what he is asking for.

    And that is NOT to say I disagree with some of the concepts.

    But imagine waking up tomorrow and suddenly the Fed is ~gone~.

    Our currency is suddenly - once again - based on the gold standard.

    I may be a bit too skeptical for my own good, but I highly doubt he would be very happy by tomorrow night.

    In closing . . . I'm left wondering . . . remember what he said "all we export is ___________"?

    He didn't mention grain. No wheat, no corn, no none of that stuff. I wonder when that stopped. That stuff generated BILLIONS per year for American citizens.

    I guess this really is [shtf]
  3. VisuTrac

    VisuTrac Ваша мать носит военные ботинки Site Supporter+++

    Actually this young man is the first of the many voices I've heard that has his head screwed on straight.

    Remember, these 'kids' are the ones that are going to be doing the heavy lifting. They are going to be paying a really high price if they succeed and if they fail.

    It looks like the curse 'May you live in interesting times' is quickly coming to fruition. As no matter what happens, it is going to hurt. Hurt like hell.

    With respect to grain, Yep we export it, we export grain because we subsidized our farmers to produce massive quantities of corn and wheat, causing it to be cost prohibitive for locals to raise their own grains. And those regions where they still grow grains, we supply them GMOs and lock them into perpetutiy by contaminating their heirlooms/native species. Yep, we export the tool of their destruction but they just don't see it yet.

    Corn, Cotton, Wheat, Sugar, Rice, Soybeans subsidized to heck, causing the prices to be lower than they should be on the world market, under cutting local production, once local no longer can compete and vacate their lands, the ADMs and Monsantos of the world can name their prices. Only the rich will have food. And the US Taxpayers have footed the bill for the decimation.

    Ok, I'm ranting again, so in closing.

    Yep, these are strange days indeed.

    Naughty Monkey
    Pax Mentis and beast like this.
  4. Tikka

    Tikka Monkey+++

    I'm all for it; how would we buy/beg/borrow/steal all this gold??
  5. beast

    beast backwoodsman

    im hearing and seein a lot more eyes opening up
    im starting to wonder if its too late or if there may be hope
    only time will tell
  6. Minuteman

    Minuteman Chaplain Moderator Founding Member

    That is the most coherent argument I have heard from these groups. I can support most of what he has to say. Unfortunately he is a small voice among thousands. Let's hope that he gets his message out.
    Pax Mentis and VisuTrac like this.
  7. Seawolf1090

    Seawolf1090 Retired Curmudgeonly IT Monkey Founding Member

    There is not enough gold and other PMs in this old world to back the debt we have produced. The value of an ounce of the useless (except for electronics) shiney stuff will necessarily skyrocket to match the need for funding. Of course those that HAVE that yellow metal will make out like bandits..... for a short while. Then when the Banksters have it all as well...... S.O.S., different name.

    Wonder if ANY of these protestors have a thought as to what will replace Capitalism once they have destroyed it? Reckon they figure Anarchy and Barter will be sufficient to run the world?

    Welcome to the New World of Mad Max, and these 'kids' will be the ones working in the methane pits......... [beat]
  8. Opinionated

    Opinionated Monkey+

    I don't see any way around things getting a LOT worse before they can get better.

    That's really what I was getting at (above). While I agree with a whole lot of what this kid says, sitting here visualizing the practical application of it . . . . well, it's a nightmare.

    I'm not trying to say it is an unnecessary nightmare. But none the less there is no getting around it being an ugly ugly ugly thing to live through.
  9. Sapper John

    Sapper John Analog Monkey in a Digital World

    Yeah...Anarchy is cool until they realize that someone still has to take the trash out and pay the bills,just say'in...
    Tango3 likes this.
  10. Avarice

    Avarice California Health Junkie

    Even I don't support Anarchy as a good idea. I do agree with him saying we should strip the Federal Gov and put the power in state governments. Some states might have welfare, some might not, but YOUR state pays for it, not the entire union. Makes it easier to affect your politics.
  11. Falcon15

    Falcon15 Falco Peregrinus

    Uh, sorry. States get do NOT get Federal money to help pay for their welfare programs. In 1996, under President Klinton, that "cash aid for families" was removed from the Federal hands and given back to the states.

