Is The Occupy Wall Street Movement an Answer to The Tea Party Movement?

[nathanm]

So now, not working is better than working. Got it. Do what you can and make money and provide for yourself. Otherwise, you suckle at the government, I mean taxpayer, teet and hope things work out.

Guess you've never heard of savings? That would explain your seemingly unending fear of not having enough money.

[dbacks fan]

Savings will only carry you so far, and once that is depleted what are you going to do?  Dip into retirement funds? If I did that now I would take a $30k hit and have to declare the rest as income on my taxes because of my age, and the way my retirement is structured.

[nathanm]

Savings will only carry you so far, and once that is depleted what are you going to do?  Dip into retirement funds? If I did that now I would take a $30k hit and have to declare the rest as income on my taxes because of my age, and the way my retirement is structured.

This is true, but the point of the post is to refute guido's nonsense that there's a binary choice between having a job right this second and relying on the government for support. Not that I would argue with the idea that it's better for society as a whole for someone to spend a couple of extra months finding an $80,000/yr job instead of taking a $20k/yr job and missing out on the good one.

[guido911]

This is true, but the point of the post is to refute guido's nonsense that there's a binary choice between having a job right this second and relying on the government for support. Not that I would argue with the idea that it's better for society as a whole for someone to spend a couple of extra months finding an $80,000/yr job instead of taking a $20k/yr job and missing out on the good one.

What's nonsensical about accepting responsibility to care for oneself rather than gamble on the hopes of finding something else (especially in this economy) popping up down the road? And this gamble is with taxpayer money. And quit with the "relying on the government" stuff. Again, its the working man's tax dollars these people are relying when they opt to willfully refuse to take a lesser job.

[guido911]

Water Sports at OWS.

Some cops continued to set up the barriers, while others used bullhorns to order the group to keep moving. Those who were not arrested hustled back to Zuccotti Park.

Earlier, a 26-year-old man believed to have been crashing with the protesters was bust­ed for urinating on an NYPD van parked outside Zuccotti, cops said.

Edgar Rivera, described by cops as a Guatemalan immigrant and Queens resident, was caught at about 1:20 a.m. relieving himself on the vehicle from Brooklyn's 70th Precinct near Trinity Place and Church Street.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/occupy_bum_busted_for_peeing_on_0yHGf6v1Sye9rAWwCaWu2O#ixzz1csDlrh9z

[Emphasis added].

[nathanm]

What's nonsensical about accepting responsibility to care for oneself rather than gamble on the hopes of finding something else (especially in this economy) popping up down the road? And this gamble is with taxpayer money. And quit with the "relying on the government" stuff. Again, its the working man's tax dollars these people are relying when they opt to willfully refuse to take a lesser job.

So if I save up 50 grand and decide not to work for a year, I'm somehow gambling with somebody else's money? That makes no sense at all.

You need to think about the bigger picture, rather than basing all your opinions off your moralistic BS. It's better for everyone for a person to find employment at the maximum of their ability. Taking a lesser job both takes away that job from people who actually can't do more for whatever reason and screws us all by denying us the economic benefit of the more useful labor this underemployed person could be doing.

[guido911]

So if I save up 50 grand and decide not to work for a year, I'm somehow gambling with somebody else's money? That makes no sense at all.

You need to think about the bigger picture, rather than basing all your opinions off your moralistic BS. It's better for everyone for a person to find employment at the maximum of their ability. Taking a lesser job both takes away that job from people who actually can't do more for whatever reason and screws us all by denying us the economic benefit of the more useful labor this underemployed person could be doing.

Changing the subject again I see. Lemme remind you what you wrote:

...but the point of the post is to refute guido's nonsense that there's a binary choice between having a job right this second and relying on the government for support

YOU were talking about the unemployed "relying on the government" and now your talking about them living off savings. Of course there is a difference when you change the facts.

[nathanm]

YOU were talking about the unemployed "relying on the government" and now your talking about them living off savings. Of course there is a difference when you change the facts.

I think you need to re-read what I've written. When I said it's better to look for a job that will pay the bills, rather than taking whatever you can find, I did not at all mention government assistance. You are the one that presented the situation as a binary choice between "sucking at the government, I mean taxpayer, teet" and working.

[dbacks fan]

This is true, but the point of the post is to refute guido's nonsense that there's a binary choice between having a job right this second and relying on the government for support. Not that I would argue with the idea that it's better for society as a whole for someone to spend a couple of extra months finding an $80,000/yr job instead of taking a $20k/yr job and missing out on the good one.

It's not some glorified binary choice. It's a matter of taking care of your responsibilities while looking for something better. And don't give me that crap that you'll miss the job opportunity you want while working somewhere to fill in the gap. That's a big pile of horse crap. Just because you find a gap filler doesn't mean you sit around and go "Gee, now I don't have time to find the right job." You beat the bushes, network with friends, send out resumes, and search when you aren't working. If you sit on your donkey and do nothing while waiting for that next gov't check and searching for that $80k job and lose everything else while doing that you get what you deserve.

Opportunity doesn't always knock, sometimes it's behind the door marked push.

[Red Arrow]

So if I save up 50 grand and decide not to work for a year, I'm somehow gambling with somebody else's money? That makes no sense at all.

I am under the impression that a majority of the 99%ers are not capable of saving $50 Grand.  Even if they are not quite living from paycheck to paycheck, the loss of a few paychecks will be very important.

[nathanm]

I am under the impression that a majority of the 99%ers are not capable of saving $50 Grand.  Even if they are not quite living from paycheck to paycheck, the loss of a few paychecks will be very important.

Where the money they live on comes from isn't really central to my point, though, which is that we're all better off if people are put to their highest and best use. Displacing workers lower on the ladder just means we have to support them instead of the person who should be employed as a rocket scientist or whatever. Said rocket scientist would be helping us all out by looking for a job in his field rather than stocking shelves. That people act rationally in that way is fundamental to right-wing economic thinking, at least for those on the right who actually think about economics, rather than spewing nonsensical pablum.

Replace rocket scientist with whatever profession you like.

[Red Arrow]

Where the money they live on comes from isn't really central to my point, though, which is that we're all better off if people are put to their highest and best use. Displacing workers lower on the ladder just means we have to support them instead of the person who should be employed as a rocket scientist or whatever. Said rocket scientist would be helping us all out by looking for a job in his field rather than stocking shelves. That people act rationally in that way is fundamental to right-wing economic thinking, at least for those on the right who actually think about economics, rather than spewing nonsensical pablum.

Unemployment insurance, which is part of the cost of employing someone, is supposed to allow someone to find a job similar to the one they had.  The concept of having $50K in 'the bank" is nice and potentially achievable for someone with low expenses (you and me) but just doesn't exist for many.  I have collected "unemployment" twice and it allowed me to find acceptable employment.  I believe at some point you are required to accept jobs at lower compensation than the job you formerly had.  I've been lucky and have found something acceptable before my benefits ran out.

[guido911]

Has it really come to this? Rape-free zones at OWS.





I remember seeing these all over the place at tea party events.

[nathanm]

Harlien, however, has become the poster child for the confrontation between the Tulsa Police Department and protesters, ever since footage was released of a policeman holding Harlien's head held back and spraying him point blank in the eyes with pepper spray that first night.

Was that really necessary?

[Ed W]

This just in:

"Police are reporting that many of the Occupy protesters are known heterosexuals!  We'll update this story at ten!"