Occupy Wall St Debate - Bisbee, AZ

Trouble wrote:

When the T party and the Occupiers finally see the commonality of their needs and unite that's when something will truly change in the way things are run.

BrickInTheWall82 wrote:

So it's fair to kick the less fortunate while they're down? I'm sorry, but that's what a flat tax does. And everybody on here is acting like it's their taxes that are getting raised. That's not the case at all. They're talking about the top 1 or 2% who will be losing a big tax break bush gave them. These are the same people that initiate hiring freezes and lay-offs every time they get a little spooked when the market doesn't do what they want it to. These are the people who's profits soar while we choose between medicine or gasoline because some of the poverty stricken can't afford both. These are the people who get huge bail-outs and turn around and give their corporate staff multi-million dollar bonuses. I'm sorry, But I can't feel sorry for these people. The biggest misconception in this whole thing is that it's poor people on social security vs everybody else.

just me wrote:

They have not clearly identified what the are protesting or why. Other than being upset that someone is making more money than they are, they seem to have no clear objectives or real reason for doing anything that they are doing. Also, according to NPR, this movement was basically a backlash and response to the conservatism inspired by the events of 9/11, which to me is not a good enough reason to protest. Additionally, they are targeting institutions that they should not be. Why, in this economy, should anyone "occupy" private businesses? Small business owners are already struggling; occupy people are just getting in the way. I think the whole movement is disorganized and self-serving.

BrickInTheWall82 wrote:

So it's fair to kick the less fortunate while they're down? I'm sorry, but that's what a flat tax does. And everybody on here is acting like it's their taxes that are getting raised. That's not the case at all. They're talking about the top 1 or 2% who will be losing a big tax break bush gave them. These are the same people that initiate hiring freezes and lay-offs every time they get a little spooked when the market doesn't do what they want it to. These are the people who's profits soar while we choose between medicine or gasoline because some of the poverty stricken can't afford both. These are the people who get huge bail-outs and turn around and give their corporate staff multi-million dollar bonuses. I'm sorry, But I can't feel sorry for these people. The biggest misconception in this whole thing is that it's poor people on social security vs everybody else.

Ninety eight percent wrote:

<quoted text>
"Why, in this economy, should anyone "occupy" private businesses?"
Yes, we certainly should in any economy. If the private business is bad for us, especially if it is bad and or over priced. Examples: Sports are great, I love movies and entertainment, but why should we pay the stars millions and millions? We the 99% are paying this and complain about the 1%? Funny the NBA and the owners are fighting for more money. Both are the 1%. It is WE, who should be complaining that these businesses are charging us too much. instead of "Occupy" these sport events, we the 99% flock to give them our money. Sodas are bad for us and is the business of the 1%. It is the #1,most profitable item, and common item in ALL fast food joints. It is the 99% and especially, our children, giving their money to the 1%. Maybe is is us, the 99%'s judgment that should be
"Occupied".
You still need to ask should anyone "occupy" private business what are actually hurting our wallet, health, and our children? Tax the 1% bad businesses doesn't make sense. We should put them out of business.
Now, can you think of more private business that we should "occupy"? My preference is to be specific and conduct an effective occupy. The way is going now, it is messed up and confusing. Maybe we could simply just boycott business that are hurting us.

groovy wrote:

<quoted text>
Thats the most lame twisted response. You want to occupy a business becausecir hurts your kids, but anyone who doesn't agree with your views is "hurting" your kids in your opinion. What you want is to RESTRICT people from doing things that YOU think is wrong. Occupy is nothing more than BULLY tactics.

groovy wrote:

You only wanted to know why people opposed it so you could bully them some more.

Molson wrote:

<quoted text>Flat taxes ad consumption taxes don't do that. Also, the Bush tax cuts benefitted far more than the 1 or 2 percent. Also, you don't know squat about what drives the business owner to hire or layoff.

joseph klinger wrote:

of course. we are getting taken . those agreeing are finacially capitalizing on us poor income people . any one on social security can see how they live like dogs , joseph klinger retired vet from nam era