    Your state DOES pay welfare and food stamps out of state funds. Michigan and Florida both have taken a firm grasp of these programs and made some serious, and needed changes to them to save their states money.

    Only some programs: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, fall under the "Federal" umbrella, and have Federal funding and backing. You apparently misunderstand and are not well informed on this subject.
  12. Avarice

    Avarice California Health Junkie

    Okay, I figured since the Gov is paying unemployment and loaning money to California for welfare programs, that is where we were always getting it from. I was mistaken.

    It doesn't change the fact that if we put more emphasis on State, instead of Federal, we'd have more control over our politics.
    ghrit likes this.
  13. Seawolf1090

    Seawolf1090 Retired Curmudgeonly IT Monkey Founding Member

    Nah, that just "moves the cheese". State..... Federal..... same bunch of crooks, different names. All 'politicians'.
  14. Pax Mentis

    Pax Mentis Philosopher King |RIP 11-4-2017

    From your link:

    The majority of funding for "state" welfare programs comes from federal "block grants" such as the TANF funds.

    There is also SSI...for the "disabled" and elderly. The quotation marks around the word disabled are because qualifying conditions include obesity, depression, alcoholism and drug addiction among others. SSI is seperate from Social Security, as one is not required ever to have worked, but it is administered by SSA and paid from federal general revenue (income tax) funds.

    Social Security and Medicare, by the way, are not welfare programs, but rather "insurance" programs with federally forced "contributions" (premiums) taken from workers throughout their careers. If one does not have sufficient years of "contributions", they are not eligible for either payment...and the amount of the SS payments are based on the amount of the contributions.
  15. Falcon15

    Falcon15 Falco Peregrinus

    Pax, please cite sources. My information comes from Welfareinfo.org, and others (noted above excerpts).

    As for the block grants to fund TANF, this does not reflect 100% funding nor backing by the US Government. These block grants, at best and in a majority of the cases, reflect 60% per state funding of welfare. This is why so many states are seeing budgetary problems in these recessionary times.

    Of course very few, if any states have any excess monies left.
    And from the CATO Institute:
  16. Pax Mentis

    Pax Mentis Philosopher King |RIP 11-4-2017

    I have no great interest in tracking down "links" to things I know to be fact...you can feel free to just ignore what I say. I really don't much care about convincing anyone of anything.

    That said, for anybody interested, the very link you posted (along with your statements in the post to which I am now responding) belies the original statement to which I replied...
    I never claimed that welfare was paid entirely by the feds...just that the feds do pay a portion.

    A person can call Social Security a welfare program if they so desire, but the fact that the statute creating it designates it a retirement and disability insurance program and the funding is via Federal Insurance Contribution Act funds rather than general revenue...along with the fact that a person cannot receive it unless they have paid in to the system through payroll deductions for the required number of years gives obvious lie to the statement. However, since the SS Trusts have, since LBJ needed money for his war on poverty, been loaned to the general fund in order to support deficit spending...that is why SS has become a federal budget issue...because repayment of those loans is now needed to pay benefits.

    Your article also states that SSI is a combination of state and federal funds...however, that is untrue in many states. The federal government pays the basic amount and a state can chose to supplement that amount if they so choose, mine does not. The federal SSI benefit in 2011 is (according to my wife, who was a SS Claims Representative for a period of time...but I am sure the information is available online) is about $700 for an individual and about $1000 for a couple. This is the level up to which SSI supplements (hence the name Supplemental Security Income) the income of a person who is over 65 or disabled. I know that in the people's state to my south, the state supplements that amount by around $175 per person (I believe that is the largest state supplement to SSI, though it is possible there are 1 or 2 larger). SSI payments are in the form of a US Treasury check, while state supplements are paid by the state in question. An SSI benefit is not dependent upon having ever worked or paid taxes of any kind...it is entirely "need-based".
survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary